Talk:V1400 Centauri

Rough Calculation.. - It does add up...

At first the figures for the size of this ring system seem a little unbelievable and a little contradictory but they do add up. - 2012 figure 200 x size of Saturn system ≈ 48,000,000 Km dia, or newer figure 120,000,000 Km dia - 60,000,000 Km radius. (By comparison Earth orbital radius is 149,600,000 Km.)
However they also give the rough size of the star and the rough orbital period of the host planet - 90% size of the sun, and 10 years. This gives us the crucial orbital radius - of about 670,000,000 Km or 4.5 AU. An orbital size ratio of about 5.6 : 1 (orbit radius to ring diameter). Now with a planetary mass of 10 to 40 Jupiters that enormous size actually does make sense!!
Lucien86 (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Rename as J1407 and merge with J1407b

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

{{mergefrom|J1407b}}

merged from J1407b into J1407

I would propose renaming this article as J1407, which seem to be the more common name used for the star in the press, the present name being too unwieldy, and merging it with J1407b.--agr (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with merging the planet article into this one, as I don't think it's notable enough or detailed enough to stand on its own, but I think we should keep the current name for this article, as that is the one already being used on a few other language wikis. I created a redirect from J1407, so people searching for that would still end up here. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Support – this topic does not justify two separate articles, based on what's currently at these two articles. --IJBall (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Support picking a better name. The current name and suggested named implies a random series of letters and numbers as if someone typed a few random keys. Slimer5Buster (talk) 11:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand what the name represents. It has a very specific meaning, it is a catalogue prefix plus a sky coordinate, telling you exactly what it is. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I Support both of these options, to make a more robust article with a simpler name. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Support for the merge, neutral regarding the renaming as long as there is a redirect from the one name to the other. -- Karl432 (talk) 14:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose move; the title "J1407" would be incredibly ambiguous, as such a title could refer to any object at the J2000 right ascension 14^h 07^m , of which there are plenty of notable objects. I do support a merge of the planet article into this one, however, as this star is solely notable because of its planet. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Would you support a redirect or disambiguation from J1407? The name is incomprehensible to the lay reader.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I would support this, even Kenworthy and Mamajek use "J1407b" for the planet in their paper, so this should be a redirect too after a merge. -- Karl432 (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think a redirect with a hatnote at the top noting what I said above would be ideal. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, here is a link to a discussion on the long name topic at AAVSO http://www.aavso.org/those-ridiculous-long-names-again -- it seems there is no consensus in the astronomical community on shorter names although most agree the long name is a bother. Perhaps a redirect is the best we can do for now. If J1407 become overloaded, we can make it a disambiguation page.--agr (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Support. Both the move and the merge. The two articles are close enough in content and small enough that there is no reason why we need two of them. Also, as I think has been said before, nobody can remember the long name. It may be more specific, but Wikipedia is not the place for highly technical distinctions like that one. (Else we would not have a Template:Too technical) If there ever are more than one notable object that could also be called J1407, we could make a disambiguation page (as has also been said before)(moves are easy). For now, however, we do not have other notable objects with that name, so I see no problem with naming this page J1407. Iwilsonp (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

There is also nothing against us naming the page J1407 and then putting in a hatnote about the ambiguity at the top. Iwilsonp (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment the move request should be unbundled. It should be formally proposed at WP:RM -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I've done this, see below. Can we consider the merge discussion closed as it seems to have unanimous support?--agr (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I think all discussions should be open for a period of at least 7 days, not 2 days. It's how the deletion processes work (open for 7 days), so it seems like a good length of time for mergers as well, for minimal notice to allow people to participate. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose renaming "J1407" is just horrible. It's like calling something located at 45.6N, 53.8E as just "45.6N" which is exactly what "J1407" is, half a coordinate. There are jillions of things that lie on the arc described by "J1407" -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Merge the planet article into the star article. Then if we learn about additional planets in the system they can be added to the star article. -- Kheider (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Additional comments on the merge

