Talk:HIP 99770 b

Requested move 21 May 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Not enough in either direction for a consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 15:05, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

---

HIP 99770 b → 29 Cygni b29 Cygni b – I think it's now very clear that almost no one calls it HIP 99770 b and it's star is already told by it's Flamsteed name 29 Cygni and after Webb observation they also called it 29 Cygni b. So for multiple reasons please move it to 29 Cygni b and is also consistent with it's star designation Abdullah1099 (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 14:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

This statement is not correct.

Only Balmer et al. (2026) call it 29 Cygni b.

All other literature sources -- the Science discovery paper and all other subsequent characterization papers thus far -- call it HIP 99770 b. The name should not be changed but alternate names should be given for clarity, when needed. 2632cgn (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

To give more detail, the discovery paper -- https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Sci...380..198C/abstract -- calls it HIP 99770 b. Except for the single paper in question, all direct citations to this paper naming the object call it HIP 99770 b.

As do major follow up papers presenting new data here -- https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A%26A...700A...4W/abstract

and here -- https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025AJ....170..254B/abstract .

Thus, a move is not justified and would only sow confusion by adopting a name that is not widely recognized in the astronomy community.

The name should remain HIP 99770 b. 2632cgn (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@2632cgn Bro, I want to know is it not confusing when anyone seen the NASA and other updates on 29 Cygni b and for getting more info he comes to know 29 Cygni b is called HIP 99770 b on Wikipedia while more mysteriously it host star is called 29 Cygni not HIP 99770. Either use one designation don't mismatch the designations. As per priority i think Flamsteed designation 29 Cygni should be use instead of Hipparcos designations. Overall i want to resolve the mismatch in designations Abdullah1099 (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

This does not follow. As stated before, there is but a single peer-reviewed paper that gives the primary name for this object as 29 Cyg b. All others give HIP 99770 b, including the discovery paper. The NASA Exoplanet Archive also calls it HIP 99770 b: https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/overview/HIP%2099770 . In other words, the paper you allude to is a sole outlier thus far.

HIP 99770 b is the first example of a joint imaging + astrometry detection: in that subfield, a common practice is to adopt the Hipparcos ID as the naming convention for these types of objects (note: Hipparcos was a space astrometry mission). There is no established preference for adopting the Flamsteed designation in this case.

The argument about switching designations also does not follow. There are examples in the direct imaging literature of the companion name designation differing from often-used other designations (e.g. WISPIT 2b and c orbit a star commonly called TYC 5709-354-1).

Adding a note saying that HIP 99770 b is "sometimes called" 29 Cyg b or adding this alternate name in the parentheses is perfectly fine. But there is absolutely no justification for moving the article title at this point. 2632cgn (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I understood what you want to tell Abdullah1099 (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

But my another concern is that James Webb also used 29 Cygni b Abdullah1099 (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

No, this is a bad argument as well. James Webb does not "use" 29 Cygni b: JWST is not a conscious being.

Rather, one paper from a single set of authors using JWST data uses 29 Cyg b as the main identifier (but also notes that this is HIP 99770 b). Every other paper -- most importantly the discovery paper -- identifies it as HIP 99770 b.

Again, no justification for any name change. 2632cgn (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Technically you wrote James Webb, but unfortunately he did not live that long to be able to comment on 29 Cygni b / HIP 99770 b, but that aside.

After checking you are right, that 29 Cygni b got a lot of media attention, so a lot of people know the object as 29 Cygni b. Nevertheless I am also against a move of the name to 29 Cygni b. As already given the basis for the JWST media attention is a single publication.

With priority you probably meant WP:STARNAMES, putting a Flamsteed designation higher than a HIP number, even putting HD 192640 higher. However, there are other examples, which did not follow these recommendations at all. A very well known being HR 8799, which could be called V342 Pegasi or HD 218396 or HIP 114189 instead.

For the moment I am weakly opposed to a renaming being based on a single publication. If further, future publications should use 29 Cygni b instead of HIP 99770 b, it might be a different situation. Stevinger (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand both of your concerns but as you told HR 8799 but in that case i think all of them are telling it HR 8799 and there is not gap in star and planet designation and i am well aware that changing star name is a bit complex thing. But my explanation is that i seen use of 29 Cygni is becoming more popular and yeah if in further future publications the name is used then changing name would be more acceptable. Also personally the designation of star and planet feels very off Abdullah1099 (talk) 05:13, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

" i seen use of 29 Cygni is becoming more popular"

Not really. Not to be a broken record, but again there is a *single* paper calling it by this name vs. basically everyone else -- esp. the discovery paper -- labeling it HIP 99770 b. One paper does not identify a trend. There are also scattered cases in the literature where the companions to HR 8799 are instead listed as HD 218396 bcde, etc (e.g. HD 218396 b is the entry given in SIMBAD).

As for whether the designation feels "off", the designation is accurate: the star in question does have a Hipparcos ID number of 99770 and the designation of the first found planet around it should have a lowercase 'b' [note also: prior to the planet discovery, the host star was called many different names -- HIP 99770, HD 192640, 29 Cyg, etc.]. The situation would be different if a designation that appeared in a Wiki enry were in fact inaccurate.

At this point, the title move request should be rejected and closed.

However, ensuring that readers clearly understand that HIP 99770 b = 29 Cyg b in the main article text is important. 2632cgn (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, too. Since you write 'it's now very clear that almost no one calls it HIP 99770 b' I assume you are speaking of many news articles in the media you saw. However, the guidelines state: 'When more than one name is in common usage, preference should be given to the name used in the more reliable sources. For astronomical objects, papers in scientific journals or publications of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) are regarded as more reliable than press releases or articles in the popular media.' (Naming conventions). Stevinger (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Neutral: I don't oppose a move; 29 Cygni b is used, though not as often as HIP 99770 b. However at Talk:82 G. Eridani d#Requested move 30 May 2026, 21.Andromedae has pointed out WP:PLANETNAMES which says that titles of exoplanet articles should match those of their host stars, so according to that guideline this page should be moved. SevenSpheres (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

This seems to become a more general discussion. The guidelines also say that if the planet is intentionally catalogued differently than its parent star the planet article should be named differently.

Now what does it mean in practice?: 1) There are stars that were renamed according to new planet names, e.g. Kepler-7b around Kepler-7 or Qatar-1 having a planet while the star could also be called V592 Dra. 2) There are of course plenty of planets named according to the star's Flamsteed designation, like 51 Peg b. 3) There are planets that are not following WP:PLANETNAMES, e.g. PDS 70 or HR 8799 are not the highest ranked names for the stars in WP:PLANETNAMES, but these names for star and planets are now common. 4) There are cases for which star and planet have different names,TrES-1 is around GSC 02652-01324. 5) There is the case of YSES-1, wikipedia using this name because it is recommended, see move request, while major archives are still using TYC 8998-760-1.

