User talk:Stevinger

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Stevinger! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! paul2520 💬 03:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding in exoplanets'/planets' name

@Stevinger in the case of official name, we use official name first (Dimidium) before blanketing the commmon or uncommon name like 51 Peg b so that readers will know like: "Oh Dimidium is official name but eh.... 51 Peg b sounds cool anyway...." when refering to specified planet Foxy Husky (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exoplanet Ahra and status uncertain (List of largest exoplanets)

@Stevinger regarding ur lastest editing comment, i agree with ur first part of the comment. however, the IAU definition of (exo)planet is kinda whacky and a bit problemic. lets say a rogue planet is wondering all alone and one day, it pass by a star whose mass strong enough to have such planet orbit around the star. does this count as (exo)planet or rouge planet? or if the (rogue) sub-brown dwarf that has deuterium present in its atmosphere or fusing deuterium in its core, is captured by the host star(s) or object(s) and the astronomer(s) find(s) it, would this be still sub-brown dwarf or (exo)planet?
for the last part of ur comment, the '?' is "Status uncertain" without stating "while brown dwarf" or "sub-brown dwarf" which because i marked Ahra with '?', Ahra is exoplanet but its status unclear not sub-brown dwarf. Foxy Husky (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. As far as I know even a star that is stripped by a companion star of a lot of material until its mass is low enough would be regarded as a planet by the current IAU definition. An object that is fusing deuterium, however, would be neither a sub-brown dwarf nor an (exo)planet, but a brown dwarf.

I thought the '←' is better or at least equally good than '?', because it says 'Probably exoplanets (≲ 13 M_J) (based on mass)' which is true no matter if Ahra is younger than Maru or not. Poltergeist has this '←' category (key), too, despite it 'likely to form in a second round of planet formation'. So Poltergeist might be much younger than its star Lich, too. So I meant that Ahra and Poltergeist around a white dwarf and a neutron star, both not clear whether they are younger or at the same age as their host stars, should probably have the same key or category, either both '←' or '?'. Hope you see it the same way.

Thank you by the way for explaining me the difficulty to read something in dark mode with the color scheme I used. I was not aware! Stevinger (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

in case of Ahra, i believe '?' key/category would be better 'cause while everything inside Ahra is good, the retrieved mass is way less than expected mass according to these astronomers who concluded that either mass is wrong or the age is wrong(?). also Ahra orbits so far away that if Ahra is that young, its not possible to form like that. Maru is already white dwarf and its age of around 2 Gyr. by time, its outer former main sequence star alr dispersed, making second round of formation impossible. if Ahra were to be migrated at the end of main sequence, its temperature would be much lower than a bit hotter than Earth avg. temperature. (Jupiter is alr cold and even after 2Gyr following Sun's explosion, would be still too cold) this qualifies Ahra as 'Status uncertain' category '?'.

for Lich planets, the astronomers alr confirmed Lick planeets are formed in second round which is consistent with the age of planetary system Foxy Husky (talk) 07:50, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the retrieved mass might be much less than previously expected. The reference phrases it like that: 'The retrieved radius (Rp = 1.12+0.07 −0.07 RJ, see Table 2) is consistent with a planet of 2 ± 0.5 Gyr old and a mass of Mp ∈ [6.3, 9.4] MJ (i.e., the retrieved mass would be incorrect), but also with a much younger (60−180 Myr) and lighter planet with Mp ∈ [0.45, 1.75] MJ (i.e., the age estimate would be incorrect).' Do you still want to keep it in the '?' key/category? The evidence is interesting, but it is inconsistent in itself (radius vs. mass). Usually the radius is easier to determine. So it is not clear whether it is really much younger than previously expected. And to my best knowledge 60-180 Myr are more than enough to form a planet. If it is very far out it might just have been scattered by another planet or a star passing the system at close separation interacting with the planet. Stevinger (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if we were keep the "?" key/category, then that category would be "Status uncertain (inconsistency in age or mass of planetary system or planet itself)".... but that one is quite long

so..... wut about this new category?

Key (Classification)
↑	Status uncertain (inconsistency in age or mass of planet)

Foxy Husky (talk) 04:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok. Let's use this one. Stevinger (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]