Talk:HR 2562 B

Requested move 11 August 2024

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: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 11:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

---

HR 2562 b → HR 2562 B – Per WP:COMMONNAME; this object is generally referred to as HR 2562 B (with "B" capitalized, rather than lowercase) in literature, e.g. [1][2][3][4][5] ArkHyena (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support, more common. 21 Andromedae (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support: Simpler that way. Waqar💬 15:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: It might be best to move to HR 2562 to cover the entire star system. SevenSpheres (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Or maybe we might create articles for both components. HR 2562 is notable as a star in the HR catalogue. 21 Andromedae (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  This could probably go either way. IMO, HR 2562 would probably be better off as a standalone article, given the RS's involved. ArkHyena (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Support: Makes more sense due to its possibly high mass making it an unlikely planet if true. LunaTheSilly (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support: Please mind, however, that [6] emphasize 'challenges of modelling objects at the L/T transition' and [7] determine the mass dynamically with 99.7% below 18.5 Jupiter masses, please see Fig. 7 therein. There is a chance it turns out to be a planet soon, but for the moment HR 2562 B is best. Stevinger (talk) 08:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: I keep being in support. However, this is difficult. Do you suggest to rename Kepler-39b and CoRoT-3b, too? These objects are equal or higher in mass than the mentioned upper limit of HR 2562 B. Communities in exoplanet research might not agree. You reach the definition difficulties of exoplanets. Please see the 'Classification' paragraph in CoRoT-3b. Stevinger (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  If literature has them as anything other than what they're currently titled, then yes. Otherwise, there would be little grounds on renaming them, even if they do turn out not to be exoplanets under the working IAU definition. ArkHyena (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Fair. I just wanted to add, that often names are designated method dependent after discovery and then cited from a single source over and over. A good example is KOI-189 b. I assume it got the 'b' because it has a radius of 𝑅𝑏 = 0.99 ± 0.02 RJ, but I have not checked. It is called brown dwarf and has 𝑀𝑏 = 80.4 ± 2.5 MJ, might itself be a low-mass star, still is referred to as KOI-189 b.[8] (Well, thank you for the link to WP:COMMONNAME, seems to answer my question.) Stevinger (talk) 05:15, 15 August 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.