The common exoplanet archives use HIP 99770 b as most scientific publications do. I wrote all that to show, that not automatically the planet name follows the most common star name in practice, but it can be the other way around or they are simply different. Stevinger (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

"if the planet is intentionally catalogued differently than its parent star the planet article should be named differently."

There are also other recent examples of this in the direct imaging literature: e.g. WISPIT-2b, which orbits the star catalogued as TYC 5709-550-1.

While oppose is the best justified position, it might make sense to put in a redirect both for the planet (29 Cyg b-->HIP 99770 b) and the star (HIP 99770--> 29 Cyg), so that people searching for one name can still find what they are looking for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirect 2632cgn (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Planetary nature

@2632cgn, you convinced me several month ago about the classification of the object. I forgot about it, but stumbled across a publication, which I added. After your removal, the edit history description / explanation 'the cited references do not support this conclusion and/or are not peer reviewed *science* papers' (yours) is confusing, since both references that were given are peer reviewed. You might have missed that and following your criteria 'If a reader disagrees, then the onus is on them to present their case from the body of peer-reviewed work' I will add them again. You convinced me once, so if I misunderstood please explain. Stevinger (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi: neither paper establishes a scientific basis for reclassifying HIP 99770 b as a brown dwarf.

The Winterhalder et al. paper is one you previously referenced. As another editor noted, the article never states that HIP 99770 b is a brown dwarf: such a claim appears nowhere in the paper. The authors note that HIP 99770 b has a higher eccentricity than most directly imaged planets, but they do not argue that this implies a different classification. Instead, they compare it to other moderately eccentric companions such as 51 Eri b and eps Ind b, both of which are incontrovertibly planets. In any case, a later analysis incorporating the KPIC relative RV measurement finds a lower eccentricity (Bovie et al. 2025).

The Lissauer et al. paper does not discuss HIP 99770 b at all and is not a peer-reviewed scientific paper presenting original quantitative analysis like the other studies discussed here, nor does it appear in a standard journal (e.g. ApJ, A&A) like the others. It is a short review of proposed planet definitions mostly circa 2018 rather than an original analysis of HIP 99770 or any other system. Moreover, the reasoning behind a deuterium-burning criterion was explicitly addressed/critiqued in the HIP 99770 b discovery paper, which presented a demographics-based analysis favoring a planetary classification. That analysis has not been directly refuted in the literature.

More recent work also argues against a deuterium-burning boundary. For example, Zhang et al. (2025) favor a mass-ratio criterion of roughly 2%, under which HIP 99770 b would be classified as a planet.They also directly address the claims in the Lissauer et al work and cited studies that Lissauer et al relied on. The most recent paper investigating HIP 99770 b’s nature, Balmer et al. (2026), ,likewise argue for a planetary formation pathway.

Given the above, the cited papers do not support changing the article's current classification, so I am reverting the edit and also clarifying how HIP 99770 b’s eccentricity compares to that of other objects. 2632cgn (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

It is not a reclassification, except you solely meant in wikipedia. As you wrote the deuterium-burning criterion was presented in the discovery paper, while being addressed/critiqued. Winterhalder+ also acknowledged it, writing 'the second (scenario) suggests a more massive object beyond the deuterium-burning threshold at an age of 119+37−10 Myr.' and continue writing elsewhere the threshold is 'the conventional choice of classifier between planets and BDs', under which, as you put it, HIP 99770 b would be classified as a brown dwarf.

The Lecavelier des Etangs and Lissauer publication naturally can't be an original analysis of HIP 99770 b as the companion was not yet published at the time of this publication. However, as given in the name discussion topic above, three things make a publication very reliable in terms of guidelines from wikipedia. 1) if it is peer-reviewed, 2) if it is a publication of the International Astronomical Union (IAU), both in (Naming conventions), 3) if it is a secondary source. While we can discuss whether all the peer-reviewed scientific paper presenting original quantitative analysis you are speaking of are primary sources or not, Lecavelier des Etangs and Lissauer unite all three of these traits. As a review it is a peer-reviewed secondary source presenting IAU commission discussion results. Stevinger (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand that the situation may seem ‘messy’ from those on the outside. But the comments misunderstand the status of peer-reviewed literature relevant to HIP 99770 b’s taxonomy. The current peer-reviewed literature consensus is that HIP 99770 b is a planet.

The Lecavelier des Etangs and Lissauer work is *not* an official publication of the IAU nor does it represent an official, final IAU position. While technically it passed some form of peer review in some non-standard journal, it does not present original quantitative analysis like the other studies discussed here establishing HIP 99770 b *or any other object* as a brown dwarf instead of a planet. I.e. the paper is not “here, we analyze a sample of x substellar companions and confirm that the deuterium-burning limit (DBL) distinguishes between planets and brown dwarfs”. Instead, it is simply a very short, qualitative review of *proposed* definitions circa 2018. Tellingly, it does not at all address criticisms of the DBL-based definition that have appeared in leading peer-reviewed work. On this basis alone, it does not carry the same weight as normal peer reviewed literature including quantitative analysis that has appeared in Science, ApJ, A&A, and elsewhere.

In contrast, the HIP 99770 b discovery paper and numerous other studies cited in that work and later (e.g. Zhang et al. 2025) directly *refute* the DBL criterion. As another example, the discovery paper on HIP 54515 b (a similar object) states clearly that “[t]he criteria best supported in the peer-reviewed literature to determine what kind of object HIP 54515 b might be – planet or brown dwarf – has undergone significant revision … [t]he peer-reviewed literature over the past 15 yr … does *not* support the DBL criterion for distinguishing between planets and brown dwarfs” (Currie, Li, El Morsy et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 5). They present further quantitative analysis (their Figure 6) confirming that substellar companion demographics favor a transition between planet and brown dwarf at higher masses. All of these studies stand unrefuted in the literature.

We have discussed Winterhalder et al before many times: it provides no basis for a potential reclassification. As said before by other contributors, this work never calls HIP 99770 b a brown dwarf or even “potential brown dwarf”. Missing from your quote is that the paper then notes the numerous papers that find the planet vs. brown dwarf crossover at higher masses, i.e. in conflict with the DBL criterion. The paper is essentially non-committal: agnostic as to HIP 99770 b’s nature. Most importantly, though, subsequent work (Bovie et al. 2025 and especially Balmer et al. 2026) provide very strong additional evidence that HIP 99770 b is a planet. I.e. the latest work on HIP 99770 b provides strong evidence affirming its taxonomy as a planet.

If a future study presents original analysis provides a clear case that HIP 99770 b may instead be a brown dwarf, then we should note the object’s ambiguity. Absent that, the article should reflect the current peer-reviewed consensus: planet.

So I am reverting the change. Please do not attempt to change it back. 2632cgn (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The situation is 'messy', maybe you are too closely related to one side of the ongoing discussion how a planet should be defined. The current peer-reviewed literature consensus is not as clear as it seems to be from your comments.

No matter how often you emphasize that Lecavelier des Etangs and Lissauer is not analyzing the same way as the primary sources, wikipedia prefers secondary sources as most reliable, being one step removed from an event or finding. You write: 'Tellingly, it does not at all address criticisms of the DBL-based definition that have appeared in leading peer-reviewed work. On this basis alone, it does not carry the same weight as normal peer reviewed literature including quantitative analysis that has appeared in Science, ApJ, A&A, and elsewhere.' However, this is done in chapter '2.4. The mass upper limit' and partly chapter 4. On this basis alone I find it difficult to follow your assessment.

Related it also seems difficult for the discovery paper to directly 'refute' the DBL criterion, if it does not even take into account the modern reasons for it from Lecavelier des Etangs and Lissauer. As all the publications given on the article page do, the discovery paper does not cite them. Even Balmer+ 2026 agree that nothing was previously refuted writing: 'The formation mechanisms that produce wide separation (10 − 100 au), low mass ratio (Mb/M⋆ ≡ q ≲ 0.01) directly imaged companions near the deuterium burning limit (∼ 13 MJ) have not been unambiguously distinguished'. Zhang+ 2025 write 'Our analysis furthers the hypothesis that the brown-dwarf desert is fundamentally ... separating distinct populations of planetary and nonplanetary companions ... The persistence of this desert across stellar types suggests ...'. This is very cautious, even I know this is not a direct refutation of another hypothesis. Your previous statement that they 'favor a mass-ratio criterion of roughly 2%' seemed a better description. You directly went from ‘favor’ing to ‘directly refuting’.

You continue with '[t]he peer-reviewed literature over the past 15 yr … does *not* support the DBL criterion for distinguishing between planets and brown dwarfs” (Currie, Li, El Morsy et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 5).' which got me curious, so I looked up the most recent planet on the List of directly imaged exoplanets. And the discovery publication Walker+ 2026 states 'From this process, we find that KOINTREAU-1b is 10.6 +2.5 −2.3 MJup. This value is below the canonical 13 MJup upper bound on exoplanet masses (Lecavelier des Etangs & Lissauer 2022) and thus defines KOINTREAU-1b as a planetary-mass companion.' By chance, I also looked at another publication as it was recently added by another editor: Tianshenhong Sang+ 2026 stating: 'Our results confirm that both companions reside firmly in the brown dwarf mass regime (13 MJ < mp < 80 MJ).'

At that point I thought you were for sure incorrect about that one until I realized that what you quote is in full length 'the peer-reviewed literature over the past 15 yr analyzing substellar companion demographics does not support the DBL criterion for distinguishing between planets and brown dwarfs'. Well, pretty misleading, as that has a different meaning. Zhang+ 2024 'Atmospheric characterization of the super-Jupiter HIP 99770 b with KPIC' give both possibilities: 'These objects typically straddle the mass boundary between planets and brown dwarfs (∼13 MJup) and orbit their primary stars at large separations (>10 au). Their formation mechanisms remain under debate as they are not easily compatible with either in-situ core accretion or gravitational instability' and 'Previous studies on orbital architectures of these super-Jupiters (< 20 MJup) versus those of brown dwarfs (> 20 MJup) found evidence for distinct distributions in their semimajor axes and orbital eccentricities'. Even the lead author of the discovery paper of HIP 99770 b supported this in a review in 2023 'Direct Imaging and Spectroscopy of Extrasolar Planets', while also arguing against the deuterium-burning criterion within the review as expected, they write 'identifying the exact criteria needed to distinguish between planets and brown dwarfs is challenging. Planets have often been identified as objects with masses below the deuterium-burning limit, nominally 13 MJ ...' and later 'An alternate definition leverages formation processes ...'.

I do assume you did not spend much time to write your comment. Errors happen. You do not have to explain every background item, but if you do things should be correct.

I understand what you mean by Lecavelier des Etangs and Lissauer 'does not present original quantitative analysis like the other studies discussed here establishing HIP 99770 b *or any other object* as a brown dwarf instead of a planet.' But the examples of Walker+ 2026 and Tianshenhong Sang+ 2026 show that exactly this is done in practice in the very same peer reviewed journals you were referring to. As you wrote, also all of these studies stand unrefuted in the literature.

Regarding Winterhalder I agree that they are agnostic as to HIP 99770 b’s nature. However, they are not agnostic in a way of not mentioning as what it could be classified, they just do not decide within the work what they prefer to support. The same is the case in Zhang+ 2024. They mention alternate definitions of brown dwarfs and do not decide what it is. This is then at least from my point of view a conscious decision and does not mean they support a previous planet consensus, but I assume they cannot or do not want to decide what is most likely. As they mention different possibilities, which are not refuted so far, these possibilities should also be represented on the wikipedia page, too to establish a neutral point of view.

If you want the alternative to planet to be deleted you should clearly specify why. If it is because you claim the DBL criterion is refuted, I happily open a discussion on the Exoplanet talk page for you, as here would be the wrong place. If you can convince people there this would be a great improvement of the page. If your sole argument that a clear case that HIP 99770 b may instead be a brown dwarf is missing because nowhere a specific wording 'potential brown dwarf' is given please specify that, too. But please keep in mind, in order to show that it is a brown dwarf a peer reviewed publication would be needed. To show that it can solely be a planet and nothing else after different possible definitions for planet were given in the peer reviewed literature in 2024/2025 a clear peer reviewed refutation of the other possibilities is needed. Absent that, we should show the object’s ambiguity here.

Given the above it seems reasonable to not remove the ‘conventional’ (2025), ‘canonical’ (2026) choice of classifier between planets and brown dwarfs published peer-reviewed from the possible alternatives to classify HIP 99770 b, at least not yet. Stevinger (talk) 02:15, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Responding only to the substantive claims (not the personal comments) … these arguments provide no support for caveating HIP 99770 b’s taxonomy. HIP 99770 b should be clearly labeled a planet. Saying it is "possibly a brown dwarf" by inferring a conclusion from work that does not explicitly draw it or that does not mention HIP 99770 b at all (LL22) is improper “original research” and a violation of Wikipedia policy WP:No original research.

Wikipedia articles should describe citeable, reliable sources, and they absolutely should not conduct "original research" WP:No original research. This prohibition explicitly includes synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." WP:SYNTH

Note that "'possibly a brown dwarf' is disallowed" is different from "the article should not mention that HIP 99770 b's mass is at/above the DBL." The latter should be mentioned, and the body already does so explicitly. But the label itself should not change.

The paper trail for HIP 99770 b is clear. The discovery paper lays out why this is a planet for extensive and unrebutted reasons, and its description is unequivocal. There are no papers carrying out quantitative analysis leading them to call HIP 99770 b a brown dwarf: all papers presenting original research on HIP 99770 b that give it a clear taxonomy call it a planet, and none adopt a brown-dwarf taxonomy. WP:V At worst, two follow-up papers (Winterhalder, Zhang) are non-committal/agnostic about its nature — they never explicitly conclude (from their analysis) that HIP 99770 b could be a brown dwarf. Balmer et al. is particularly strong here because it is the latest word on this object and presents fundamentally different data revealing new lines of evidence that HIP 99770 b is a planet, ones not considered in any prior paper.

This situation contrasts with that for other objects. E.g. there is an active debate over whether GJ 504 b is a planet or a brown dwarf, so reflecting that ambiguity on its page follows the sources. WP:NPOV The preponderance of reliable, current sources also matters WP:DUE: e.g., a single early paper (Moya et al. 2010) inferred a brown-dwarf mass for HR 8799 bcd from an old asteroseismic age, but later work superseded it. HR 8799 — now the textbook directly imaged planetary system — carries no "possibly a brown dwarf" caveat. Clear statements in the literature must guide. To draw from an example you cite, it would be improper to call KOINTREAU-1b a brown dwarf on Wikipedia right now — irrespective of what a private poll of researchers might think — because the literature's only label for it is "planetary-mass companion”.

Including "possibly a brown dwarf" for HIP 99770 b could perhaps be justified if all the papers on it ignored the DBL convention / did not attempt to rebut it, and if the DBL had clear, strong lines of evidence supporting it. Neither is the case, let alone both. The discovery paper is unsparing in its criticism, and numerous cited follow-up quantitative studies also point decisively against the DBL.

Considering these lines of evidence plus the fact that the literature itself calls HIP 99770 b a planet, the article should likewise unequivocally call it a planet. The publications labeling HIP 99770 b a planet also directly confront and rebut the objection that it lies above the DBL, so they are not ignoring that evidence. The latest work adds strong independent evidence for a planet.

Broader comments on the DBL as applied to HIP 99770 b...

On the status of the DBL in peer-reviewed work … yes, I am well familiar with the literature on it and planet/brown dwarf controversies. I went into detail to clarify that even if the DBL is an old “convention”, the literature provides very strong evidence against it being a useful discriminator of planets vs brown dwarfs. In other words, the rebuttal of the DBL in the HIP 99770 b papers is not idiosyncratic but is part of a large body of independent work reaching similar conclusions — so this is the due-weight view in reliable sources, not one program's position.

For completeness, these are detailed responses:

On recent literature…

-First, your reading of Currie, Li, El Morsy et al is not quite right. My ellipsis quoting the paper was intended for brevity, which was perhaps my mistake. However, it does not censor contradictory information. Critically, the paragraph in question starts with the unqualified statement “The criteria best supported in the peer-reviewed literature to determine what kind of object HIP 54515 b might be – planet or brown dwarf – has undergone significant revision.” That discussion is general, not specific to HIP 54515 b — a closely analogous superjovian — and applies with equal force to HIP 99770 b. You apparently misread the following sentence to imply that only a particular line of inquiry fails to support the DBL as the criteria, while others do not: that is not what it says. In case there was any question that this entire discussion was a general “the DBL fails, full stop” summary of the peer-reviewed literature [the message from my original reply], the footnotes also describe how the DBL is internally flawed. The section is profuse with citations to supporting claims in work lacking any connection to the authors of the paper and the section’s original analysis likewise supports its broad claims.

-Similarly, the 2023 PPVII review article comments are misinterpreted. Crucially, your comments leave out the clear statement that the DBL “is poorly motivated” and then goes on to explain why. Saying that “the exact criteria” for distinguishing between planets and brown dwarfs is “challenging” does not mean the DBL and a demographics-based criterion are equally credible: the article in fact describes the former as “poorly motivated” while describing the copious evidence for the latter. As clearly communicated late in the section, the real challenge is for edge cases near the adopted boundaries (~25 Mj, q < 0.025, a < 300 au), but objects like HIP 99770 b are well away from these boundaries (~15 Mj, q ~ 8e-3, a ~ 17 au).

- Balmer et al’s comments are consistent with what I have said. There is a difference between the physics of how a gas giant formed and its taxonomy. Core accretion is uniquely identified with “planets”, but much of the literature takes the position that the wide-separation planets might also form by disk instability. Our ignorance of exactly how an object formed is not necessarily an ignorance of whether it is truly a planet or brown dwarf: theory suggests that wide-separation super-Jovian planets may be formed by either mechanism. Balmer’s quoted properties cover a huge dynamic range, including objects that are far more borderline cases than HIP 99770 b (e.g. a ~ 100 au). The only strong formation mechanism to taxonomy-in I can see is that formation by molecular cloud fragmentation (i.e. like a star) is usually associated with “brown dwarf”.

On LL22 …

Here, your casting is still inaccurate. Fundamental problems remain: the paper is not a work presenting original quantitative analysis in favor of the DBL but simply is a short article stating a "convention" the same authors were a part of crafting a decade prior (which also was not a quantitative analysis in a normal peer-reviewed paper to my knowledge).

-You are incorrect about their Sect 2.4. It does not actually address criticisms of the DBL in substantive way. The paper does not cite and then criticize by name any specific work advocating that the mass limit for planets should be revised upwards, including foundational works cited in the HIP 99770 b discovery paper. It is simply “some have said” the transition should be at 25 Mj and then simply declares to be true -- without evidence -- that there is no 'gap' between objects below/above 25 Mj [note: as shown by the early work referenced in the HIP 99770 b discovery paper, this claim at the time was highly questionable: it is definitely not quite right now].

The only argument that comes close to responding to critics is its discussion of Schlaufman et al. (2018)'s study on planet mass vs. host star metallicity, which argues that the demographics-based argument would revise the mass threshold downwards to ~4 Mj. However, a more modern study finds that the threshold should instead be ~27 +12, -8 Mj (Giacalone et al. 2026). In fact, using Schlaufman's own sample, they find the threshold is even *higher* (~59 Mjup).

Similarly, Zhang et al. (2025) is firmer in language than your comments imply. E.g. “the persistence of this desert across stellar mass supports q < 0.02 as a working definition of exoplanets”. Yes, they did not literally use the word “refute”, and admittedly I probably should not have said this as a result. Though the core point stands: their results are pretty strong, direct evidence *against* the DBL and directly respond to LL22’s qualitative statement as well. Note here: q < 0.02 as the threshold would admit HIP 99770 b as a planet easily (q ~0.008).

For the other studies (Walker & Sang), there is some confusion. They merely state that the DBL is a prior convention for companion taxonomy : they do not actually present *analysis* demonstrating that this should be nor do they highlight (let alone rebut) the vast literature showing that the DBL is not in fact a convention supported by quantitative analysis. Similarly, Zhang et al. (2024) simply restates a prior convention about the mass distinguishing planets and brown dwarfs: it is not a quantitative analysis providing support to a particular answer . Note, they seemingly do so inconsistently -- saying 13 Mj in one place and ~20 Mj in another (i.e. not the DBL): so certainly, it is not clear support that they believe the DBL is in fact the correct convention. 2632cgn (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Responding only to the substantive claims (since you left out the personal comments this time, I happily follow your example) ...

thank you for your extensive and interesting comments, I did not expect this. I added brown dwarf since this seems to be the only alternative that could have been meant. But if you dislike this, as it is not explicitly mentioned, I can see your point, and I can live with that.

However, the paper trail as you called it has changed the situation since the discovery publication and the label of the object you are constantly reverting to is not anymore describing the situation properly why it needs to be changed.

Only two of the publications are consistent with the clear planet label.

Zhang+ 2024 clearly state two discrepant masses distinguishing planets and brown dwarfs. This does not mean they support either or both as clearly correct, but this discrepancy should be reflected in the label of the object on the wikipedia page.

Similarly Winterhalder+ 2025 are not as non-committal/agnostic about HIP 99770 b's nature as you describe it. You just recently reverted my edit on the 29 Cygni page with the edit summary:'Reverting back to established literature consensus on the companion. Multiple prior attempts to change it are Wikipedia policy violations of "no original research" and improper "synthesis"'. This was surprising, because I only added 'Substellar companion'. This is directly taken from the introduction of Winterhalder+ 2025. No original research, no synthesis, a direct quote. This demonstrates that 'substellar companion' is not an agnostic, non-committal label and that this deviation from 'clearly labeled a planet' should be reflected in the label of the object on the wikipedia page.

You finally write 'Balmer et al. is particularly strong here because it is the latest word on this object'. This is understandable. They conclude either 'This ensemble of evidence is suggestive of formation within the protoplanetary disk' or 'The large atmospheric enrichment our observations indicate could therefore be evidence that 29 Cyg b formed from the bottom-up ...' depending where you prefer to look at. This was summarized on the 29 Cygni wikipedia page as 'Together with its low orbital eccentricity and enhanced metallicity compared to that of the host star, it most likely formed in a protoplanetary disk, similar to planets, despite its large mass of (13–15)±5 M_Jup.' beginning of May this year by a different editor, that several month ago supported your side of the discussion, when you convinced me of your point of view. Seems reasonable and was not challenged since, why I suggest to represent the 'most likely' also in the label of the object on the wikipedia page.

In addition we should use the consensus among the labels within the established literature on HIP 99770 b as you surely agree, mentioning it several times. The only incontrovertible label in the sense that all of the publications use it in one form or another is Super-Jupiter. Three of the publications have a variant of it even in the title.

I will change the page accordingly. Stevinger (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I think we are a bit more ‘converged’ than before. The revision you have put in this time is closer to the literature consensus, so I did not revert your changes at the moment to encourage more discussion & see your response first before doing any edits.

My main disagreement is your statement that “the label of the object [I am] reverting to … is not anymore describing the situation properly”, implying that we should hedge a bit.

This statement would only be accurate if subsequent work added new *evidence that cast doubt upon* or *weakened* the planet conclusion. The problem: it doesn’t. In fact, the evidence in favor of HIP 99770 b being a planet is *stronger*, not weaker, than an already strong case from the discovery paper.

Broadly speaking, the post-discovery papers we are discussing (Zhang, Winterhalder, Balmer) are all after the same kind of measurement – the atmosphere’s metallicity. Here, enhanced metallicity -> core accretion/bottom-up formation. This would be *positive*, additional evidence for the planet label beyond what the discovery paper considered. In contrast, solar metallicity has a more ambiguous interpretation: ‘maybe/maybe not’ core accretion, maybe disk instability or brown dwarf/star-like formation. I.e. the result is merely *neutral*. As I noted in the previous reply, “core accretion not favored” is not the same thing as “planet interpretation not favored”. So a failure to conclusively point to core accretion is not evidence *against* the planet interpretation.

To summarize their results relevant to the above:

-Zhang+24 – high-resolution K-band spectroscopy: nominally a 2x enhancement in metals and agreement with planet metallicity trends– which ‘would seem’ be positive evidence. But the authors apparently felt that the large formal error bars precluded a decisive interpretation. Neutral evidence.

-Winterhalder+25 – medium-resolution K-band spectroscopy: find “potential metal enrichment” but again it is uncertain enough to preclude a decisive interpretation. Neutral evidence again.

-Balmer+26 – multi-band JWST/thermal IR imaging: find [M/H] = 0.42 +/- 0.25 (log-unit) yielding a 3x metal enrichment, which is a less noisy, more significant measurement than the prior two papers. *Positive evidence. Additionally, they show empirically that for the JWST filter data *diagnostic of* metallicity, HIP 99770 b is differentiable from similar-temperature brown dwarfs but more like the HR 8799 planets. *Strong positive evidence. Finally, they show that HIP 99770 b’s orbit is aligned with the spin axis of the star, what you expect for planet formation in a disk: very *strong positive evidence.

In summary, the post-discovery data on HIP 99770 b *strengthens* the case that this object is a planet, not weakens it, through multiple lines of evidence. While the new papers’ (the three above +Bovie et al) non-zero eccentricities are slightly different than the discovery paper’s results, they don’t count as negative evidence: e ~ 0.3 is apparently common for bona fide superjovian exoplanets (e.g. 51 Eri b, eps Ind b) and not an outlier (e.g. see Nagpal et al. 2023).

The above is why, on the merits, qualifier “most likely” should be removed. Note this situation contrasts with other objects. Again, with GJ 504 b, two early papers (Furhmann & Chini 2015; D’Orazi et al. 2017) presented new analysis finding a much older system age implying a much higher companion mass (negative evidence?), while later work (Skemer et al. 2016; Baburaj et al. 2026) suggest enhanced metallicity in its atmosphere (strong positive evidence).

I retitled the subject heading in the main 29 Cyg article largely for the same reason: ‘planet’ is best supported. Also, consider the standard apparently set on Wikipedia: 1RXJ 1609 has a “planetary system” section even though the actual text makes clear that the companion’s identity is highly debatable, far more than HIP 99770 b. This is not the only example: e.g. kappa And, etc. And as I now see that the article omits, the star *does* have a planetary system irrespective of HIP 99770 b: a Herschel-detected cold debris disk. Note that the text you quote is in the Introduction, framing the context for the paper: it is not an analysis conclusion.

In summary, just ‘planet’ really is best supported. That said, a key modern piece of the supporting evidence – any substantive discussion of the JWST results – is missing from the article. This should be added. 2632cgn (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I see what you are trying to convey, but before I respond to several of the interesting points I would be curious for another input:

You are mentioning kappa And, so I looked at it. And I am honestly confused now what distiguishes it from HIP 99770. Why is HIP 99770 b special compared to kappa And from your point of view?

You explained for HIP 99770 b the 'adopted boundaries (~25 Mj, q < 0.025, a < 300 au)' are important for the 'already strong case from the discovery paper' and the rest can be more or less seen as neutral to the case from your point of view, at least not weakening the conclusions there. Please correct me if not.

Now kappa And is also clearly consistent with these adopted boundaries. Nevertheless two of the newest publications Wilcomb+ 2020 and Godoy+ 2025 see it as 'substellar companion' . Wilcomb+ 2020 for example: 'This system is one of the most massive stars known to host an extrasolar planet or low-mass brown dwarf companion. κ And b has been described as a super-Jupiter, with a lower mass limit near or just below the deuterium burning limit ...'.

And even worse Godoy+ 2025, for example: 'Conclusions. Our new mass estimate places κ And b slightly above the planet–brown dwarf boundary determined by the deuterium-burning limit.' I use 'worse' because according to your explanation of 'DBL is an old “convention”' this is very unexpected in late 2025, but obviously it is still in use (within the conclusions and concluding something is above the planet-brown dwarf boundary at about 17 Jupiter masses).

You changed the kappa And wikipedia article page from 'Kappa Andromedae b is a substellar object and massive planet or brown dwarf orbiting Kappa Andromedae ...' to 'Kappa Andromedae b is a directly-imaged substellar object and likely superjovian-mass planet orbiting Kappa Andromedae ...' on 15 December 2020.

If this is an analog we can change the HIP 99770 b starting line to the analogous 'HIP 99770 b is a directly-imaged substellar object and likely superjovian-mass planet ...' right away, if you want to? (It would be backed by Winterhalder+ and Balmer+) Stevinger (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

So kappa And b is a very different situation, both in fact and in the object’s history. The contrast illustrates why HIP 99770 b warrants no hedge while kap And b does. In short, kap And b has a model-dependent, history-contested mass and is an eccentricity outlier; HIP 99770 b has a direct dynamical mass, normal eccentricity, and atmospheric enrichment.

Mass- kap And b's mass was inferred from luminosity via cooling models at an assumed age (Carson et al.), so it's doubly uncertain — model-dependent (the models can underestimate mass for the most massive objects; Spiegel 2011, Marley 2007) and age-dependent. That history has been “lively”: the discovery paper gave ~12.8 M_J at ~30 Myr (Columba); Hinkley 2013 argued κ And is not a Columba member and is far older, implying ~50 M_J (likely a brown dwarf); Jones 2016 (CHARA data) reset the age younger (~47 +27,-40 Myr). But even with this newest, young age, the error bars still allow masses up to ~30 M_J even before intrinsic model uncertainty: this is on the edge of the planet/brown dwarf boundary even from modern work. Morris 2024 favors 1–12 M_J via companion RV, but that's uncorroborated as far as I know.

Overall: generally positive evidence for ‘planet’ but with a complicated history.

Eccentricity – This is a newer issue. Kap And b has e > 0.7 (latest value is ~0.88) – high relative to imaged planets, and more typical of brown dwarfs (Bowler et al. 2020; this trend is tempered but confirmed by Nagpal et al. 2023). This information was not at my disposal when I wrote my comment years ago. If it is a planet, it is an outlier in eccentricity.

Overall: mildly negative evidence

Atmosphere – There are multiple papers reporting a C/O ratio – and one implying formation by disk instability (Wilcomb et al. 2020) – but the field has generally cooled on C/O as a clean formation diagnostic. So largely ambiguous evidence.

--

On the Godoy et al paper … their wording is internally inconsistent/confusing. They simultaneously call kap And b a “planet-mass companion”, an object “at the planet-brown dwarf boundary”, and an object “slightly above the planet-brown dwarf boundary” (what you cited). The DBL appears as a single passing mention in the abstract, not as a classification result. Note also that the literature is not perfect and not everyone is up-to-date on everything, because it is complex. As a more extreme example, even years after LkCa 15 bcd were clearly shown to be spurious (with some of the discoverers now agreeing), there were papers still citing these as protoplanets.

Contrast this case with HIP 99770 b. The age-to-mass mapping uncertainty doesn’t apply, because HGCA astrometry + imaging gives us a direct dynamical mass and mass ratio, which are consistent with the planet population and inconsistent with brown dwarfs. The eccentricity (~0.3) is unremarkable for imaged planets. The atmospheric evidence decisively points towards ‘planet’. While “likely” may still be most accurate for kap And b, HIP 99770 b is a different beast: every HIP 99770 b-focused paper calls it a planet or takes no position, and the actual evidence is extremely lopsided. That is why the best-supported label on Wikipedia is “planet” at the present moment. Makes sense? 2632cgn (talk) 04:35, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanations. Yes, a lot of it makes sense. I also agree to your point, that substantive discussion of the JWST results would be beneficial for the article.

However, I don't agree with your conclusion that there is a consensus for the label 'planet'.

-Winterhalder+25 They are well aware that 'HIP 99770 was the first system to yield a detection of a companion identified as a planet after it was targeted specifically on the basis of tentative astrometric evidence that indicated the existence of an orbiting object'. Nevertheless, they go on with '... scarcity of what are loosely referred to as super-Jupiters (Carson et al. 2013), that is, substellar companions with masses at about the deuteriumburning threshold.' (all in the Introduction as you emphasized) and start their conclusion with 'Here, we have presented an updated study of the directly imaged super-Jupiter HIP 99770 b ...'

This is not a silent, neutral agreement with a planet identification. I would have understood if they only use 'companion' that it should be seen as neutral. Similarly:

-Zhang+24 'Atmospheric characterization of the super-Jupiter HIP 99770 b ...'. They both use 'planetary' and 'substellar'.

-Balmer+26 You write '[M/H] = 0.42 +/- 0.25 (log-unit) yielding a 3x metal enrichment, which is a less noisy, more significant measurement than the prior two papers. *Positive evidence'. The first numbers are likely a typo, while admittedly I am not sure what the real number is, since they give three different results from the very same fit within the publication, being a mixture of 0.42 or 0.45 and then different error bars. I assume the real number is 0.42 +0.26−0.34, which more easily explains the conversion to Zpl/Z⋆ = 3 ± 2. This is not very different from [M/H]=0.26(-0.23/+0.24) (Zhang+24) regarding noise, which you see as large formal errors. Also, 'HIP 99770 b is differentiable from similar-temperature brown dwarfs but more like the HR 8799 planets'. It hopefully is. Did they somewhere in addition to their sentence how they 'interpret' that explain whether it is most likely an age, mass or metallicity effect? Third one: 'they show that HIP 99770 b’s orbit is aligned with the spin axis of the star, what you expect for planet formation in a disk: very *strong positive evidence.' They comment on this in the following way in the text: 'to within ∆i = 12 ± 6 ◦ . At the very least, it can be stated that there is no strong evidence for spin-orbit misalignment in this system ...' This is pretty far from your interpretation of it.

My point here is that the evidence shouldn't be interpreted stronger than in the publication itself. They write 'The large atmospheric enrichment our observations indicate could therefore be evidence that 29 Cyg b formed from the bottom-up ...' and decided in the end to go for a title that reads ' ... of a Super-Jupiter: Enhanced Metallicity Suggestive of Formation in a Disk'.

You wrote 'it would be improper to call KOINTREAU-1b a brown dwarf on Wikipedia right now — irrespective of what a private poll of researchers might think — because the literature's only label for it is "planetary-mass companion '. I agree, but HIP 99770 b was given very different and several labels within the literature. Every single of the followup publications was aware of the previous results, but they individually come to their own conclusions. And the majority of the available evaluations does not find a clear planetary nature, and decided to prefer less strict labels for the object.

It seems logical to prefer a less strict label for the wikipedia article, too or a 'likely' or 'most likely' giving credit to the most recent analysis. Makes sense? Stevinger (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, so the comments are not quite accurate. Taken collectively, the best justified label for Wikipedia is simply ‘planet’, certainly compared to what Wikipedia calls other objects. But I do agree that the article needs some additional edits I think you support.

-Balmer et al – First and most simply, they *do* very clearly conclude that HIP 99770 b is metal-enriched (and that the metal-enrichment is evidence for a planet). Saying that it is not that different from noise (and, by inference, not significant) is a statement not found in the paper: effectively, it is the “original research” WP:NORN that Wikipedia forbids. It is also not accurate. Critically, an *empirical* comparison between HIP 99770 b and other objects *separately* supports the “metal rich->planet” conclusion: this is separate from any derived [M/H] value from models. Furthermore, for the models, [M/H] is a *logarithmic unit*, not linear. For the estimate I quoted, [M/H] = 0.42 +/- 0.25 (pg 6), the 68% confidence interval spans Z/Z* ~ 1.48-4.68. For the other given value ([M/H] = 0.42 + 0.25, -0.35; pg 3/yes one of these is a typo), it is 1.17-4.68. In both cases, the interval is more obviously supersolar than the value from Zhang et al (1.05-3.16). This difference is obscured by the fact that Balmer et al round their numbers (*a lot*, apparently). Note also that the modeling approach they did resulted in [M/H] = 0.4 +/- 0.1, which is even more decisively metal rich: they explain why the adopted the other measurement, to be conservative.

On the inclination … my interpretation is correct. HIP 99770 b is perfectly aligned *at the 2-sigma level* as described in the paper. The qualitative conclusion (i.e. “HIP 99770 b has spin-orbit alignment”) is repeated in the paper (pg 6); their Fig 3 show it may be more aligned than 51 Eri b. Note also, the Sun’s rotation axis is itself tilted by ~6 deg from the mean orbital plane of the solar system planets: the near-alignment of the Sun’s spin with the eight planets’ orbits is routinely cited as evidence for formation from a disk. HIP 99770 b’s alignment (12 +/- 6 deg, 68% CI) is comparable. HIP 99770 b’s alignment stands in contrast to the substantial misalignments seen for other much wider- separation, higher mass ratio planet-mass companions (e.g. Bowler et al. 2023). Overall, the evidence I describe above matches what the paper itself states.

-Your statement that “the majority of the available evaluations does not find a clear planetary nature” is not accurate. There are 5 papers specifically focused on HIP 99770 b: the Currie et al discovery paper, Zhang, Winterhalder, Bovie, and Balmer. Of these three (i.e. the majority) emphatically conclude it is a planet.

You are also misinterpreting how we should use the language for the minority of papers that do not clearly say ‘planet’. Silence is not dissent: Wikipedia weighs sources by what they *conclude*, not by what they *decline to opine on*. A hedge requires a source to affirmatively, clearly doubt planethood: neither of these papers do. Fundamentally, those papers were about atmospheric metallicity and its implications for formation, where they fail to find a decisive conclusion due to errors. Everything else they do – e.g. orbit/dynamical mass – revisits a subset of the discovery paper’s analysis and finds consistent results. Critically, Balmer effectively *supersedes* these studies on the metallicity/formation question. Thanks to empirical comparisons and a different diagnostic they *do* arrive at a clear conclusion: ‘metal rich and formed as a planet’.

Thus, the full body of evidence looks as follows: 1) all of the original arguments from the discovery paper leading to ‘planet’ are either unrebutted or are reaffirmed by independent groups, 2) the JWST paper adds two additional lines of evidence in favor of a planet. This situation is in stark contrast to kappa And b which currently has a similar qualifier “likely a superjovian planet” on Wikipedia: at least one kap And b measurable, namely its eccentricity, *is* a bit challenging to square with it being a planet.

-A broader practical problem about applying your qualifier even if it were not strictly contrary to Wikipedia rules and the literature described above … If “not every paper literally says the word ‘planet’” justifies a qualifier (e.g. most likely), then *most* Wikipedia article on imaged planets would need a hedge. Only a subset of imaged companions widely called planets have dynamical masses: everything else, we *infer* through luminosity evolution models (that may be wrong) given an age (that is often very uncertain too). Also, HR 8799 bcde, 51 Eri b, etc. all have papers that describe them as “substellar” or “super Jupiters” but lack any qualifier.

-Ultimately, I think we’ve converged on almost all of the *substance* of the topic. The leading description of this object per Wikipedia standards and the evidence should simply be “planet” or “superjovian planet” (incorporating your addition: probably better than my original), period.

However, if I understand your position correctly, you’re right about one thing in particular: the article body does not fully lay out *why* planet is the best-supported description given the current literature. The JWST results, which are a big part of the case, are missing. That’s a real weakness: fixing it would substantially improve the article.

Since you’ve read the Balmer et al paper, would you want to add a paragraph on the JWST work (metallicity enrichment, spin-orbit constraint) & a citation? I’m happy to look at the technical details if you want. As it looks like you’ve done many substantive edits on other articles, you also seem well positioned to ensure that the framing of the issues we have discussed is consistent with how directly-imaged companions are described elsewhere. 2632cgn (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, so the comments are not quite accurate.

-Balmer et al – they do conclude the object is metal enhanced. Then you start to prove yourself wrong. I neither said 'it is not that different from noise', that it is not significant is also inferred by you, so yes you should not do ' “original research” WP:NORN that Wikipedia forbids' (please compare my sentence 'This is not very different from [M/H]=0.26(-0.23/+0.24) (Zhang+24) regarding noise, which you see as large formal errors.'.) I wrote that because you wrote 'But the authors apparently felt that the large formal error bars precluded a decisive interpretation.' Yes, [M/H] = 0.42 + 0.25, -0.35 is likely correct, because it is also in Table 2 on page 10, except they meant something else with [Fe/H]. I just wanted to draw your attention to the fact that you likely quoted a typo. With 'similar' it is of course meant that 1.17-4.68 is closer to 1.05-3.16 than to 1.48-4.68. One is 'large formal errors' for you the other one 'very *strong positive evidence'.

You attributed with 'your qualifier' something to me, that I do not remember claiming, namely to '*decline to opine on*' does mean anything. Concluding that something is substellar (because it cannot be decided yet) does not mean someone is silent (Silence in that regard would be sticking to something like 'we investigated a companion of HIP 99770 b' across the full publication). Also drawing different conclusions on material someone else published with additional material is not automatically equivalent to being wrong or being silent. So either you claim all others were silent, or you claim all others are not allowed to draw different conclusions than the discovery paper and you for sure claim there is a consensus that it is a planet.

