Talk:Tau Ceti/Archive 1

I believe the figure given for the luminosity of Tau Ceti (0.62 Solar Luminosities) is incorrect, based on other information that is given in Wikipedia and elsewhere on the Web.

The absolute visual magnitude of Tau Ceti is given as 5.68, and the sun's absolute visual magnitude is 4.77. The difference is 0.91, which means the Sun is almost a full magnitude brighter than Tau Ceti, or about 2.312 times (five standard magnitudes = 100 times brighter, one magnitude = 100^0.2, or about 2.512). The figure for luminosity can be calculated when you do the following calculation:

1 / 100^(0.2*0.91) = 1 / 100^0.182 = 0.432.

I have not yet corrected the luminosity figure in the entry because I wish to check my calculations and confirm the results from other sources on the Web and reference books. --B.d.mills 02:34, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have checked the calculations and they are correct. I have updated the absolute magnitude of Tau Ceti to 0.43.--B.d.mills 23:54, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy mentions the Complaints Department of Sirius Cybernetics Corporation to be in Sirius Tau in some versions, and in Sirius Tau Ceti in some other versions. Would that be the same Tau Ceti that this article is about? --(boxed) 00:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Very likely. It would mean that the Sirius Corporation has settled, or artificially created, a planet in orbit around Tau Ceti and named it after itself. One more world for the already crowded Tau Ceti System. I hope somebody creates a "Rainbow Tau Ceti" in which all of these worlds, over a dozen of them, are real - similar to Larry Niven's Rainbow Mars, in which the various Martian races and cultures created by great Science Fiction writers - Bradbury, Burroughs, Lewis, Wells, etc. - are all real and competing with each other. Das Baz 16:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The introduction paragraph describes the metallicity of the star and rest of the article is about the debris disk. This star deserves much more.--JyriL ^talk 16:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Content has been significantly expanded. — RJH (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The asteroidal and cometary material can be used to create artificial planets and habitats for human settlement. Das Baz 18:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The following text was removed from the main article because I could not find a valid reference to confirm this assertion:

However, Tau Ceti once had the now obsolete name of Durre Menthor, derived from the Arabic درر منثور Al Durr' al-Manthur , meaning "Scattered Pearls".

It was inserted into the article by an anonymous user with no talk page. I'm adding it here in the hopes that a reference can be found in the future. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Possibly here: DavidMalin.com: Durre Menthor, a blacklisted source said from: Al Durr al Manthur, translation not found, yet. The name seems to be a real one, not a hoax. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 15:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Now, let's test another site: Omnipelagos.com: Cetus: < الدرر المنثور al durr' al-manthūur The Scattered Pearls (of the Broken Necklace). ... said: Rursus (bork²) 15:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There might be a small issue with the reliability of those sources, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It would be good if we had something more authoritative, but I couldn't find any book or journal (in English) to corroborate that name.—RJH (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Philip G. Judge, Steven H. Saar, Mats Carlsson, and Thomas R. Ayres (2004). "A Comparison of the Outer Atmosphere of the "Flat Activity" Star τ Ceti (G8 V) with the Sun (G2 V) and α Centauri A (G2 V)". The Astrophysical Journal. 609 (1): 392–406.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Thanks. I inserted it into the section where the possibility of a Maunder minimum is discussed as an additional reference. — RJH (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This article appears to meet all of the criteria for a Good Article. The prose could be cleaned up further, and a more photographic image would be a nice addition, but the article is pretty extensive and well-referenced. (Additional references in the "Observations" section would also not be amiss, unless that entire section is drawn from the single source cited.) Congratulations, and thanks for your hard work. Shimeru 22:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I've added in some more references to the Observations section. Unfortunately I'm not sure where I can get a good photograph at present. At best it would be a bright splotch on a dark background. (Maybe some day when there's better telescopes...) Hopefully some kind visitors will work on polishing the prose a little more; it's sometimes difficult to find such issues with one's own contributions. — RJH (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

