Talk:HD 106906 b

DT Virginis c

Could anyone find a comparison to this planet and DT Virginis c and why the latter does not contradict planet formation theories? --Artman40 (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

DT Virginis c aka Ross 458 AB c has a very low mass ratio similar to many binary systems. That planet is orbiting M dwarfs. This new planet HD 106906 b is unusual because the host star is massive and it has too large a mass ratio between the star and planet to form like a traditional binary (that just didn't accrete enough gas to burn deuterium and become a brown dwarf). Martin Cash (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

But what about WD 0806-661 b? --Artman40 (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The host white dwarf in that system has a mass similar to an early M dwarf. That system is more similar to DT Virginis. It does not have the high mass ratio like HD 106906 has. Martin Cash (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The white dwarf presumably started out as a G dwarf. --Artman40 (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2013

Please change the angular separation from 368 mas to 7.1 arc seconds. Citation: Pre-print. arXiv:1312.1265. Also, Vanessa Bailey has personally requested that the Discover(s) be changed to Vanessa Bailey et al. Eeschneider (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so Vanessa's seen that it's on the front page, just as I emailed her? Well, I've changed it to et al, but I seem to be having difficulty finding a way to change the angular separation to arc seconds. Perhaps a more experienced user with the Planetbox Separation template will be able to of assistance. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Why not just enter it as 7.1×10³ mas? -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Garamond Lethet
c 20:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Typo?

The article (in the Discovery section) mentions "The initial interest in HD 106906 A was directed largely...". What is HD 106906 A? Is this a typo? Or is it something other than HD 106906 and HD 106906 b? If so, what is it? Hamish59 (talk) 09:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

A capital A like that would indicate the primary star. It's just an unusual notation when there's no secondary star. WilyD 09:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps that needs to be explained or tidied up, to avoid confusion. Hamish59 (talk) 10:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, the photo caption had "The binary star HD 106906..." I changed it to "The star HD 106906..." since I haven't seen anything to suggest that this system has more than one stellar component (that we know of yet) iac74205 (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I know Pluto isn't a planet, but...

With regard to my change from Neptune to Pluto, I know that Pluto isn't scientifically a planet, but we need to make a fine line between what is astronomically correct, and what the man on the street who reads Wikipedia (especially when the article is on the mainpage) knows.

This is why I highlighted everyman in my summary. As far as the man on the street is concerned, Pluto is the solar systems farthest planet. As we are discussing a planet that is also in a far orbit, why are we comparing it to a planet that is not in a far orbit at all, but in fact out of all available planets it's in the closest one possible?

If you really hate the use of Pluto, I suggest the change to "Earth" as - again using the everyman level of knowledge.

It just seems wrong to discuss a far orbit planet, and then use a near orbit planet as a yardstick. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Using Pluto is a bad idea, since its orbit is quite eccentric, and dives further in than Neptune's. If you want a different outer planet, use Eris, it's bigger than Pluto anyways. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 05:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not "hate" the use of Pluto (lets not get over the top here), but this is wrong on so many levels:

Earth is already used as a yardstick in the article - 650 au is noted, for example.

This is supposed to be an encylopedia. Fact: Pluto is not a planet. Everyman might think it is a planet, but Everyman would be mistaken. Let's not encourage this.

In any case, using Pluto is a poor choice. It has a very excentic orbit (comparative to the planets) coming inside that of Neptune. So, 48.871 AU (Aphelion) or 29.657 AU (Perihelion)?

If you insist on using Pluto, you would also need to change the diagramme to match.

By the way, As far as the man on the street is concerned, Pluto is the solar systems farthest planet. I think you would be hard pushed to prove this conjecture. Hamish59 (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Two points:

• You have made the same mistake I did, where I confused Neptune with Mercury. Neptune is the furthest planet, so I have no problem with the edit.
• However, proving that Pluto is everymans furthest planet is dead easy:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]

Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens, you have confused me. Your edit changed

This distance is about 22 times the separation of Neptune from the Sun,

to

This distance is about 16 times the separation of Pluto from the Sun,

which I reverted. What has Mercury got to do with it?

