Talk:Tau Ceti

The 2017 paper was not a refinement by the same team which published the candidates in 2012, there are some shared authors but that is the extent of it. Also nowhere does it confirm e and f as any more than candidates, they are merely the only two candidates from the 2012 paper recovered in 2017. Certainly robust candidates but this does not mean confirmed planets. I have updated the table accordingly as well. Xiphosura^Talk∞Edits 02:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Since it seems more specific clarification may be required, this is the 2017 paper I am referring to.

Firstly, the title is "Four Planet Candidates around τ Ceti", note that they do not say "Four planets" or "Two confirmed planets", it is four candidates. Furthermore "we conclude that the signals with periods of 20, 49, 160, and 600 days are genuine Keplerian candidates." (underlining added by me).

For Tau Ceti f specifically: "The determination of the inner boundary of this scattered disc may help to confirm the existence of the 600 days candidate." The paper itself states that it has yet to be confirmed and further study is required.

In addition, a 2021 paper (which refers to tau ceti as HD 10700) does not confirm any of the planetary candidates, despite the fact that simulated planets were detected: "As this star does not show any significant planetary signal, we also injected a fake planetary signal to demonstrate that YARARA processing was not altering planetary signals."

The candidates remain unconfirmed by scientific literature, which is to be regarded as more authoritative than planetary databases, even from NASA. It is not original research to consider scientific consensus. Xiphosura^Talk∞Edits 03:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I've wondered about that myself. Those databases can list planets as confirmed even when there is no independent confirmation published. I just assumed it was done via private communication. Praemonitus (talk) 05:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

In the lower section where it is discussed in Pop Culture and Fiction, you could add that the entire current plot of Project Hail Mary (mostly) occurs in this star system. Just a thought SageBeanz (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I see we're attracting more 'in culture' cruft now. It's been removed a few times now but keeps coming back. This content needs to satisfy MOS:CULTURALREFS. Praemonitus (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm finding conflicting information on how this star's name is pronounced, and in practice have only ever heard it as /taʊ ˈsɛːti/. I'm not disputing that /ˈsiːtaɪ/ may be one possible pronunciation for it, but might it be worthwhile to list this other? If not, can someone help me to understand why it has conflicting information from source to source? ~2026-25885-90 (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Can you reference a source where you saw a claim of ˈsiːtaɪ? That sounds like someone trying to obsessively apply grammar-school pronunciation rules. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:08, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

........this page's infobox. Is this a trick question? ~2026-25885-90 (talk) 08:26, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't even see that. Usually pronunciations are in the top of the lede, and the infobox isn't supposed to have information not discussed in the article. Thanks, looks like Praemonitus has tagged that as uncited, and by implication, dubious. We'll see if anyone comes up with a cite. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:10, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the location of the info, I'm pretty sure it's valid per this section of MOS:PRON. Does that make it an exception? Sorry, I'm very new to this. I have spent the past week trying to figure out what sort of sources would even be considered valid for this lol ~2026-25885-90 (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, that came off very rude. I don't think I understand what you're asking me. ~2026-25885-90 (talk) 09:23, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I believe the question is per WP:REF. Do you have a reliable source available that will support your claim about the proper pronunciation? (I took a look but couldn't find one. Perhaps we need a cite for each word?) I know there's not one now, so I'm going to tag it. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for clarifying. The problem, I think, is that it's a compound word with a different pronunciation than its constituents, like "vineyard". It's pretty easy to find sources with the pronunciation /ˈsiːtaɪ/ for 'Ceti' alone. The whole name Tau Ceti isn't really listed in dictionaries, and I'm not really sure how to assess reliability of sources for this kind of thing; I don't consider news anchors who are clearly reading the name off a teleprompter for the first time ever as reliable sources, but there's plenty of self-published video content of astronomers discussing Tau Ceti, using the /ˈsɛːti/ pronunciation. (Note that the youtube link is uploaded by the interviewee on a news broadcast. I don't think they're the copyright holder, but CTV hasn't archived it anywhere I can find.) ~2026-25885-90 (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

This information belongs at Cetus (constellation), not one of the ~27 stars with Bayer designations. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:10, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Cetus (constellation) does indeed have a pronunciation of both Cetus and Ceti, but no sources. Both pronunciations match simplistic application of english phonetic spelling rules, and differ from pronunciations of the same words in related languages. The astronomers I've worked with tended to use a pronunciation approximating the latinate-language pronunciation (seh-tee, seh-tus). None of my print dictionaries (including a 3-volume 3000-page Webster's 3rd international) have any of Ceti, Cetus or Tau Ceti listed. Wiktionary, which I wouldn't trust for WP:RS reasons, does have Tau Ceti but no pronunciation. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:56, 8 May 2026 (UTC)