163:
91:
64:
33:
101:
257:
Sorry, ChiZeroOne, the PlanetHunters community deserves a really great deal of respect for PH1`s discovery ... But ALL planets discovered so far using Kepler data, both from the Kepler team BUT also ALL independent research teams from all over the world respected the Kepler naming convention proposed
351:
So you agree that the independent teams have nothing to do with how the Kepler team refer to their finds? That the Kepler convention is a unilateral in-house system? So why are you also claiming some nonsense about them "respecting the convention" when they clearly don't when they name the planets
280:
You have not addressed the point above. What has this got to do with "respect for PH1's discovery"? If we are talking personally I prefer the systematic designation. The simple fact is it is incorrect and misleading to call "Kepler-64" an official designation. It is an alternate designation, indeed
481:
There's nothing "official" about being designated a name in the Kepler object list, other than that's what the convention is for that mission. I'm actually unsure what the motive for the dispute is. The change to "also known as" instead of "official" was a reasonable edit that was reverted, for not
345:
What has this got to do with accepting? They are free to call things what they like, they're just no more official than any other name. Indeed I think you'll find most of the stars Kepler is looking at already had other catalogue names before KICs, they are no more official than those which is why
504:
According to the data in this article, the second binary totals more than three quarters of the combined mass of the first binary. Therefore the barycenter of the two pairs must be some hundreds of AUs outside the first binary, around which in turn CH1 orbits. It would be untrue to say that the
314:
As described in section 3.1 of the
Borucki paper, for planets discovered by using Kepler data: 1. Designation of the star system with its Kepler input catalog number KIC 2. When candidate status is achieved, naming by KOI (Kepler object oft interest) and/or KIC. 3. When planets are confirmed, a
318:
And this standard process is normally followed and recognized also by research groups that have independently from the Kepler mission team discovered planets using Kepler data. The usage of KIC is not an alternate designation, but only the first step in the process.
310:
Funnily, you seem to accept both the KIC convention (also proposed by
Borucki et al.) and the KOI convention (see also Borucki paper above). Of course, the Kepler designation has to be assigned retroactively by the Kepler mission team, this is the standard process.
595:
322:
Such an independent research team is also the Planet
Hunters community. And of course, it is impossible that the discovery paper of an independent team contains the final Kepler name which somehow "seals" the existence of the planet.
233:
That is a naming system the Kepler team use themselves, it is not official (the cited source doesn't claim it is), and to describe it as such is incorrect. There is only one body that can legally officially name exoplanets, the
449:
Sorry but to be clear this isn't about the article title, but with regards to "Kepler" names, e.g. Kepler-1 b etc, being described as the "official" name. Just to point out though w.r.t to the title, naming conventions states
387:, so therefore we should be either the 2MASS or the KIC designation. For which one of those should be used, we would have to determine which is more commonly used in literature. By looking at the extrasolar planet encyclopedia
294:
to discoveries by other teams, who are free to and do call them what they like (I suggest you actually read the discovery papers), so saying the independent teams respect the Kepler convention is absolute nonsense.
346:
you'll find multiple names listed in astronomy catalogues for most of them, so again you are talking nonsense. Why you think I "accept" those and not Kepler- I don't know since I haven't mentioned them.
383:
that the star only has two official designations: the 2MASS one and the KIC one. SIMBAD does not list the PH designation or the Kepler designation as a valid alternative for this star, unlike the star
549:
585:
376:
153:
513:
I do not understand what the semi-amplitude in the infobox is. I suspect that refers to the orbital period, but in this case the measure unit (probably the second) is missing.
590:
516:
It is possible to give a guess of the separation of the two main members? I may guess it from the period and the Kepler law, but I prefer a literature datum.
172:
74:
580:
352:
in their paper depending on their preference? They could easily contact the Kepler team beforehand (in fact they often are in some level of discussions).
143:
315:
Kepler designation is retroactively assigned. In the case of PH1 it is Kepler64b. Meanwhile, this designation took place according to reference 7.
575:
361:
that there is no official exoplanet naming system, and therefore there is no such thing as an official standard procedure in the first place?
520:
400:
422:
330:
265:
215:
114:
69:
235:
281:
perhaps usually a commonly used one (though certainly not in this specific case which is why the article is at PH1), but it is
44:
380:
557:
542:
242:. The Kepler team's name is no more official than PH1, KIC 4862625ABb etc, it's simply an alternate designation.
396:
524:
50:
32:
538:
The following
Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
553:
426:
379:, we should use the title of the star that the planet orbits. In this case, it would appear from looking at
334:
269:
219:
465:" This is the case here, also being named after the search project. Besides, it is by far the commonname.
326:
261:
211:
391:, it would appear that the KIC designation is the most common, and therefore should be used as the title.
258:
by NASA's
Borucki AS described in the paper mentioned above. Therefore, I restore the previous version.
199:
There is an official NASA naming convention for discoveries made by using data of the Kepler mission.
470:
366:
300:
247:
203:
392:
177:
487:
505:
second binary orbits the first binary. Isn't the continual wobble of both binaries observed?
162:
106:
466:
456:
362:
296:
243:
482:
any good reason that I can see. Is this a point of pride by the IP making the arguments?
569:
534:
A Commons file used on this page or its
Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
483:
596:
Pages within the scope of WikiProject
Astronomical objects (WP Astronomy Banner)
239:
208:
Therefore the modification with the "official NASA designation" is restored.
