Talk:Teegarden's Star b

Method of discovery

In the Discovery section it says Teegarden b was discovered in June 2019. The alignment and dimness of Teegarden wouldn't lend itself to this method however, -- what method? Nothing has been described. 146.90.75.109 (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed this section — the method you asked about was the transit method; the sentence now reads: Because of the alignment and faintness of Teegarden's Star, Doppler spectroscopy (also known as the radial velocity method) was necessary to detect possible exoplanets. I changed the sentence because it was taken heavily from a media article (see WP:COPYOTHERS) and consequently did not fit the surrounding context well. Additionally, the transit method in the end was not involved with this discovery (radial velocity was), and so is not necessary to include in this article (in my opinion — if you have different thoughts please share!) Hope this helps! :) Supernova58 (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the Discovery section it says This method doesn't detect exoplanets indirectly by observing their effects on a host star's radial velocity... Shouldn't it be This method _does_ detect exoplanets... 2003:C3:870C:AE00:5B6E:9069:345B:A448 (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC) Thorsten[reply]

Requested move 17 July 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved, per consensus. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teegarden b → Teegarden's Star b
Teegarden c → Teegarden's Star c

– For the following reasoning I will refer to planet b but it applies to planet c also. Both names (Teegarden b and Teegarden's Star b) are used by multiple sources (for example Fox News and Space.com used Teegarden b, while Phys.org and National Geographic used Teegarden's Star b). However, reputable sources such as NASA tend to prefer the latter (Teegarden's Star b). Additionally, the name "Teegarden's Star b" would fit precedent as it is the name used in both the article Teegarden's Star (see WP:PLANETNAMES) and the planet's discovery paper (which is listed in the references of this article if anyone wants to check it out). When multiple names are in common use, the discovery name is usually listed as the title while an abbreviated name (like Teegarden b) is usually listed as an alternative name. An example of this is the article Proxima Centauri b ("Proxima b" is an alternative name). Thanks for considering and feel free to share your own thoughts below! Supernova58 (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per WP:CONSISTENCY with the parent article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Artistic depiction

I have created an artistic depiction, may I add this?

Bubblesorg (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid in a vacuum?

"Astronomers estimate that Teegarden's Star b has a 60 percent chance of having liquid water, but only a 3 percent chance of having an atmosphere."

Sadly, the source is offline, but you can't have liquid water without an atmosphere... --Neopeius (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something similar is mentioned in the main Teegarden's Star article, but there it's made clear that these are the results of two different studies, which obviously contradict each other. The text in this article should be rewritten. SevenSpheres (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]