Secondly, your references (above) are not great: I cannot get a date on the 1st one, but the 2nd No. 10 - Winter/Spring 1988 is out of date, 3rd Updated Aug 13, 2006 is out of date and 4th Copyright ©1998-2010 may be out of date given the definition was passed on 24 August 2006. Did you cherry pick your answeres from a Google search? Hamish59 (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi again.

Yes, I did cherry pick my answers from Google, which is exactly what everyman would do. Of course they're not great - they're wrong, as you and I both know. But that's the point. The point is that your average person in the street would do exactly as I did - I typed into Google "what is the furthest plane in the solar system" and Google returned the answer: "Showing results for what is the furthest planet in the solar system Search instead for what is the furthest plane in the solar system"

The non-scientific person would not care that Pluto is not a planet, as evidenced by the number of answers out there stating that Pluto is the farthest planet. The fact that there are as many showing that Pluto is both not a planet, and not the farthest in the solar system is in this case not important, because the search was simply to show that there are many available sources - some educational no less - that still insist on Pluto being the farthest. (Note that when I used the term "sources" I am not assuming that they meet Wikipedia's definition of Reliable Source, rather that they are on the net and available to anybody who makes such a search.) Wikipedia's own article on Pluto contains an - albeit small - section where claims are still recorded of a desire for Pluto to be re-recognised as a planet, and by extension the farthest orbiting body.

Anyhoo, this is not important, (and would perhaps be better discussed on Pluto's own talk page,) because as I tried to qualify; I mis-read the initial article and mentally swapped the positions of Mercury and Neptune in my head. I originally considered that Neptune held the innermost orbit of the planets, wehereas of course it doesn't - it holds the outermost, and therefore is adequately suited to the article.

I also pointed out that initially you made the same error, because although you pointed out that Pluto is neither a planet but also holds an eccentric orbit, you missed out on the fact that I was claiming Neptune holds the nearest orbit to the sun in my initial comment. Once I realised my error, I redacted my desire for change and have no problem because the page is already as I intended to change it to. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, confusion abounds! No worries, I understnad the Mercury reference now - and understand it would be a poor choice. As the article is where we both think it ought to be, job done. Hamish59 (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Captured rogue planet?

Is it possible that this object wasn't originally formed orbiting its star at all, but is instead a captured rogue planet or other such object? That would explain both the mass difference and the large orbit. 70.99.104.234 (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

There's no way for one object (the star) to capture another (a rogue planet) without interacting with a third object of comparable mass to the incoming planet. The new planet would have had to interact with either an existing planet of similar mass (which would have been found by Bailey et al's survey, besides the fact that it would just leave us with the same problem for that planet), or with the circumstellar disc (which is probably not massive enough, and I would expect this to disrupt the disc enough to be observed). Ross Smith NZ (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

A planet of a couple Jupiter masses would be enough, especially if you use cold start models (which aren't exactly right, but are far better than hot start models). The third object could've also been interloper, or ejected, so there's no reason to expect it'd be visible/obvious today. But the A-b separation is probably too small for the origin to be capture - e.g., http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/415/2/1179 WilyD 11:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The capture of free-floating planets in a dispersing stellar cluster was discussed in Perets and Kouwenhoven (2012) http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/750/1/83/ a quote form the abstract: "We find that planets are captured into wide orbits in the typical range ~few × 100-10^6 AU and have a wide range of eccentricities (thermal distribution). Typically, 3-6 × (f_FFP/1)% of all stars capture a planetary companion with such properties (where f_FFP is the number of FFP per star in the birth clusters)." The distributions of semi-major axis is shown in figure 4 with 0.1-10% of the captured free-floating planets having semi-major axis <1000 AU depending of the distribution of stars in the cluster.Agmartin (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• • • Captures require a dissipation of energy. That is all. It does not matter if the interaction is with a third object, a dust cloud, or a distant gravitational body. Chesspride 216.144.161.51 (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2013

1) Please change the Projected Separation from 368+-9 millarcseconds to 7.11+/-0.03 arcseconds. The info comes from the original paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.1265

Confirmed and fixed. Garamond Lethet
c 20:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Now it's incorrect, though, because it says 7.11+/-0.03 mas, instead of arc seconds. We need to find a remedy. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 22:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I've pinged the author for clarification. Hoping we don't have to fix the template plumbing, but that's a possibility. Garamond Lethet
c 00:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Good plan. I've talked with Vanessa about the discovery, but there really wasn't any discussion about the content of the page per say. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

2) Also, because this is a directly imaged planet whose orbit has not yet been mapped, it is not entirely appropriate to list its semi-major axis. The projected separation of 650 AU is correct, but we cannot definitively determine the semi-major axis yet.

