Talk:Sigma Draconis

Stellar neighbors

What are the nearest stars to Sigma Draconis and how far away are they? -- Needscurry 13:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek Reference

In the infamous "Spock's Brain" episode of Star Trek (original series 3 episode 1) a ship launched from the frozen sixth planet of the Sigma Draconis system disables the starship Enterprise and steals Spock's brain.

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Sigma_Draconis_VI

This topic is covered by the Spock's Brain article. Praemonitus (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Music album

Sigma Draconis is also an album of a metal band Sacriversum

There is no wikipedia page for Sacriversum.—RJH (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Planetary system claims (excised)

Wikipedia really needs to stop getting breathlessly-excited about any vague pre-discovery planet claims that get made. The referenced source has not been published in a refereed journal, and in addition the authors note that the claim that there is a planet there is "close to being publishable", rather than actually publishable. At best, the paper indicates that the star should not be used as a radial velocity standard star over long time periods. As such the section in this article is far too credulous of the planet hypothesis. I have therefore excised it from the article. 77.57.25.250 (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Excised content below:

Planetary system

Between 2004 and 2013, extensive radial velocity measurements were gathered on Sigma Draconis using the High Resolution Echelle Spectrometer on the Keck Observatory. Towards the end of that period, a significant radial velocity trend peak at around 310 days and another possible trend near 2800 days were emerging from the accumulated data. The trend around 310 days indicated a planet orbiting inside the habitable zone with a minimum of 11.2 Earth masses. However, the radial velocity peak near 2800 days was suspected to be caused by a bias in the data set collected by the telescope and not an indication of a second planet. Combining the Keck/HIRES data with further measurements taken in 2013 from the new Automated Planet Finder telescope indeed did show a significantly strengthened trend at 308 days consistent with a Uranus sized planet, of greater than around 12 Earth masses, but it also showed a much reduced radial velocity trend near 2800 days.

The unconfirmed Sigma Draconis planetary system

Companion (in order from star)	Mass	Semimajor axis (AU)	Orbital period (days)	Eccentricity	Inclination	Radius
b (unconfirmed)	≳12 M🜨	0.814	308	~0	—	—

You're wrong! It was actually published in the highly respected journal, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, link to journal website, ahead of print because of its importance. If you're still having difficulties finding it in the journal, here is a link to it, in the 'ahead of print' section. If that's still not enough for you here is a link to where the paper is actually published inside that highly respected scientific journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.117.11 (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

None of that invalidates the other points though -- the authors do not consider that this detection is yet publishable (see page 37 on the arXiv version), and they certainly don't introduce the designation "b" for the candidate. 77.57.25.250 (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what point you're trying to make because as it says, at the bottom of page 37, in the arxiv version of the quoted paper, "We conclude that the supposed RV-null star HD 185144 exhibits a constant period, phase stable signal that has persisted for over 9 years. And while we have not attempted to rule out other possible causes, this signal is consistent with Keplerian motion from a 308-d Uranus-mass companion that is close to being publishable." Therefore, this paper has provided strong evidence for a planet, in other words a candidate planet or unconfirmed planet. That's why Template:OrbitboxPlanet hypothetical was used to define this unconfirmed planet's parameters, rather than the Template:Orbitbox planet which is better for describing the parameters of fully confirmed planets. Seeing as it is the first candidate planet to be detected in the Sigma Draconis system what other letter might this planet be given other than the letter b? It's standard practice to label the first planet confirmed or planet candidate, with the letter b. For example the planet candidates, or unconfirmed planets, of Tau Ceti are labelled from b to f. There are no other confirmed or candidate planets suspected to be in orbit around Sigma Draconis A so this candidate planet is the first and therefore can only be labelled with the letter b! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.117.11 (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that this planet has not been confirmed, there are still issues that need to be resolved before claiming a planet here (since you appear not to tolerate anyone else editing this article, your revert has removed the information that there have been no attempts to rule out other possible explanations other than a planet orbiting Sigma Draconis), the designation "Sigma Draconis b" has not been introduced yet. As regards calling it "b", thing is there may be other people monitoring the star, suppose they find multiple planets, publish first and designate a different one "b" in their discovery paper. We have no idea whether or not this will happen, so best not to try and jump the gun by assuming that this one will definitely be assigned the letter "b" if and when a discovery is made ­– the "b" designation is not supported by the source. Your preferred version of the article is extremely uncritical of the planet hypothesis which so far is not justified by the source, the authors of which are rather more cautious about the interpretation of the data. 77.57.25.250 (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

You say my preferred version of the article is, "...extremely uncritical of the planet hypothesis...", but seeing as I haven't published a peer reviewed paper in a highly reputed Science Journal on this subject my criticism would only be interpreted as an example of original research. The authors of the paper are cautious about their findings but only in the sense that they do not yet want to claim the planet as fully confirmed. The authors are not in any way more cautious about the evidence for a candidate planet, from their interpretation of the data they collected, than I am. I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to claim anything more than they have in their paper nor anything less than they have in regards to the status of the candidate planet. Sigma Draconis b is an unconfirmed planet, a candidate planet, and that is exactly what that paper is giving evidence for and was what this Wikipedia article was saying before you vandalised it. And, as for labelling the candidate planet with the letter b, it is not, as far as I am aware, some convention I just made up and I explained all that to you before. Stop vandalising this article, you've had your fun now, please give it a rest! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.117.11 (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not misunderstanding the paper's conclusions. If a planet is unconfirmed it means that other possibilities have not yet been ruled out as to its existence and the Steven S. Vogt et al (2014) paper is providing good evidence for a planet in orbit around Sigma Draconis, without completely ruling out other possible explanations. It is not providing conclusive evidence for a planet, but it is strong evidence for a possible planet in orbit, none-the-less, and so therefore Sigma Draconis b status is quite obviously being defined as "unconfirmed" by the paper. Defining Sigma Draconis b as unconfirmed is actually being appropriately cautious, which is what you'd expect from a paper published by authors of such high-caliber as Geoffrey Marcy, Steven S. Vogt and Debra Fischer. An unconfirmed planet is a planet suspected to be in orbit around a star, that is quite explicitly being stated in the paper and that was exactly what this Wikipedia article was explaining before "User 77.57.25.250" intervened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.117.11 (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• The paper is carefully worded to avoid claiming a discovery. This is a paper about an experimental set-up, not a discovery paper: no-one is putting their name to a planet discovery here. The furthest they go is demonstrating that their instrument is capable of making such a detection and that Sigma Draconis is not a good RV-null standard on the timescales and precisions that their observations have achieved. Note that neither the conclusions nor the abstract even mention a planet discovery: this is not what the paper is trying to achieve.
• As regards calling this object by a "b" designation: the authors are very careful to avoid introducing such a designation: the screenshot of the Systemic console (figure 17) shows a blank in the "name" field. I've used the Systemic console myself and it automatically labels the planets you put in as "b", "c", "d", etc. The authors therefore have deliberately removed the auto-generated "b" designation from the figure. They also make no use of such a designation (including such forms as "Sigma Draconis b" or "HD 185144 b") in the text. Therefore any such usage is speculative and unsupported by the source.
• My latest edit to the article (which has been supported by two other editors) still mentions the planet candidate but without introducing designations or habitable zone claims that are unsupported by the paper. It also includes the fact that the authors do not consider the discovery claim to be publishable and that they have not yet analysed alternative possibilities that your preferred version of the article omits entirely. You accuse me of vandalism, but you are the one who is engaging in disruptive editing by continually reverting against consensus. 77.57.25.250 (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree completely with 77.57.25.250. It is clear also that 86.149.117.11 preferred version is not consensual at this point. Therefore I suggest them, if interested, to try to achieve a compromise and stop edit warring. Also, 86.149.117.11: accusing a good faith editor who disagrees with you of vandalism is a personal attack and a violation of good faith. Please do not attack in such a fashion other editors even when you disagree vehemently. --cyclopia^speak! 18:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what point you're trying to make because as it says, at the bottom of page 37, in the arxiv version of the quoted paper, "We conclude that the supposed RV-null star HD 185144 exhibits a constant period, phase stable signal that has persisted for over 9 years. And while we have not attempted to rule out other possible causes, this signal is consistent with Keplerian motion from a 308-d Uranus-mass companion that is close to being publishable." Therefore, this paper has provided strong evidence for a planet, in other words a candidate planet or unconfirmed planet. That's why Template:OrbitboxPlanet hypothetical was used to define this unconfirmed planet's parameters, rather than the Template:Orbitbox planet which is better for describing the parameters of fully confirmed planets. Seeing as it is the first candidate planet to be detected in the Sigma Draconis system what other letter might this planet be given other than the letter b? It's standard practice to label the first planet confirmed or planet candidate, with the letter b. For example the planet candidates, or unconfirmed planets, of Tau Ceti are labelled from b to f. There are no other confirmed or candidate planets suspected to be in orbit around Sigma Draconis A so this candidate planet is the first and therefore can only be labelled with the letter b!

In the reference section, why did you erase the volume number and the page numbers describing where the paper was published, in the Journal, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific? And, why did you remove the Digital object identifier number for that paper's entry in the Journal? .— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.108.159 (talk) 05:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Including the volume number, pages and doi is considered good practice in how to cite a professional or scientific journal, within a Wikipedia article, is it surely not?

Because while you keep hitting the revert button at any and every opportunity, there's not much bloody point trying to improve the article is there? 77.57.25.250 (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• what other letter might this planet be given other than the letter b? - Please read WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. Also stop edit warring against the consensus, or I'll take this to WP:AN/I, risking to be blocked. About the references, I'll take care of updating it later. --cyclopia^speak! 12:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sigma Draconis. 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/20081025110153/http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/CE/Museum/Space/Research/StarName/c_research_chinengstars_ala_alz.htm to http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/CE/Museum/Space/Research/StarName/c_research_chinengstars_ala_alz.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) 05:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)