Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a25ed831c8424bc2

Jump to content

Talk:HIP 13044

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Ruslik0 in topic Merger proposal
Good articleHIP 13044 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
DateProcessResult
June 14, 2011Good article nomineeListed

GA Review

[edit]

Hyphens again

[edit]

This time it is more clear-cut. Yes, there are examples of "horizontal-branch", but I went back though four years of published peer-reviewed papers and only about 2% of them use a dash. Going back further it seems to be more common, but still in the minority. In common usage, the hyphen is very rare. UK/US style differences in the use of hyphenated adjectives? Is this a hyphenated adjective? Lithopsian (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Must I really tell you again that that is a hyphen, not a dash? And again, this is not common usage vs. uncommon usage, but an instance of logic: The term is "horizontal branch" (i.e. without a hyphen). When this term is used to modify a noun (i.e. is used as an adjective), e.g. "star", i.e. logically '[horizontal branch] star', this must be written "horizontal-branch star" because otherwise it would indicate 'horizontal [branch star]'. --JorisvS (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

No planet

[edit]

According to this paper, this star has no planet. Looks like this page needs updating --Artman40 (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Merger proposal

[edit]

I propose that the article HIP 13044 b be merged into this article. There is no evidence that this planet exists (see the Jones & Jenkins 2014 reference in this article), so it does not make sense to have a long detailed discussion of a non-existent object. 77.56.99.23 (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

In this case Template:HIP_13044 should be deleted. Ruslik_Zero 19:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply