Talk:PSR B1828−11
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
Quark Planet?
editA quark planet? Really? I'm afraid I'm skeptical on that count.
In order for quark degeneracy (which is still a theoretical concept) to occur, you require an extremely high density. I don't believe any planetary mass object would be capable of attaining and maintaining such a density. It's still quite likely that this planets composition may be very different to those known to us, but this would be due to it being born in a supernova.
Any thoughts? --InvaderXan (talk) 10:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Requested move 02 July 2014
edit- The following discussion is an archived 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: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 07:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
PSR B1828-10 → PSR B1828-11 – The list of articles in SIMBAD [1] shows that the designation PSR B1828-11 is more frequently-used than the PSR B1828-10 designation. 77.57.25.250 (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Survey
edit- Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with
*'''Support'''or*'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
- Support per WP:COMMONNAME, which tells us to use the name that is most recognizable. In this case, that would be the -11 name. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
edit- Any additional comments:
- 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.
Orbitbox
edit| Companion (in order from star) |
Mass | Semimajor axis (AU) |
Orbital period (days) |
Eccentricity | Inclination | Radius |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A (unconfirmed) | 3 M🜨 | 0.93 | 384.3649 | 0 | — | — |
| B (unconfirmed) | 12 M🜨 | 1.32 | 493.077375 | — | — | — |
| C (unconfirmed) | 8 M🜨 | — | — | — | — | — |
| Companion (in order from star) |
Mass | Semimajor axis (AU) |
Orbital period (days) |
Eccentricity | Inclination | Radius |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| b (unconfirmed) | ≥0.0019 M🜨 | ? | ? | ? | — | — |
Why have the above orbitboxes above been removed? 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- The first because the planets were disproven, as the article states; the second I don't know. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)