96:
388:
452:
Only if the planet is purposely cataloged differently than its parent star (
384:
119:
90:
63:
238:, and it at present refuses to officially recognise exoplanet names. See
17:
202:
For details see section 3.1 of the following paper by
Borucki et al.:
460:
204:
http://kepler.nasa.gov/files/mws/FebDataRelease_revised_020211.pdf
290:
On a side note the Kepler designation is retroactively assigned
26:
161:
561:
528:
491:
474:
430:
404:
370:
338:
304:
273:
251:
223:
463:) should the planet article be named differently.
586:Start-Class Astronomy articles of Low-importance
548:Participate in the deletion discussion at the
8:
176:, which collaborates on articles related to
118:, which collaborates on articles related to
30:
58:
591:Start-Class Astronomical objects articles
60:
421:Can you add the 2MASS designation? --
357:Are you even going to respond to the
128:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Astronomy
7:
112:This article is within the scope of
49:It is of interest to the following
25:
581:Low-importance Astronomy articles
236:International Astronomical Union
173:WikiProject Astronomical objects
99:
89:
62:
31:
148:This article has been rated as
576:Start-Class Astronomy articles
131:Template:WikiProject Astronomy
1:
492:04:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
475:23:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
431:06:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
405:22:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
371:20:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
339:19:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
305:18:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
274:17:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
252:13:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
224:12:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
170:This article is supported by
529:20:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
612:
562:17:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
292:by the Kepler science team
154:project's importance scale
169:
147:
84:
57:
500:Orbital characteristics
285:officially recognised.
240:IAU Extrasolar Planets
166:
39:This article is rated
543:PH1Kepler64system.jpg
375:According to WPAST's
165:
115:WikiProject Astronomy
43:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
178:astronomical objects
75:Astronomical objects
122:on Knowledge (XXG).
554:Community Tech bot
167:
134:Astronomy articles
45:content assessment
377:naming conventins
329:comment added by
264:comment added by
214:comment added by
192:
191:
188:
187:
184:
183:
16:(Redirected from
603:
341:
276:
226:
136:
135:
132:
129:
126:
109:
107:Astronomy portal
104:
103:
102:
93:
86:
85:
80:
77:
66:
59:
42:
36:
35:
27:
21:
611:
610:
606:
605:
604:
602:
601:
600:
566:
565:
550:nomination page
536:
511:
502:
457:GSC 02652-01324
324:
259:
209:
197:
133:
130:
127:
124:
123:
105:
100:
98:
78:
72:
40:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
609:
607:
599:
598:
593:
588:
583:
578:
568:
567:
546:
545:
535:
532:
521:151.29.180.159
510:
507:
501:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
479:
478:
477:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
410:
409:
408:
407:
393:StringTheory11
354:
353:
348:
347:
308:
307:
287:
286:
255:
254:
229:
196:
193:
190:
189:
186:
185:
182:
181:
168:
158:
157:
150:Low-importance
146:
140:
139:
137:
111:
110:
94:
82:
81:
79:Low‑importance
67:
55:
54:
48:
37:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
608:
597:
594:
592:
589:
587:
584:
582:
579:
577:
574:
573:
571:
564:
563:
559:
555:
551:
544:
541:
540:
539:
533:
531:
530:
526:
522:
517:
514:
508:
506:
499:
493:
489:
485:
480:
476:
472:
468:
464:
462:
458:
453:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
432:
428:
424:
423:70.24.247.127
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
406:
402:
398:
394:
390:
386:
382:
378:
374:
373:
372:
368:
364:
360:
356:
355:
350:
349:
344:
343:
342:
340:
336:
332:
331:87.180.46.141
328:
320:
316:
312:
306:
302:
298:
293:
289:
288:
284:
279:
278:
277:
275:
271:
267:
266:87.180.46.141
263:
253:
249:
245:
241:
237:
232:
231:
230:
227:
225:
221:
217:
216:87.180.46.141
213:
206:
205:
200:
194:
179:
175:
174:
164:
160:
159:
155:
151:
145:
142:
141:
138:
121:
117:
116:
108:
97:
95:
92:
88:
87:
83:
76:
71:
68:
65:
61:
56:
52:
46:
38:
34:
29:
28:
19:
547:
537:
518:
515:
512:
503:
455:
451:
358:
325:— Preceding
321:
317:
313:
309:
291:
282:
260:— Preceding
256:
228:
210:— Preceding
207:
201:
198:
171:
149:
113:
51:WikiProjects
41:Start-class
570:Categories
467:ChiZeroOne
363:ChiZeroOne
297:ChiZeroOne
244:ChiZeroOne
385:Kepler-22
125:Astronomy
120:Astronomy
70:Astronomy
484:AstroCog
327:unsigned
262:unsigned
212:unsigned
18:Talk:PH1
509:comment
152:on the
519:pietro
461:TrES-1
381:SIMBAD
195:Naming
47:scale.
558:talk
525:talk
488:talk
471:talk
454:e.g.
427:talk
389:here
367:talk
359:fact
335:talk
301:talk
270:talk
248:talk
220:talk
552:. —
283:not
144:Low
572::
560:)
527:)
490:)
473:)
459:→
429:)
403:)
399:•
369:)
337:)
303:)
272:)
250:)
222:)
73::
556:(
523:(
486:(
469:(
450:"
425:(
401:c
397:t
395:(
365:(
333:(
299:(
268:(
246:(
218:(
180:.
156:.
53::
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