So far support for merging the J1407b article about the ringed planet/brown dwarf in to this article has been unanimous. However, it has been requested that we keep this discussion open for a week, through February 4 by my count. Any further comments on the merge?--agr (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Merge away! —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I have completed the merge and done an edit pass to blend the texts. More eyes welcome, of course.--agr (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Requested move 30 January 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There was almost no support for the proposed move, and whilst 1SWASP J1407−3945 gained some support, I don't think there was quite consensus. Number 57 17:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

1SWASP J140747.93-394542.6 → J1407 – Current name is far too technical. J1407 is the name used in the reliable secondary sources cited in the article. Our MOS guideline WP:STARNAMES, item 5, gives a similar example 2M1207. Of course the full technical name should be mentioned in the lede. If another notable object is given the name J1407, the article title can be revised then and a disambiguation page created. agr (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment "2M1207" is not the similar to J1407, since "2M" specifies the catalogue 2MASS, while "J" does not specify any catalogue, it is part of the coordinate system. If you were to rename the 2MASS article to your proposed name format, it would be "J1207" another half a coordinate, which is similarly very bad. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose "J1407" is just horrible, and is only a nickname. It's like calling something located at (45.6N, 53.8E) as just "45.6N" which is exactly what "J1407" is, half a coordinate. There are jillions of things that lie on the arc described by "J1407". If we need a short name, it would be 1SWASP J1407-3945, the format as recommended by some style guides for astronomy publications. There is 1SWASP J1407 which atleast specifies that this half ordinate is not an actual half a coordinate and is similar to the example given of 2M1207, is a short form of a catalogue entry (and what the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopedia uses for shortform for the planet "1SWASP J1407 b" as well.) -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment Do you have a reference for one or two of those style guides you mention? That could help settle the question. As the original proposer, I have no objection to any of the shorter names being suggested as long as they have some basis in a reliable source.--agr (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I read them on paper several years ago, so I'm recalling it from memory. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support The title is a monstrosity Tetra quark ^(talk) 14:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The suggested title is a worse monstrosity -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, as the suggested name will cause us to lose too much precision. I'm open to a compromise name somewhere in the middle per the suggestions made by IP @65.94.40.137:. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: The longer name is more accurate. Re-directs can handle the rest. This is a 12th magnitude star that the general public will forget in 2 weeks. As mentioned above, if Wikipedia must use a shorter name, "1SWASP J1407-3945" would be the proper way to go and I would support that name. -- Kheider (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I'm coming around to ^^THIS... --IJBall (talk) 07:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, though I'd support the shorter variant 1SWASP J1407−3945, which is both sufficient and commonly used on Wikipedia. --JorisvS (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per my comment in the above section. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

How about 1SWASP J1407−3945?

Per WP:SNOW there is little support and much objection to J1407 as a title for this article. Several editors have suggested 1SWASP J1407−3945 might be acceptable. Do others support this alternative? --agr (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Weak Support: I am largely indifferent. But at least this version sufficiently tells you were it is located in the sky. You will still need to mention the full name in the lead, so I am not sure much is gained for those that dislike long names. -- Kheider (talk) 10:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I can't quite commit to this after all, as I now see four other language wikis are using the full name. I'd rather stay in line with them. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"See also" list

For some reason I'm missing the edit summary input box, otherwise I would have written it there. I don't think we should list all sorts of objects with interesting behavior here. Disks around planetary objects: Sure (until they are so frequent that we get an article about the general phenomenon). Unusual transit-like features in general are a stretch already. --mfb (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mfb: Thanks for your comments - yes - *entirely* agree - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 18 March 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: move (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

---

1SWASP J140747.93−394542.6 → V1400 Centauri – Wikipedia's currently-accepted naming conventions for stars preferences variable star designations ahead of "the most widely recognised (other) name." V1400 Centauri / V1400 Cen is recognised by SIMBAD, the American Association of Variable Star Observers, and at least two scientific papers, as the variable star designation for this system. I also believe the current title fails Wikipedia's policy on commonly recognisable article titles, simply because of its long and illegible nature, which makes it highly unlikely to be memorable – let alone recognisable – for any reader.

References

– PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 10:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems like the right decision to me. No objections. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

support as something that a layperson can pronounce and/or remember, unlike the current name Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Support better than the current name. --mfb (talk) 06:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Support per mfb. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 19:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggestion

Rename J1407b and have section about V1400 Centauri in renamed article because J1407b is more significant. Spookywooky2 (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Underated

I feel that this planet is so underated. Most people who didn’t work for nasa wouldn’t know about if without YouTube and Wikipedia. I wish our sweet super Jupiter was taught in schools. Spacenerd126 (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think Super Saturn even has rings that big. Cometkeiko (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 4 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 06:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

---

V1400 Centauri → J1407 – The vast majority of the academic literature, as well as the article text, calls this star by the abbreviated coordinates from SuperWASP, not the variable star designation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, coordinates (or abbreviated coordinates) without a catalog prefix shouldn't be used as article titles. This has already been discussed here with consensus against using "J1407" as the title. The 1SWASP designation is indeed the most commonly used designation, so I wouldn't be against restoring some form of it as the article title - but the variable star designation is simpler, it's clear how it shown be written, it seems to be preferred by established naming conventions, and it's used along with the 1SWASP designation by the most recent papers on this system ([1], [2], [3]). SevenSpheres (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose as per SevenSpheres. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 23:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

J1407b doesn't exist

It's as simple as that, J1407b doesn't exist (as a planet). It's (most likely) just an eclipsing brown dwarf. 2001:448A:6090:684C:8C31:9427:A95F:141D (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

That it may be an unbound object and/or a brown dwarf doesn't mean it doesn't exist. SevenSpheres (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Saying "J1407b doesn't exist" is a very misleading interpretation of the situation. It still does "exist" in the sense that the name "J1407b" now refers to the brown dwarf that coincidentally eclipsed V1400 Centauri. J1407b was previously thought to be a planet/orbiting companion of V1400 Centauri, but its nature has since been revised by later studies. Sure, the name of J1407b would be inappropriate now since it isn't an exoplanet orbiting a star, but that can't be changed now since the name had already been used widely in the scientific literature. Nrco0e (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Split proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to split. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 17:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

---

Now that I'm practically done expanding and rewriting the whole article, I've noticed that the "Star properties" and "2007 eclipse by J1407b" sections are very distinct from each other (the section about J1407b doesn't discuss V1400 Cen in detail and vice versa). I believe this warrants a split.

I propose that the "catalog history" and "stellar properties" sections shall be kept in the V1400 Centauri article itself, while the entirety "2007 eclipse by J1407b" section should be transferred to a new article titled "J1407b". In the V1400 Centauri article, the "2007 eclipse by J1407b" section should be replaced with a 1 or 2 paragraph-long synopsis with a "main article" link to J1407b; I believe those two paragraphs from the current lede will do the job. Nrco0e (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. That J1407b is probably an unbound, independent object of significant popular (and astronomical!) interest also supports the need for a split. ArkHyena (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• With the significant expansion that's been done a split does seem more reasonable now, especially since J1407b is likely an unbound object. It might be worth waiting for results of the recent observations to be published though, for confirmation of the unbound scenario. If a split is done would the title of the split article just be J1407b? SevenSpheres (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • @SevenSpheres: I mentioned above that I wanted to have the new article titled J1407b. Regarding waiting for the results, I expect it to take quite a while, at least 2 years considering that the 2020 paper was published 3 years after the 2017 ALMA observation. Personally, I don't think I can afford to wait that long. Plus, J1407b is more well-known than V1400 Centauri, and I expect that most viewers of the V1400 Cen article intend to read about J1407b specifically. Nrco0e (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• Supportper the reasons given above.

21 Andromedae (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm ending this discussion early since I've discussed splitting this article with other Wikipedia editors offsite and they support the decision. The fact that J1407b is much more well-known than V1400 Centauri, and that the article discusses it in enough detail, should be an uncontroversial justification to go ahead with the immediate WP:BOLD split. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 17:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.