This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Astronomy: Astronomical objects Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

List of images to possibly include:

• File:Eso1245c.jpg
• File:Eso1245a.jpg
• File:Artist's impression of the free-floating planet CFBDSIR J214947.2-040308.9.ogv

Braincricket ( talk) 14:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC) reply

The third reference doesn't say that the planet is about 100 light years from Earth. The article doesn't give any distance figures at all. Is there a confirmed distance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.196.60.50 ( talk) 18:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC) reply

You are right. I'm parsing the paper and it seems there are several informed guesses at the distance but no real confirmed value. I'll edit to reflect this fact. -- Cyclopia ^talk 18:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC) reply

My mistake. Thanks for catching and correcting it. I haven't had a chance to read through all the sources yet, but I'll put some more work into it when I get back from work tonight. Braincricket ( talk) 18:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Eso reports its distance to earth to be 100 light years too: [1] Amphicoelias ( talk) 18:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply

The article now reports the estimates from the discovery paper, which seem the most reliable source so far. -- Cyclopia ^talk 19:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply

"If this object is actually a rogue planet [...], then it is the closest that has ever been spotted." - this statement has become outdated. Shorr ( talk) 23:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Updated the info -given the uncertainities I think it's hard to say definitely which is closer, but paragraph now just refers it as "among the closest" - and mentions the new object.-- cyclopia ^speak! 16:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

The central blue dot in the image is *very* dim, which means it is almost impossible to see when it's not enlarged. Should we add a coloured circle or arrow to point at it? I suspect some readers can confound it with the bright cyan spot. -- Cyclopia ^talk 17:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC) reply

• Good idea.-- Tianyamm2 ( talk) 12:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Are planets like these good candidates for direct imaging since there is no parent star? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.130.20 ( talk) 19:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Article states that the body is a brown dwarf, but apparently cites this to a (non-technical) article that states that it probably isn't ("The team believe it has [...] mass between four and seven times that of Jupiter - well short of the mass limit that would make it a likely brown dwarf"). Unless something has changed since that article has been published and the mass estimate has been revised upwards, should this assertion not be removed? 212.159.69.4 ( talk) 00:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply

A very good point. Given that there is only a 13% chance that this object is a brown dwarf according to the paper, that brown dwarf statement should be removed. I will update the article. Martin Cash ( talk) 17:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply