Talk:HD 85512

New planet

one new planet it's beem found around HD 85512, A Habitable Planet around HD 85512?

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1108/1108.3561.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.69.104 (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magnitude

How can HD 85512's Apparent Magnitude be less than its Absolute Magnitude when the star is more than 10 parsecs away? Any logarithm to base 10 of a number greater than 10 is greater than 1. So, either the Apparent Magnitude is quoted wrong or the Absolute Magnitude is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.211.85 (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to HD 85512 Mike Cline (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 370 → HD 85512 – Almost all other sources refer to the star by it's Henry Draper catalog number - The discovery paper, exoplanet.eu, and even the planet article. relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC) ShellfaceTheStrange (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the discovery paper mentioned by the nom is not the discovery paper of the star. That paper does not document the discovery of this star. No opinion on renaming the star article itself. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment - This RM need serious input from experts on star naming conventions so an informed decision can be made. Astronomy project notified. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I'm not an expert, but WP:STARNAMES gives equal weight to the Gliese/GJ or HD name. Hence, WP:POVTITLE should apply. Personally I'm fine with the suggested rename. The Henry Draper catalogue identifier is likely older than the Gliese designation. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move per nom. Both HD and Gliese names are equally valid, but HD does seem to be used more in the research literature. Modest Genius ^talk 10:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move. Came here to request this move myself. HD designation seems to be used more in the literature and is more familiar thanks to the news coverage of the planet. 46.126.76.193 (talk) 08:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

HD 85512.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I propose merging HD 85512 b into HD 85512. I think the content in HD 85512 b can easily be explained here, and, because the planet is likely to be an artifact, the content in both articles would duplicate each other. This could tell to readers that planet might not exist, as the previous article is no longer out there. 21 Andromedae (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. SevenSpheres (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Per Nom. The two together would make a nice article. -- Otr500 (talk) 11:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]