Talk:Upsilon Andromedae

Upsilon Andromedae has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 14, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
September 18, 2008	Good topic candidate	Promoted
March 2, 2009	Good article reassessment	Kept
February 11, 2015	Good topic removal candidate	Demoted
Current status: Good article

This is a Good Article

After review, I've determined that this article meets the qualifications for GA status. It is well written, well referenced, and comprehensive. I'm "Mass Passing" this article along with 9 others. The entire list is below. If new developments arise that would effect the references or comprehensiveness of this article, it may affect the others as well.

Keep up the good work. These articles are ideal "good articles". They can't be FA, because there is no way for them to get long enough, but they are as comprehensive and complete as possible, and represent a good effort on the part of the editors. Feel free to message me if you have any questions about my rationale. Phidauex 18:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose merging the article Upsilon Andromedae e into the "Planetary system" section of this article. The planet was invoked in one possible model to explain the eccentricities of the two outer planets in the Upsilon Andromedae system: it has not been detected (in fact, if it ever existed the model predicts it was ejected from the system billions of years ago). It would thus seem to fit better in a discussion of the formation and architecture of the system as a whole, rather than in an article dedicated to a hypothetical planet. 131.111.8.104 (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: this article does not have enough information or references to be an article. But I do draw the line at removing it from the planetbox on the star's article. — Nuclear Vacuum 23:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with keeping the planet in the planetbox: I wouldn't put Theia into the list of planets orbiting the Sun, as it no longer exists. By similar reasoning, even if planet "e" existed, it no longer orbits Upsilon Andromedae so is no longer a part of the system. 131.111.8.104 (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The merge is complete. I also removed planet "e" from the box, only because there is no information on it what so ever. I still kept it in the article, I just vanished it from the article. — Nuclear Vacuum 18:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

System components

Note that the stars BD+40 332B and BD+40 332C are the optical components - they are not physically bound to the Upsilon Andromedae system. Information on the physical companion star Upsilon Andromedae B is available on SIMBAD here. 86.171.72.213 (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Stars, constellations, and clusters" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. I would recommend going through all of the citations and updating the access dates and fixing any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astrometry

The article currently says

Astrometry of the innermost planet, meanwhile, constrained its inclination to 30-90 degrees

It's always astrometry of the star, as the planets can not be seen with currently available telescopes; and the statement is also strange (and probably wrong) because there are no limits (in the article) for the other 3 planets, which would cause larger apparent movement of the star (the masses are larger (except for planet e; and shouldn't these be the lower limits for the masses as long as the inclinations are unknown?), and the distances are larger, so the center of gravity is further from the star when looking at an outer planet and the star vs. looking at the inner planet and the star). Icek (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the usage is incorrect. As to the claim, the cited reference [17] is not a peer reviewed publication but a conference presentation. The more recent [14] New Observational Constraints (by the same authors and others) states that the astrometric signal of planet b could not be detected with the HST Fine Guidance Sensor. I think it would be better not to rely on [17] at all if it conflicts with the more recent and higher status publication [14] by the same authors. Qemist (talk) 07:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Masses in the planet table

Why are we using the radial velocity minimum masses (i.e. lower bounds on the true mass), when the true masses of planets c and d are available via astrometry? These planets have been shown to have masses much larger than the minimum masses, and in fact to have a reversed mass hierarchy (i.e. planet c is in fact more massive, the radial velocity minimum mass is lower because its orbit is closer to face-on). 46.126.76.193 (talk) 07:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Titawin

I undid the move to "Titawin" ; that is not the more commonly known name for this star. Please discuss here before moving it again. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, because Upsilon Andromedaeis a better name. One example is Yanyan, which was moved to HD 38283 b. 117daveawesome (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Upsilon Andromedae

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Upsilon Andromedae's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "WMC":

From 55 Cancri: William I. Hartkopf; Brian D. Mason. "Addressing confusion in double star nomenclature: The Washington Multiplicity Catalog". United States Naval Observatory. Retrieved 2011-10-08. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |last-author-amp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
From Exoplanet: Hartkopf, William I. and Mason, Brian D. "Addressing confusion in double star nomenclature: The Washington Multiplicity Catalog". United States Naval Observatory. Retrieved 12 September 2008.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're both referring to the same USNO web page. Either would do. I have fixed the reference (11) in the article. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Upsilon Andromedae. 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:

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) 00:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]