Talk:CFBDSIR 2149−0403
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Images/video
editList of images to possibly include:
Distance from Earth
editThe third reference doesn't say that the planet is about 100 light years from Earth. The article doesn't give any distance figures at all. Is there a confirmed distance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.196.60.50 (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- You are right. I'm parsing the paper and it seems there are several informed guesses at the distance but no real confirmed value. I'll edit to reflect this fact. --Cyclopiatalk 18:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- My mistake. Thanks for catching and correcting it. I haven't had a chance to read through all the sources yet, but I'll put some more work into it when I get back from work tonight. Braincricket (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Eso reports its distance to earth to be 100 light years too: [1] Amphicoelias (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- The article now reports the estimates from the discovery paper, which seem the most reliable source so far. --Cyclopiatalk 19:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- "If this object is actually a rogue planet [...], then it is the closest that has ever been spotted." - this statement has become outdated. Shorr (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Updated the info -given the uncertainities I think it's hard to say definitely which is closer, but paragraph now just refers it as "among the closest" - and mentions the new object.--cyclopiaspeak! 16:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- "If this object is actually a rogue planet [...], then it is the closest that has ever been spotted." - this statement has become outdated. Shorr (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- The article now reports the estimates from the discovery paper, which seem the most reliable source so far. --Cyclopiatalk 19:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Eso reports its distance to earth to be 100 light years too: [1] Amphicoelias (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- My mistake. Thanks for catching and correcting it. I haven't had a chance to read through all the sources yet, but I'll put some more work into it when I get back from work tonight. Braincricket (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Image editing
editThe central blue dot in the image is *very* dim, which means it is almost impossible to see when it's not enlarged. Should we add a coloured circle or arrow to point at it? I suspect some readers can confound it with the bright cyan spot. --Cyclopiatalk 17:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- Good idea.--Tianyamm2 (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Direct Imaging
editAre planets like these good candidates for direct imaging since there is no parent star? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.130.20 (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Brown dwarf?
editArticle states that the body is a brown dwarf, but apparently cites this to a (non-technical) article that states that it probably isn't ("The team believe it has [...] mass between four and seven times that of Jupiter - well short of the mass limit that would make it a likely brown dwarf"). Unless something has changed since that article has been published and the mass estimate has been revised upwards, should this assertion not be removed? 212.159.69.4 (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- A very good point. Given that there is only a 13% chance that this object is a brown dwarf according to the paper, that brown dwarf statement should be removed. I will update the article. Martin Cash (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)