![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Neither of the reference links for this star work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.74.214 ( talk) 19:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
In this edit last March, Astre added information about a newly-discovered planetary system around Wolf 1061.
Except … I think this is the wrong star.
name | RA | Dec | const | type | mag | notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GJ 628 | 16h 30m 18.1s | -12d 39m 45s | Oph | M3.5 | 10.10 | Wolf 1061 |
GJ 682 | 17h 37m 03.7s | -44d 19m 09s | Ara | M4.0 | 10.95 | 2 planets |
Earlier today, someone editing from an anonymous IP address deleted the section on the newly-discovered planetary system, which triggered an automatic tag designed to detect vandalism; with no edit summary to explain the deletion, it looked very much like the hundred or more such cases of random deletions that occur every day, and I reverted the change, restoring the section. But after checking on the details of the discovery, it seems that the deletion was appropriate. The new planets were discovered around GJ 682; Wolf 1061 is GJ 628, with the last two digits transposed. So that's one “oops” for Astre and one for me. I've deleted the mistaken section (again).
Unician ∇ 09:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
74.216.14.113 ( talk) 06:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
According to this source,† Wolf 1061 is a BY Draconis variable with a variability of 10.050−10.100 in magnitude. I'm unclear why this doesn't match the information from Wright et al. Praemonitus ( talk) 21:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
The lead gives the rotational period as both most likely longer than 100 days and 89.3±1.8~ days. According to the lead, the habitable zone lies between 0.11-0.21 AU and 0.09–0.23 AU. According to the planetary system section, it extends from approximately 0.073 to 0.190 AU. The latter is a very significant difference, as one planet is either in the zone or not depending on which is correct.-- Klausok ( talk) 09:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Neither of the reference links for this star work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.74.214 ( talk) 19:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
In this edit last March, Astre added information about a newly-discovered planetary system around Wolf 1061.
Except … I think this is the wrong star.
name | RA | Dec | const | type | mag | notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GJ 628 | 16h 30m 18.1s | -12d 39m 45s | Oph | M3.5 | 10.10 | Wolf 1061 |
GJ 682 | 17h 37m 03.7s | -44d 19m 09s | Ara | M4.0 | 10.95 | 2 planets |
Earlier today, someone editing from an anonymous IP address deleted the section on the newly-discovered planetary system, which triggered an automatic tag designed to detect vandalism; with no edit summary to explain the deletion, it looked very much like the hundred or more such cases of random deletions that occur every day, and I reverted the change, restoring the section. But after checking on the details of the discovery, it seems that the deletion was appropriate. The new planets were discovered around GJ 682; Wolf 1061 is GJ 628, with the last two digits transposed. So that's one “oops” for Astre and one for me. I've deleted the mistaken section (again).
Unician ∇ 09:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
74.216.14.113 ( talk) 06:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
According to this source,† Wolf 1061 is a BY Draconis variable with a variability of 10.050−10.100 in magnitude. I'm unclear why this doesn't match the information from Wright et al. Praemonitus ( talk) 21:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
The lead gives the rotational period as both most likely longer than 100 days and 89.3±1.8~ days. According to the lead, the habitable zone lies between 0.11-0.21 AU and 0.09–0.23 AU. According to the planetary system section, it extends from approximately 0.073 to 0.190 AU. The latter is a very significant difference, as one planet is either in the zone or not depending on which is correct.-- Klausok ( talk) 09:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)