(Me too vote). I think this looks good too. Good work! --Ling.Nut 22:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I know that all too well. I realize the technical limitations on actual photographs, too, but I still think it would add something to the article. Maybe it's just me. It's not exactly a major issue, in any case. Shimeru 23:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay I added an illustration. — RJH (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In the first : sorry for my weak english. I came to this article, because the german article to "tau ceti" is very empty. I'm very interested about tau ceti, because i write a story, that based on this star. So i search a lot of material about this star. And so i recognize, that the temperature, that is given here, is not a "true temperature" - it's only based on a equation of black-body-temperature, at a same emission of energy, given by a real measured radius of a body (in this case: star). But no Star is a perfect black-body - so the calculated temperature by a black-body-equation only can be a nearing to the real temperature. And then, there is a caution given by the luminisity through the whole spektrum of radiation, to the visual spektrum. Thats the reason, why there exists : bolometric (whole spektrum of radiation) magnitude (Mbol), and visual magnitude (Mv). The black-body-equation means whole spektrum - but it still be a nearing to the real temperature, and not the exact temperature of the star.In the references there are published measurements of the american astronomical society (through 1984 to 1992), and they came to a temperature : 5528.9 K plus-minus 1.1 K), (http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?letter=.&classic=YES&bibcode=1994ApJ...427.1042G&page=&type=SCREEN_VIEW&data_type=PDF_LOW&send=GET&filetype=.pdf) - on Site 1043 - if i'm understand the publishing in the right way. I also read for the rotation-time 31 days, in other sources.I think the way, to measure the rotation, was the same, like it the way it stands in the link i'm given here. So the reason for the differences are only in a error-range ? In this case, it would be better to write in the wikipedia-article : "rotation: 31 - 34 day's" - or not ? Then: the duskdisk. I wonder how they measured the distance to tauceti. Are they counted the pixels from the picture each for each ? I hope not. Because the angle from which we see to the tau-ceti-system is unknowned (by the measurements about the activities from tau ceti (and for sure his rotation too) the scientists only can "thinking" that we are look to the bottom or top, of the tau-ceti-system (because the results are speaking for a "to little" rotation-velocity). The mesurements give a temperature of the duskdisk about 210 K. I would approximate the albedo of body's like those in the kuiper-belt, and asteroid-belt, and then calculate the distance, in which those objects has 210 K, at a star-radiation which tau ceti has - to came to a distance-value. This value can be compare with the image of the dusk-cloud (seen here : http://www.solstation.com/stars/tau-ceti.htm ----> http://www.solstation.com/stars/tau3ceti.jpg) - and also could compared for a reconstruction of the angle, from which we are look to tau-ceti (because the dusk-belt, is always in a angle near 90 degrees to the rotationaxis of a star, i think (for sure, when there's not a 2-star-system)). The age of tau ceti is also not sure (like they seems to given in this article) - the measurements only allows a result between 4 billion and 10 billion years. I think, this would good to correct in the article to "4 billion to 10 billion years" - because : on the base of which measurement can explain an exact result of 10 billion years ? All measurements have a error-range, and i think, this would be good to taking in the article - for a higher sensibility of scientific caution in "publishing of facts". Lots of Greets from Austria, Pygmalion1 (24. February 9:27 CET)

Hi Pygmalion1. I think I understand most of what you're asking. In most cases I think it's usually better to go with the most recent estimates.

• Yes the T_eff is at an appropriate level in the photosphere. I updated the T_eff to 5,344 K based on a 2004 paper in A&A. This was, in turn, based on Santos et al [2004, A&A, 415, 1153]. The listed error range is about ±50. Rammacher and Cuntz [2003, ApJ, 594:L51-54] give T_eff = 5,320 ± 70 K. Ecuvillon [2004, A&A, 418:703-715] gives 5344 ± 29 K.
• For the rotation rate, Sarra and Olsen [1996, MNRAS] give 34.5 days. Baliunas, Sokoloff, & Soon [1996, ApJ] give 34 days. I couldn't find a more recent estimate, but Rammacher and Cuntz [2003, ApJ, 594:L51] use the 1996 Baliunas, Sokoloff, & Soon estimate.
• Yes the 10 Gyr age in the infobox is a best estimate; the actual modelled range is described in the text. I added a tilde to indicate it's an approximation; the estimated age is from the referenced paper by Folco et al.
• The distance to Tau Ceti was measured via parallax; particularly based on the Hipparcos results. The reference is the SIMBAD data page.
• The location of the dusty disk, I believe, is based on the radiation output from the star and a model of absorbtion and infrared radiation from the dust. This is described in the text.

Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer - but the fourth point would'nt nescessary - because : i'm NOT meaning the distance from earth to tau ceti - i mean the distance of the dusk-cloud to tau ceti. In the 5th point you gave me a answer to this question, and in the other points to the other questions. I'm pleased :-) - Thank you. Greetings from Austria, Pygmalion1 (2. March 2007 , 19:46 CET)

Good. I thought your meaning might not have translated accurately, so I gave both answers. Glad to help. — RJH (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

http://caao.as.arizona.edu/publications/woolf1998_astronomical.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marskell (talk • contribs) 23:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The following was inserted into the text without a reference:

Advanced age is also suggested by a lack of variability.