Working on this one now.... Fixed.

Thanks! 128.196.209.73 (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Garamond Lethet
c 20:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Significance:

Quote: "The very large separation of this planet from its primary has garnered significant attention from the astronomical community". This statement at the intro is sensationalism. I cannot edit this article. "significant" term is fleeting, so I suggest delete the word "significant" until there is a suitable reference that justifies this. Yeah, I know you guys live for this stuff, but it has to pass the test of time too. --96.35.104.135 (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you on that point. The fact that this planet discovery made the news was because of its orbit. Many newly discovered planets do not have press releases these days. This one is interesting and extreme, which is why it has garnered significant enough attention to do a press release. Martin Cash (talk) 13:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Gallifrey petition

The informal petition to rename this planet "Gallifrey" in homage to Doctor Who has been covered by the Sydney Morning Herald, the Daily Mail, and io9. I believe this is in keeping with Wikipedia's policies on notability and verifiability, and that the petition thus warrants coverage in the article, similar to how the Kerberos (moon) article includes information about a similar (and unsuccessful) pop culture-inspired name campaign. I've tried to keep it as brief and to-the-point as possible. If you can think of a way to improve the way the information is handled, please do. I doubt the petition will achieve its aims, but I think it's notable given the media coverage. -Guessing Game (talk) 06:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph as it is does seem a little out of place, and (at the moment) I'd say WP:UNDUE is the underlying problem. It would be better served in its own section, but absent an official word from the IAU there's just not enough information (yet!) to justify including it. To mitigate this, you might want to include a sentence mentioning the IAU doesn't (currently) allow public input to naming exoplanets.[5] Garamond Lethet
c 07:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I was concerned that a single sentence did not warrant its own new section. This is why I tried to incorporate coverage into an existing section. "Discovery" seemed the best fit. Good idea about mentioning the IAU's naming policy. -Guessing Game (talk) 07:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I added information on the current IAU policy to the article. I also moved the petition info to a new section titled "Public reaction." This title is broad enough to allow for the inclusion of other similar information that may arise, thus (I hope) avoiding the issue of undue weight that the title "Petition" might present. -Guessing Game (talk) 08:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

So that's where the Doctors sent Gallifrey... --Lerdthenerd wiki defender 10:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Guessing Game: Much better; you summarized that well. Garamond Lethet
c 17:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

First of all the IAU does not allow the public to name planets. The fact that someone created a petition to the IAU to rename this planet will be promptly ignored that that organization. Since nothing will ever become of this science fiction show request, I fail to see how it is newsworthy. Besides this fact, this planet has nothing to do with a character from a science fiction show. The section on public response is non-encyclopedic and should be deleted. This page was put into protected mode to prevent users from putting the Doctor Who information into the article. Why is it being allowed now? Martin Cash (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Martin. Looking at the article history I'm guessing the page protection was put in place because an edit war had broken out on what had become a high-profile article. I think the decision to remove the previous edit was a correct one: there was quite a bit of irrelevant trivia ("50 year anniversary") and the tone of the writing was not encyclopedic. Those faults have been corrected. As to newsworthiness: that's not our call to make. The story has appeared in multiple media outlets, so the people who are paid to discern what is newsworthy have deemed it so.

If you read the IAU page on exoplanet naming, you'll see they are reconsidering the naming issue, precisely because that's the toehold non-astronomers can use to understand why this work is important. I think the section will be stronger once we have a reliable source that makes explicit why this is the kind of case that is causing the IAU to revisit the issue, but I don't think we need to hold the section out while we wait for that coverage.

