Talk:TW Hydrae

"I grow tired of asking"

I vote we replace TW Hydrae b with a redirect back to this page. Like I did for phi² Pavonis.

For reference, here was the planetbox which I removed off the front:

The TW Hydrae planetary system

Companion (in order from star)	Mass	Semimajor axis (AU)	Orbital period (days)	Eccentricity	Inclination	Radius
b	1.2 ± 0.4 MJ	0.041 ± 0.002	3.56 ± 0.02	0.04 ± 0.03	—	—

--Zimriel (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree - disproven extrasolar planets should not have separate articles. 86.171.72.213 (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with merge, no need for a separate article about a non-existing real planet (as opposed to articles about non-existing Start Trek or Star Wars planets). Roo72 (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've pushed the button. A million voices would have "cried out in terror", if the planet existed which it doesn't. :^) --Zimriel (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not oppose the redirect, but isn't the "disproven" claim a bit too pushed forward? As a scientist myself, I know debate often takes a few papers before settling. I would put the planetbox back and take its status as more disputed than disproven. --Cyclopia (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the planetbox is back for now. Icalanise (talk) 08:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it would be nice to have an expert here. --Cyclopia (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the fact that the same phenomenon appears to have been observed on several other T Tauri stars, I think we should stick with "disproven" for now. Icalanise (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If so, I agree. --Cyclopia (talk) 10:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Oceans of water

Refd to in Swedish SR: Detection of the Water Reservoir in a Forming Planetary System. Could be interesting because it proves something (?) regarding planet formation, perhaps that it is generally wet ... ? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hubble observations of cleared zone and planet presence claim

On June 13, 2013, NASA announced observations of a cleared zone 7.5 billion miles from the star. From the claims, though it wasn't stated as such, the claimed mass would be in line with a brown dwarf. http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2013/20/text/ Wzrd1 (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

brown dwarf

[1] A new study using data from NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer, WISE, and the Two Micron All Sky Survey, or 2MASS, provides new clues in this mystery of galactic proportions. Scientists have identified a free-floating, planetary-mass object within a young star family, called the TW Hydrae association. The newfound object, termed WISEA J114724.10-204021.3, or just WISEA 1147 for short, is estimated to be between roughly five to 10 times the mass of Jupiter. WISEA 1147 is one of the few free-floating worlds where astronomers can begin to point to its likely origins as a brown dwarf and not a planet. Because the object was found to be a member of the TW Hydrae family of very young stars, astronomers know that it is also very young -- only 10 million years old.

Movie

What is the exact purpose of the movie in this article? As far as I see it, it's just slow zoom-in onto the ALMA image, that is already in the article, while rotating it. There is no additional information. If this should give the viewer an impression of a rotating disk, I would rather remove it from the article. Disks are differetially rotating with an angular velocity that is depending on the distance from the star. This is not reflected in the video and might misguide the viewer. 146.155.121.166 (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Pointless in this context. Lithopsian (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Turns out the bulk of the article was originally copied in verbatim here. The text has been somewhat edited since then but large parts are still word for word. I've commented out the whole lot. The style is not very encyclopaedic and really it needs to be rewritten. The original is not copyrighted, but wholesale copying with no attribution still isn't acceptable. Lithopsian (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Designations for ice giant and two unconfirmed ones (1 AU possible and the brown dwarf at 80 AU)

I am confused on what to name the recently announced ice giant exoplanet orbiting around the star, the one that is possibly forming around 1 AU and the possible brown dwarf at 80 AU. Would appreciate some help on how to organize them.

Here is what my idea is for it (from closest orbit to furthest):

• Planet d - the one possibly forming around 1 AU announced at the end of March 2016
• Planet b - the one recently announced as likely existing at 22 AU
• Planet c - the possible brown dwarf orbiting at 80 AU announced in 2013

However this makes the discovering terms for these planets way out of line, as from b to d, the discovery dates would be like this: September 2016, 2013, March 2016

To fix this I thought of arranging like this:

• Planet b (d in above solution)
• Planet c (b in above solution)
• Planet d (c in above solution)

The problem with this one is that the EPE lists d in my above solution as "c", which is confusing.

Any help regarding how to how to designate these planets would be helpful. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Planets are not named by Wikipedia, but by the scientific community.

Furthermore, none of these planets is confirmed. 146.155.121.166 (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)