I think it's correct, but the page is in the middle of an FAC so a proper reference would be appreciated. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I think it would be interesting to add a reference to the fact that Tau Ceti is a solar-analog. Thanks in advance. Poppy 10:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have access to the original paper, Stars resembling the Sun, but the "Hipparcos Results for Solar Analogs" postscript page (accessed from google) does not list Tau Ceti as a solar-analog star. So it may be considered more solar-like. The Chromospheric Activity and Variability of Cycling and Flat Activity Solar-Analog Stars lists Solar-analog stars as having ${\displaystyle {\begin{smallmatrix}0.58\leq B-V\leq 0.72\end{smallmatrix}}}$, which would thus barely include Tau Ceti. So I think it's borderline, but the lack of variability probably weighs in its favor. — RJH (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Tau Ceti is a "southern sky" star in the constellation Cetus ("the whale"); assuming perfect viewing conditions, it is visible below latitude 75°N.^[g] The constellation is large and lies just south of the celestial equator. Notable stars include the highly variable Mira. Although in the same general direction as seen from Earth, stars in a constellation may not be especially close to one another. For instance, the orange giant Beta Ceti, the brightest star in Cetus, is nearly one hundred light years from Sol, compared to Tau Ceti's twelve. As with the Sun, most of Tau Ceti's neighbours are faint M dwarfs and are not visible with the naked eye. YZ Ceti and Luyten 726-8 are the two closest known stars to Tau Ceti.^[1]

I have a number of concerns about this section:

• "The constellation is large..." lacks precision. How large is it and compared to what? It should say something like it is the Xth largest constellation, then give a reference.
• "...and lies just south of the celestial equator" is redundant with the first sentence.
• "Notable stars include the highly variable Mira." This material belongs on the Cetus page. This article isn't about the constellation.
• "As with the Sun, most of Tau Ceti's neighbours are faint M dwarfs and are not visible with the naked eye." Where's the reference?
• The image provided looks like a black box on my screen. The contents are essentially invisible.

I think the section needs significant re-work for it to be included in a featured article. Sorry.—RJH (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Trying to rework it:

The constellation Cetus ("the whale") is located just south of the celestial equator, making Tau Ceti a "southern sky" star; assuming perfect viewing conditions, it is visible below latitude 75°N.^[g] Although the other stars in Cetus appear in close proximity to Tau Ceti, many are located at much greater distances. For example, Beta Ceti, the brightest star in Cetus, is nearly one hundred light years from the Sun, compared to Tau Ceti's twelve. YZ Ceti and Luyten 726-8 are the two closest known stars to Tau Ceti.^[1]

I'm not so familar with english, but in the text "debris disc" and "debris disk" are mixed up. --FrancescoA (talk) 09:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[siːtaɪ]? Every time I've heard this star's name, or anything else in this constellation, I've heard it pronounced [sɛtiː], rhyming with "jetty". Is there any source for it being [siːtaɪ]? I know scientists generally don't seem to follow the pronounciation rules observed in classical latin, but since the genitive of Cetus would be pronounced [keti], I struggle to believe that all astronomers insist on pronouncing three out of four letters completely differently. - filelakeshoe 21:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea where the pronunciation was obtained. To me the pronunciation entries belong in the wiktionary. Feel free to tag it with a {{Fact}} template and we can remove the entry later if it does not get addressed. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hm, well a bit of searching has actually suggested [siːtaɪ] is the "accepted" pronunciation at least. Found an interesting well sourced article on pronunciations of constellations here, which explains why they're not pronounced like latin words. - filelakeshoe 00:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if the "settee" pronunciation could be interference from SETI. It's not pronounced as in Latin because we're not speaking Latin. kwami (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

...Would it be fair to say that Tau Ceti has itself become a widely recognized traditional name? It's been used in enough fictional back stories now (e.g., War of the Worlds (2005 film)) that it's probably the most famous star out there now after Barnard's Star and the Alpha Centauri system.

Are there even other names for it? Mark Stimmel (talk) 15:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't actually find a ref that mentions Tau Ceti in regards to the 2005 film but I'm almost certain I read as much. Does anyone have a Spielberg quote handy? Mark Stimmel (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

By "traditional name", the article means a proper name for the star, as with Sirius or Betelgeuse. I think Tau Ceti is considered a catalogue designation.—RJH (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi RJ -- good to see you typing. I wonder about Chinese/Eastern names? Presumably it had gotten attention from the other side of the world. See Tao. Mark Stimmel (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh God. They've arrived. Thankfully Wikipedia no longer allows us to link to the examiner dot com. But do a Google search. Mark Stimmel (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. I see some Chinese nomenclature has already been added. RJ, an astro-historical question for you: do you think it's possible that something resembling a telescope was invented 5,000 or 50,000 rather than 500 years ago? -- User:Marskell