As to non-encyclopedic: tastes are rather catholic here (have you seen our extensive Pokémon coverage?). As I mentioned on your talk page, there is a pretty wide consensus as to what wikipedia is WP:NOT, but this particular doesn't fall into any of those categories. I understand where you're coming from and sympathize with what you're trying to do, but at the end of the day you're going to need to build a consensus to make the change, and that consensus will need to be grounded in policy rather than personal preference. Garamond Lethet
c 19:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, I won't edit the article any more. I understand your points, but as someone with a degree in both Astronomy and Physics, I still find this section irrelevant. It detracts from an otherwise nice article. If other Wikipedia users don't agree with me, that's fine. You can argue that the Dr. Who edits are encyclopedic, but they are definitely not scientific in nature. Maybe that doesn't matter, but that would be a shame, since this is an article about science. Martin Cash (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Please don't think I was trying to run you off—we need all the experts we can get here. That said, it is difficult to edit wikipedia as a subject expert (see WP:RANDY). You have to make a transition from thinking "How can I make this a great article?" to thinking "How can I nudge the consensus to make this a better article?" I'm still tempted to pull out my Ph.D. and wave it around, but I can tell you based on personal experience that that just doesn't work here. (Being able to rattle off a dozen citations does work, though.)

Anyway, I hope you decide to stick around for a while, and I (and everyone else here) would welcome any other suggestions you have for improving the article. Garamond Lethet
c 21:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a comprehensive encyclopedia aimed at a broad audience. Astronomy articles on Wikipedia don't just cover the scientific side of their subjects, but also cover associated cultural beliefs, traditions, and portrayals where they exist. The articles on Venus and Mars both have very well developed "In culture" sections that cover mythological beliefs and fictional depictions. The articles on Venus and Mars have both been selected as Featured Articles, which means they are considered the very best of what Wikipedia has to offer. In my experience, the average quality of astronomy articles on Wikipedia — even underdeveloped ones — tends to be higher than the average quality of articles on other subjects, and I think that speaks to the focus, dedication, and expertise of contributors working in this area.

I don't think it detracts from the quality of this article to briefly mention the petition. I think it's in keeping with the rounded coverage found in other astronomy articles. I also think it's an opportunity to offer clarification on the IAU's current policy on the naming of exoplanets.

Anyway, I hope you haven't gotten the impression that your contributions here aren't welcome or valued. Garamond Lethe is completely right about how vital the involvement of experts is in improving Wikipedia. -Guessing Game (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Although the IAU was orginally opposed to naming exoplanets, the IAU changed its stance in August 2013, inviting members of the public to suggest names for extrasolar planets.

Surface temperature

The article claims a surface temperature of 1800K, but the reference [3] gives 95K. Given how far away it is from its parent star, 1800K seems very warm - and would mean that it is generating heat from within itself, as it isn't getting that sort of energy from its parent star. 86.14.9.87 (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• You must have misread reference [3], it gives the temp as 1900 pm 200 and 1800 pm 100 from two different estimators. The temperature is going to be almost entirely formation heat, but it may also be fusing deuterium, depending on the mass. WilyD 15:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Apologies - 95K is the disk temperature. However, the mass appears to be marginal between the ranges for gas giant planets vs. brown dwarf stars (possible fusion of deuterium or lithium). Have we got enough of a spectrum to determine whether there is a lithium line? 86.14.9.87 (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• The object is definitely too low mass to fuse lithium (~60 Jupiters, IIRC), and is too young to hope to use deuterium fusion for anything interesting. It's entirely heated by gravitational contraction for the moment. WilyD 18:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

High surface temperature

The surface temperature is listed as 1800 K (1526.8 °C), that must mean that it is generating heat through nuclear fusion which would make it a star. So why exactly is it listed as a planet instead of a star? I know that all scientific journals have it listed as a planet so I'm not questioning it, just curious as to why. Atotalstranger (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The heat comes from gravitational potential energy released during it's contraction. The reason it's so hot is because it's so young, but note that Jupiter still releases a measureable amount of heat this way, for instance. WilyD 15:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong catalog?

The "HD" in the infobox links out to the Harvard Revised Catalog (HR). Shouldn't it link to the Henry Draper Catalog (HD)? Jleous (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

You're obviously correct. I've made the change. Thanks for pointing it out. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

This object is not a planet

By IAU definition objects like this must sweep out part of its formation disc to be considered a planet. Since this object almost certainly did not, it is a planetary mass companion not a planet. Why is the article being changed from planetary mass companions back to planet? That edit should be reverted. Feel free to try and convince me otherwise. Martin Cash (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Martin. Let me see if I can convince you otherwise. If I were to translate your objection into wikispeak, I'd say that the most reliable source we have (Bailey's arxiv preprint) uses the term "planetary mass" instead of "planet", and there's no reason we need to get this wrong. My rejoinder would be along the lines of "Every other reliable secondary source we cite uses planet, so we're faithfully summarizing those sources." As a compromise, can we add a footnote to the word "exoplanet" to make the distinction? Something like "Strictly speaking, HD 106906 b is a planetary mass [cite Bailey] rather than a planet, indicating it is unlikely to swept out part of its formation disc. [cite IAU definition and a source that makes that distinction for this case]" Feel free to improve the wording. Your thoughts? Garamond Lethet
c 19:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Garamond. Please keep in mind that many of the Every Other Reliable Sources that you mention tend to be the media or websites that interpret the discovery and put their own spin on things. The best source of info is always the scientific paper published in a peer reviewed journal. Any changes that can be made to the article (including the one you mentioned above) to bring the wiki article more in line with the science paper would be an improvement to this article. Thanks. Martin Cash (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you give me a link to the IAU definition? Garamond Lethet
c 22:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolution 5A, item #1, Part C - http://www.iau.org/public_press/news/detail/iau0603/ This planetary mass object almost certainly formed directly out of the nebula like a binary star, except for it didn't accrete enough gas to become a brown dwarf binary. At 650 AU separation, there would be little to no disc to clear out, and certainly not enough to form a very large planetary mass object like this. There are many published scientific papers out there that discuss this topic. Martin Cash (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I may be misreading this, but the lead to that section is "The IAU therefore resolves that planets and other bodies in our Solar System, except satellites, be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:" (emphasis added). Are extra-solar-system bodies classified elsewhere? Garamond Lethet
c 03:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

All planets are classified according to these criteria. It is applied to planets around other stars as well. Martin Cash (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

By whom? The IAU definition requires objects orbit the sun, which excludes all exoplanets. The exoplanet community doesn't pay much attention to it (and is generally incosistent. exoplanets.eu and exoplanets.org don't list the same objects as exoplanets, for instance. WilyD 22:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

A planet is a planet no matter what star it orbits. If the exoplanet community doesn't pay attention to these definitions like you claim, then why does the science paper specifically call it a planetary mass object and not a planet. Have you even read the paper? Martin Cash (talk) 05:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The community's use of terms for planets/brown dwarfs is inconsistent. That paper could be hedging their bets for any number of reasons I agree that a whether or not something is a planet doesn't depend on what star it orbits. The IAU definition disagrees - it requires that something orbits the sun to be a planet. I don't know the first author, so I can't ask her (assuming this was something she insisted on - I don't know. Reading the paper, it seems obvious those authors are using a "formed in a disk = planet, formed in a GMC core = star" definition, which strikes as a far more theorist position to take; I'd guess it was someone else in the collaboration who pushed that phrasing). The paper is only a very small part of what gets reported here anyhow - if people want to read the paper, they should. Wikipedia summarises all the secondary sources on the topic. This isn't just a regurgitation of the paper. WilyD 08:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, these secondary sources change what is said in the science paper to make claims to get more hits / ad revenue. People want to hear about the most extreme exoplanet, not the most extreme planetary mass object. Extracting this bias into a Wikipedia article looks like a clear violation of the "Identifying Reliable Sources" rule. It specifically states that Wikipedia articles should be based upon only reliable published sources. A science paper published in a peer reviewed journal is a far more reliable source than some website trying to increase their ad revenue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources Martin Cash (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The definition of planet includes the provision that its mass must be large enough to clear its orbit. Note -- this is a claim about the mass of the object...that it will *eventually* clear its orbit, given enough time. There is a formula that determines how large a volume of space will be swept by a given mass. The key here is *eventually* -- there is no requirement that the mass actually has accomplished the task at a given point in time. Chesspride 216.144.161.51 (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Martin is right, and I’m reverting this to the previous version using more careful and accurate language. Unless this object has been dynamically scattered to its current orbit by a (more massive, unseen) planet located interior to it, it almost assuredly formed like a binary star. The authors do not find evidence for such a second, perturbing planet located at smaller angular separations. Until and unless such an object is found, the proper description is “planet-mass companion”, not ‘planet’.

Note that the actual paper, not ‘secondary sources’, (usually written by highly enthusiastic media people) describes this object as a “planetary-mass companion” and further states that “in situ formation in a binary star-like process is more probable” than others. That is, it likely formed in situ like a binary star, not like Jupiter/Saturn or even as a disk instability-formed planet. Supporting this view (a point they didn’t make), is that we have actual observations of protoplanetary disks around some stars and know roughly their physical size. At least for analogues to the Sun, protoplanetary disks are typically about ~150-200 AU in size: very very few have a lot of mass extending to ~500-700 AU (c.f. Andrews and Williams 2007). Nowhere in the text do they flat-out call this thing an “exoplanet”. Rightly, ‘planet-mass companion’ is used throughout. They may call HD 106906 a star with a ‘planetary system’ but this doesn’t mean they think it’s a planetary system just because of the imaged companion. There are many ‘planetary systems’ without imaged planets but just debris disks (e.g. HD 61005, HD 32297, HD 15115, HR 4796A, etc). Perhaps the media reports have them calling this a ‘planet’. But having been through this drill with the media before I’m not surprised they used (or were edited to use) as simple language as possible to communicate their findings. The object is still important even if it isn’t a planet.

As an aside, the fact that its mass appears to be under 13 Mj just means it satisfies a necessary but not sufficient condition for planethood. There are many planet-mass objects (that is, M < 13 Mj) that do not appear to have formed out of a protoplanetary disk but as a by-product of the same formation process that gives rise to binary stellar and brown dwarf companions or just single stars/brown dwarfs. Calling these objects (and HD 106906 b) ‘planets’ reflects neither how the authors described them nor how the vast majority researchers in the field think of them. A couple of notable examples -- 2MASS J04414489+2301513 B (Todorov et al. 2007), PSO J318.5338–22.8603 (Liu et al. 2013), and 2MASS J035523.37+113343.7 (Faherty et al. 2013). 2632cgn (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view - we're not obliged to repeat the opinion of the IAU (and indeed, are more or less forbidden from doing that). Beyond that, we disprefer primary sources like the original paper, and prefer secondary sources. Now, it's true that the popular press has been pretty much a mess on this point, but the silly IAU vote hasn't been applied to exoplanets - and for an excellent reason - the first requirements is that it orbits the sun [6] - exoplanets are effectively excluded from the whole mess. Now, it was only 2006, how could they possibly have anticipated we'd discover planets around other stars? </sarcasm> While a lot of professional astronomers take a "did it form in the protoplanetary disk?" approach to what is/what ain't a planet (I do, for instance), that's not nearly a consensus viewpoint. Beyond the solar system, there really isn't a consensus as to what is/ain't a planet, and we can't impose our preferred etymology. If someone publishes a rebuttal of the idea it's a planet, we can cover that, until then - we're stuck with the consensus of published sources (which is probably for the best - picking nits where there's no community consensus anyhow does no service to the reader.) WilyD 22:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. Stating that you prefer "secondary" sources to primary ones makes little sense when the secondary sources in question are media reports, not separate peer-reviewed papers, conference proceedings, etc. from researchers in the field presenting data or new analysis shaping our understanding of this object. Again, the paper itself does not call this object a planet, but a planet-mass companion. It says so throughout. One of the primary conclusions of the paper is that it probably had a binary star-like formation. In other words, the source material advances no argument in favor of this being a bona fide exoplanet but clear arguments in favor of it being something else. As to the "consensus of published sources", numerous previous papers provide the groundwork that this is very plausibly a 'planet-mass companion' but not an exoplanet. The references I mention cover this at length. Beyond those, applying the criteria from previous work analyzing these issues in detail (Kratter, Murray-Clay, and Youdin 2010 and later works) places this object well outside of the range of planets like Jupiter, Saturn, RV-detected companions, and imaged planets like HR 8799 bcde. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2632cgn (talk • contribs) 23:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

