Talk:OGLE-2007-BLG-349(AB)b

Naming conflict

@MarioProtIV and Quantanew: Hey! I've done some research into the issue of OGLE-2007-BLG-349(AB)b vs OGLE-2007-BLG-349(AB)c, and as far as I can tell only the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia uses "b". I've reached out to them via email and I'll report back here if I make any progress with them. My cursory understanding International Astronomical Union's exoplanet naming convention would seem to indicate that "b" is correct. Something very weird is going on here. I've edited the cautionary note in the article a little. I've also left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#OGLE-2007-BLG-349(AB)b naming conflict. TheDragonFire (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simbad also uses "b", but that isn't proof of anything. It also prefers the "original" designation for the lensing event EWS-2007-BUL-349, which nobody uses. The new text is definitely an improvement but it still smacks of "picking winners". We have an extremely limited number of sources for the name (two, possibly three, although I found a couple of papers referencing the discovery and repeating the "c" usage - none mentioning "b"), and are hardly in a position to determine which will become the most common usage. Reading between the lines of a Wikipedia article describing a proposal to change exoplanet naming conventions and then declaring which name is "correct" seems a little too close to WP:SYNTHESIS. I feel that we should simply describe that there are two (and more) names in use, where, and why. I don't think any amount of emails or other arguments from one side or the other would change that, unless by some miracle they decide they were wrong withdraw their name . Just for the record, I'm not a fan of Wikipedia editors deciding what names "should be" in contravention of the original authors or common usage, whether for grammatical or nomenclatural conventions. If you want my vote, I think we keep the article name (for now at least) and just describe the situation. I wouldn't object to a page move, but neither name seems preferable at this stage. Lithopsian (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lithopsian: Feel free to edit my footnote. I am conscious that it's a little WP:SYNTHESISy, but it's better than what was there originally. To be clear, I wasn't referring to the 2010 proposal, but rather the first planet discovered in a system is given the designation "b", which to my understanding is accepted practice. I suspect there will either be a good reason for the discrepancy, or it will simply be an error. If it's an error, Wikipedia doesn't gain anything by perpetuating the error and we should sort it out with the sources. If it actually is a disagreement, then I'll know soon (provided I can get on to the relevant people) and I can clarify the article. I think a move could be justified based on WP:COMMONNAME right now, but I would prefer to confirm what's actually going on before I do so. TheDragonFire (talk) 04:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was intentional on the part of the authors of the paper (and they describe why), and yes there is disagreement about how these cases should be handled. It is especially difficult when the status of multiple masses in a system are unclear; for example, are there two planets around a star, a brown dwarf and a planet, or a second small star and a planet? What do you call them all until you work it out? Lithopsian (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lithopsian: Ohhhh. I'm sorry, I missed the note in the paper itself. This all makes far more sense, given that context. This should be fairly easy to handle then. TheDragonFire (talk) 05:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]