Conceivably. The nimrud lens is 3,000 years old. The Ancient Greeks were aware of the pinhole lens ~400 BC. But this is perhaps getting a bit off topic.—RJH (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Not entirely. Much is in a name. "Tau" is the prefix for many star names and is a homophone with an entire eastern religious movement. Anyway, good seeing you around. -- User:Marskell

This recently added section is unsourced and appears to be composed of trivia. The topic of Tau Ceti in fiction is already an article, which is also unsourced and full of trivia. As the star and science fiction appear to be the only common themes, I think the subject can be summarized in a single sentence and the content of the section can be moved to the other article with little impact here. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It has asteroids and comets nearby,so a habitable planet may be bombarded by asteroids and comets. --Alexrybak (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's true of the Earth as well.—RJH (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the point the poster was making was, if there is a planet in the "habitable zone," a bombardment of other bodies could bring the organic molecules that hypothetically could 'spark' life to develop. 104.169.35.251 (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

News in France emerging about discovery of 5 planets, including one in habitable zone. News well sourced, with couple of scientists involved being quoted, and name of Journal given in the news source that will publish the discovery.--Exsaol (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

We need to add this info to the later sections of the article, which now contradict the lede. this will take some work. also, i placed a new ref in english. this is better, though if someone feels also having a french language ref here is good, they can add it back. very exciting. I anticipate they will each get their own article, or at least the goldilocks planet.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

What's a more meaningful unit in common usage? Saying "x hs of observation" isn't very informative and should have a parenthetical reference in commonly used time units. 69.243.13.102 (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like another Richontaban fake star name flying around!! Verification please. Dead links won't suffice! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Weird-looking name. Most pages that contain that name and are high on the Google ranking are references of fiction or Wikipedia mirrors. There are, however, this and notably this, "Patrick Moore's Data Book of Astronomy and this book that include it as an alternative name. So, it actually appears to be true! --JorisvS (talk) 13:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Trouble is, those sources are not independent or authoritative -- they have probably picked up and perpetuated Wikipedia hoaxes (the Moore so-called Data Book is a known offender in this regard). I agree with Rursus that it looks like one of the fake names we have weeded out in the past. I am removing it unless some authoritative source can be found. Skeptic2 (talk) 12:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

PS: Looking back through the changelog, I see that the name was introduced in 2006 October by an anonymous user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/168.223.11.198 who had not edited before, but who went on to tinker with other star name data. So, yes, I think a hoaxer. Skeptic2 (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The same author made some changes to the List of stars in Cetus article, some of which were still in place. I could not confirm them, so I pulled them out. Those constellation lists are poorly sourced and often in error. Praemonitus (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Well spotted. I agree with your changes. Incidentally, the IP prefix 168.223.11 is the same as that used by the troll Richontaban, as mentioned by Rursus above.Skeptic2 (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if it should be kept in the lead like that, though. --JorisvS (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

An anonymous editor added data for a sixth planet to a system in which there are five suspected planets. Can the data be reconciled? Praemonitus (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I've attempted to remediate the issue by merging candidate planets f & g, which were linked to the same page. Praemonitus (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference 6 data supported a five planet system with either 168 or 315 days period for the 4th planet, but not both. The 168 days period was computed to be more likely. The wide gap between 168 and 630 days suggests either a small planet that was not ruled out, or more likely an asteroid belt with substantial fragments in asymmetrical distribution that the reference did not discuss. The reference made serious effort to include a small planet at 315 day period, but failed on two accounts. First the 6 planet model found a 1300 day period and a 168 day period, but the 315 day period was absent. Second the stability calculations showed that 168 days and 315 days periods would interfere with each other, tending to prevent the smaller mass from forming a conventional planet. The reference did not rule out the possibility of smaller planets in the system.

The study of 315 days period is important in that it resides in the middle of the habitable zone. It would be a monumental finding if an earth like planet of less than 2 earth masses could be found there. The researchers tried hard to find a habitable planet at 315 day period, but they were careful to avoid mistakes. The data did not support a 315 day period for a major planet. Astrojed (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tau Ceti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628175616/http://www.solstation.com/habitable.htm to http://www.solstation.com/habitable.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722110031/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0218habitable.shtml to http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0218habitable.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

At phys.org, at arXiv. 4 planets are confirmed. --mfb (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Note the study confirms e & f, finds g & h, and refutes b, c, d. I think we should update the article with the new data and flag the first three as "probably disproven". Frankly, at this point, all I'd be willing to put money on is that there is a planetary system. Tarl N. (discuss) 17:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

It looks like e and f are clearly confirmed, but I'm not sure what is going on closer to the star. --mfb (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Can we make it more clear and in subsequent exoplanet discoveries, the method of detection, whether radial velocity or transit? This will help clarify the resulting data for casual readers: i.e., Since transit photometry measurements have yet to be made successfully for Tau Ceti, any actual radii of its exoplanets is a rough estimate. Kortoso (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Transit photometry measurements are not likely since TC's relatively low rotational velocity measurements may indicate that Tau Ceti is being viewed from nearly the direction of its pole.Kortoso (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Tau Ceti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060831111152/http://www.mtwilson.edu/hk/Overview/ to http://www.mtwilson.edu/hk/Overview/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012151613/http://exoplanet.eu/list_no.html to http://exoplanet.eu/list_no.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929115311/http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/seti/seti_history_05.html to http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/seti/seti_history_05.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071224211320/http://media.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6123 to http://media.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6123
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060824164259/http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/taucet.html to http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/taucet.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

An IP editor is repeatedly changing the article to change the spectral class of Tau Ceti from G8 to K1. The reference we have cited (and my own textbooks) specify G8. Anyone know what's going on here? Tarl N. (discuss) 01:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

No idea. They're practically the same class, but better to stick with the reference. Praemonitus (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm at 3RR, and the editor isn't responding to talk page (here or their own), or edit comments. He's also fiddling with K-type main-sequence star and G-type main-sequence star to enforce his changes. I've reported him to WP:ANI/3RR, but not getting any action there (what, do they think it's a weekend or something? :-). Tarl N. (discuss) 01:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Well I reverted the last, but I'll hold off now until the report is resolved. Praemonitus (talk) 02:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Blocked, so hopefully they'll notice their talk page when they next try to edit. Thanks, Tarl N. (discuss) 02:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

If that doesn't work, they could always semi-protect the article for a while. I went looking for a source for the K1 class, but the nearest I found was NSTARS which shows G8.5V. Praemonitus (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking at their edit history, I found a comment that suggests the editor believes mass and spectral class are directly related by a precise formula. So presumably what we're seeing is WP:OR, and mistaken. The IP has been blocked for a couple of days, which should lead the editor to look at their talk page. Hopefully we'll see a reaction there. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if Tau Ceti d or i should be included in the planet box. I know I made the edits, but considering what happened with Proxima d, maybe we should err on the side of caution. TheWhistleGag (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Since this is an encyclopedia, I think we should err on the side of caution and mostly stick to reliable, conservative results. A decade from now this may all have changed. Praemonitus (talk) 04:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

By the way, what's the cite for i? The mass strikes me as incorrect - we're not exactly likely to know an upper limit on the mass. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

http://exoplanet.eu/catalog/tau_cet_i/. It links to the paper already cited since it states that the planet has to be less than 5 M_J. I did some simple math to determine its Earth mass value and its orbital period from its SMA. TheWhistleGag (talk)

While the planet has had an edit war, I have added the ref where i has been possibly discovered and removed any original research. TheWhistleGag (talk) 03:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I have added research that may support the existence of Tau Ceti i, if only indirectly. It was featured in the news and shows that dry super-Earths tend to have Jovian companions. While it may not be the most fascinating, and it is not a direct confirmation of the planet, I felt it was something just to throw out there. TheWhistleGag (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

That's WP:OR, which is not allowed. All it shows is that they may be a giant planet (>0% chance); it does not confirm that the said planet is your component 'i'. Also your Deitrich and Apai (2008) reference does not appear to constitute an independent confirmation, since they are just rehashing the same data. Praemonitus (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

This is not completely original research: it is from a paper that has been peer-reviewed and published in astronomical journals. I understand that the Dietrich reference is rehashing some of the same data, but it does say that its mass would be more equivalent to 1–2 Jupiter masses instead of less than 5. I have erred on the side of caution with adding planet j (and dubious candidate k), but the fact that the analysis detects b and c is somewhat good news. TheWhistleGag (talk) 04:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Unless the paper specifically mentions Tau Ceti i, it is you who is assembling the information in an original way. We're an encyclopedia, not a research group. Praemonitus (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Understood. I will remove the extra citation. TheWhistleGag (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting you remove it, just don't use it for OR. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

New paper An Integrated Analysis with Predictions on the Architecture of the τ Ceti Planetary System, Including a Habitable Zone Planet https://arxiv.org/pdf/2010.14675.pdf 2600:8804:4904:8A00:4D68:99B3:D01E:254B (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)