One final note about "secondary" vs. primary sources. On the "identifying reliable sources" page, we see that the "secondary" sources explicitly favored by Wikipedia are "review articles, monographs, or textbooks" (bullet point 1 under "Scholarship"). There is no review article describing HD 106096 b (and, indeed, no other peer-reviewed paper yet). The page further describes the role of "News sources", saying "For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports." That is, we should prefer the description of this object as given in the peer-reviewed paper over news/media reports.2632cgn (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Note the qualifier "generally".... Look, no one is suggesting excluding the term "planetary-mass companion" from the article, and we can certain add a paragraph discussing why astronomers make the distinction between planets and non-planets (although we're going to need better citations than we have at the moment). However, in at least the lead paragraph, I'd prefer to avoid WP:JARGON. I'll propose that we use the word "exoplanet" in the lead with a footnote that discussion precise versus common use. If that's an acceptable compromise, what text (and citations) would you like to see in the footnote? Garamond Lethet
c 00:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

No "exoplanet" is not justified. Period. The lead is not 'jargon'. "Planet-mass companion" means just that: a companion with a mass consistent with that of a planet. That's no more jargonesque than calling it an exoplanet in the first place. I think it's perfectly fine to say that this object has been called an exoplanet in news/media reports and I'm not suggesting striking the amusing Dr Who references. It's also quite true that the atmospheric properties of HD 106096 b may be a good window into understanding the atmospheres of bona fide exoplanets. It's young, low mass, self-luminous and probably has similar cloud properties/gravity to other bona fide planets. But "exoplanet"? No. That is misinformation. 2632cgn (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem I'm having here is that I can't make the change to the article just on your profession opinion. It needs to be sourced. There have been lots of other "planet-mass companions" reported in the news over the past five years or so. I think the media has consistently used "planet" or "exoplanet" to describe them. Can you point me to anything published—even a blog—where someone has pointed out this is incorrect usage? Garamond Lethet
c 01:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

That's my point. It is already sourced. The paper describes this object as a "planet-mass companion". Nowhere in the paper is it described as an "exoplanet", and one of the primary results of the paper (that the object probably formed like as a binary star) would preclude calling it an 'exoplanet' under normal terms.

Not also that "planet mass companion" and "exoplanet" are not mutually exclusive terms. Rather "planet mass companion" is a broader term, simply focused on a measured/inferred physical property of an object, and includes both bona fide planets and other things that happen to be planet mass. For example, HR 8799 b is a "planet-mass companion" that most people (nearly all) those in the field consider to be a bona fide directly-imaged exoplanet. In other words, "planet mass companion" is neutral as to whether the object is a bona fide planet or something else.

I think the compromise that is inclusive but retains scientific integrity is to keep the current language as "planet mass companion" since that term is scientifically accurate, was the one actually used in the paper, and is neutral regarding the true nature of this object. But then in the "Possible Formation Mechanism" section discuss the interpretation. There, state that an 11 Mj companion is consistent with the IAU definition of the masses of exoplanets and in that sense this object could be considered an imaged exoplanet. But that given its separation and likely formation mechanisms, the object likely formed like low-mass binary stars, although the companion to primary mass ratio is unusually low.

Concerning references, there are a number that differentiate between a "planet mass companion" and an "exoplanet" explicitly or discuss how star formation processes can yield planet-mass objects. Here's a partial list: Luhman (2008), Todorov et al. (2010), Kratter et al. (2010), Currie et al. (2011, 2013a,b), Janson et al. (2012). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2632cgn (talk • contribs) 01:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

If people want to read the paper, they can read the paper. This isn't a forum to just regurgitate the paper. Yes, some people use formed in a disk vs. formed in a core to definite planet vs. not planet (and indeed, it's personally the one I favour, despite the obvious problem that for systems are large separations we're unlikely to know). But it certainly isn't consistence - lots of people draw other distinctions (based on mass, for instance, see Boss' proceedings here: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003IAUS..211..529B which are still used http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A%26A...548A..26D ) or where the first paper used "planetary mass objects" (e.g. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Natur.473..349S ) the community was pretty quickly saying "planet" (e.g., http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.421L.117V ) - perhaps it's a function of getting a referee who's a stickler for this kind of thing (or even, if you're in a big collaboration, of course), I don't know. For our purposes here, it doesn't matter at all anyhow. There are plenty of sources describing this as a planet, and zero describing it as not a planet. Wikipedia is not a place to publish your novel research. If it really bugs you, publish a rebuttal somewhere else first, and then it can be considered for inclusion here. WilyD 08:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I will review the key issues here since they appear to be getting lost. The key issue is that the paper itself describes this object as a planet mass companion throughout, and one of their conclusions is that this object probably formed much like a binary star. While the latter would seem to preclude calling this an exoplanet under normal usage in the field, the term planet mass companion is neutral as to what the object actually is. It is also conservative, more faithfully describes what the authors actually said, and encompasses planets and other things that happen to be planet mass. Peer review was done on the paper as written, not as describing it as an exoplanet but as a planet mass companion. Without the paper, there are no media reports to spin or popularize this work.

Please note that "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable" WP:SCHOLARSHIP and "[f]or information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports" WP:NEWSORG. The ``plenty of sources" describing this object as an exoplanet originate from a press release or other 'new reports'. They are not peer-reviewed scholarly works, so the peer-reviewed works should take precedent and unfortunately there is just one now.

With that in mind, I think the right compromise position is to nominally label this a planet mass companion (with a direct citation to the paper) and possible exoplanet (or candidate, etc.) and then describe in the "Possible Formation Mechanisms" heading why some might consider this to be an exoplanet while others (including, apparently, the authors within the context of the paper) might not.

As to the papers you mention, the Boss et al IAU notes describe the confusion or lack of uniformity on what defines a 'planet' about a decade ago and clearly doesn't advocate for a particular metric (e.g. mass). The description of CFBDSIR2149-040 in Delorme et al. (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A%26A...548A..26D) is a bit complicated: they simultaneously call this object an exoplanet (something Bailey et al never did in their paper) based on its mass while stating that it could very well have formed like a star. The microlensing paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3544) was careful to describe these as 'planet mass objects' and differentiate between them and 'planets with host stars'. It is not the `community' that quickly described these as planets here (http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2175) but an individual paper.2632cgn (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Just as a heads up, you're currently edit-warring on this article and are in danger of receiving a block if you continue to do so. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

That would be a shame since 2632cgn's edits are the only ones that are trying to capture the material correctly from the original published source. I support the current version. Martin Cash (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Martin. Note that the current version does attempt to forge a compromise. The object is called out as candidate exoplanet in the first sentence. And, as I said previously, the term 'planet mass companion', besides being the one actually used in the source material, is neutral as to whether this is a bona fide exoplanet or something else. I suggest that we retain the 'planet mass companion' description and spend more time discussing the nature of this object under the 'Possible Formation Mechanisms' section.2632cgn (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

While the journey to this point hasn't been the best, I do think that the current wording describing it as a planetary-mass companion and exoplanet candidate is the best compromise we're going to get here. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

On further consideration, I agree that the journey was particularly bad, and that the existing text is good enough. Garamond Lethet
c 04:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. 2632cgn has been largely responsible for the new level quality and accuracy and should be recognized as such. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 06:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: who discovered the 106906 b?

112.198.64.24 posted this comment on 4 January 2014 (view all feedback).

who discovered the 106906 b?

Vanessa Bailey and her international team of astronomers at the Las Campanas Observatory in the Atacama Desert of Chile. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 05:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HD 106906 b. 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/20131213065309/http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/528146/20131206/mystery-planet-exist-location-young-star-formation.htm to http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/528146/20131206/mystery-planet-exist-location-young-star-formation.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)