This is the problem from my point of view, ephasized by sentences like 'On the inclination … my interpretation ...' or '-Ultimately, I think .. period.' Yes, this is your interpretation, but that is, as you wrote several times, against wikipedia guidelines: Wikipedia:NOR. Don't misunderstand me, you might be right, but the problem is summarized nicely in another wikipedia guideline: Wikipedia:Verifiability, the first paragraph summarizes it nicely. None of these claims can be verified in wikipedia terms. So no, we've not 'converged on almost all of the *substance* of the topic'. It should neither be “planet” nor “superjovian planet”. The good news is future publications will tell us what it should be. If we can't agree for now, then we might have to list all possibilities for the moment.

You also claim Balmer+ '*do* arrive at a clear conclusion: ‘metal rich and formed as a planet’.' Not sure where you took that from, it is not a quote from the publication. They arrive at 'The large atmospheric enrichment our observations indicate could therefore be evidence that 29 Cyg b formed from the bottom-up ...' or ' ... of a Super-Jupiter: Enhanced Metallicity Suggestive of Formation in a Disk' and write something like that in conclusion, abstract and title.

HR 8799 might have publications that call it substellar since it was not proven that these are planets in the beginning. Please show me an example of HR 8799 bcde or especially 51 Eri b being called a Super-Jupiter, especially in the title as few times the case here, I don't think it exists.

If you still think HR 8799 or 51 Eri are comparable cases or alternatively if you think there is no dissent at all, please take a look at the following: I saw that you removed PZ Tel B from the list of directly imaged planets, so I looked at it. You might have been right about it, but one of the major publications on the object , also having a dynamical mass uses the very same classification method from which they find 'brown dwarf' for PZ Tel b also for HIP 99770 b in Figure 4. The caption says 'brown dwarfs (blue)' and HIP 99770 b is clearly in this blue region, while HR 8799 e is in 'planets (orange)'. So, your reason for removing PZ Tel B is 'but prevailing position from peer reviewed literature is that it is a most likely a brown dwarf.', but HIP 99770 b should not be judged on all 'position from peer reviewed literature' ?

You: 'Since you’ve read the Balmer et al paper, would you want to add a paragraph on the JWST work (metallicity enrichment, spin-orbit constraint) & a citation?' No, thank you. Please go ahead, I think you are better in this. I might look at the technical details, if you want. Stevinger (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

On Balmer et al, we were talking past one another, it seems. To review, Zhang+24 find [M/H] = 0.26 (+0.24,-0.23): they do not find *conclusive* evidence favoring metal enrichment. That’s their result. Balmer et al run two modeling simulations, finding [M/H] = 0.4 +/- 0.1 through one approach and [M/H] = 0.42 [+0.25, -0.25] or [+0.25, -0.35] or [+0.26, -0.34] through a second. The latter approach is adopted later: one of these three numbers is right (we cannot say exactly *which* one, though). I see what you are saying regarding “x is closer to y than z”. While I don’t think that necessarily follows (the full posterior distribution 1.17-4.68 is more like 1.48-4.68 than 1.05-3.16), the issue is also beside the point: the *empirical* evidence for enrichment in heavier elements is separate, unique (i.e. not probed in Zhang+24), and clear according to the authors. Apparently, I was not clear enough about this.

Regardless, their conclusion is “strong evidence for enrichment in heavier elements” which, when combined with the spin-orbit alignment at 2-sigma, in turn supports planet-like formation. That is *their* result. Ultimately, for Wikipedia articles we need to take the literature results at face value and not attempt to do original research WP:No original research. If you were not trying to wave away these results, as I originally thought you were, that’s fine: my mistake then.

“This is the problem from my point of view“ … is misinterpreted, as it conflates two entirely different things. Wikipedia’s policy on “no original research” focuses on *articles*. This is a talk page to discuss editing an article. Different things. The instances you cite (e.g. “On the inclination …”) are where you questioned my recounting of a publication’s statement and I responded to verify my original reading. I.e. “On the inclination, my interpretation is correct” means that I have accurately described what the paper said (which I did). It is not a case of ‘original research’ or synthesis in an *article*.

For context, since you asked, there are multiple sources calling HR 8799’s planets “super-Jupiters”, including Gozdziewski & Migaszewski (2020, ApJL) and Poblete et al. (2025; arXiv:2507.01589). Balmer et al does as well. Beta Pic b is called a super-Jupiter in Macintosh et al. 2014 (GPI first light paper). Amusingly, *Wikipedia* also calls beta Pic b a “Super Jupiter”. Note also that the PZ Tel paper you cite (see below) elsewhere calls beta Pic b a “substellar companion”. That does not at all justify any hedge on the classification of beta Pic b (again, improper synthesis/original research). 51 Eri b is called a “substellar companion” in some instances (see Nielsen et al. 2019, De Rosa et al. 2020) but again that label does not imply classification uncertainty. Same applies for HIP 99770 b: “substellar companion” does not clearly show [Wikipedia’s standard] “we are uncertain about its status”.

Fig 4 from the PZ Tel B paper should not be overinterpreted/misapplied. Like HIP 99770 b, beta Pic b on that Figure lies within the region covered by blue curves, which is “ostensibly” for brown dwarfs. However, this position (“beta Pic b is a brown dwarf”) is one that to my knowledge no modern paper on the object takes. Using this plot to conclude some ambiguity about beta Pic b’s or HIP 99770 b’s classification would be another example of “no original research” and improper “synthesis” WP:No original research. WP:SYNTH. Yes, the prevailing position is that PZ Tel B is a brown dwarf. This is a common thread throughout articles focused on the object: e.g. the Biller et al discovery paper to Maire et al. 2015 to Franson, etc. Very different system.

On the “qualifier” (i.e. ‘most likely’) … my point was much narrower but decisive for Wikipedia’s policies. Of course these papers are “allowed” to draw conclusions about HIP 99770 b’s taxonomy from the discovery paper’s data plus their own. But the fact is that they *didn’t*, period.

Winterhalder and Zhang reach no *different* classification conclusion -- neither concludes “brown dwarf”, neither disputes “planet”. Rather, they reach a cautious conclusion about HIP 99770 b’s specific *formation* channel (e.g. Winterhalder cannot yet separate disk instability from core accretion). That’s a *different* question: formation isn’t classification-dissent: we shouldn’t conflate the two. And “substellar” is often used in text as an umbrella term (see examples above for HR 8799, beta Pic): it does *not* necessarily encode “not sure it’s a planet”.

The broader point is clear. No HIP 99770 b–focused paper affirmatively concludes it is a brown dwarf, or affirmatively disputes that it is a planet. All affirmative statements are clearly 'planet'. Wikipedia reports what sources state directly; we cannot take two early papers' caution about formation channel (different topic) and infer a classification ambiguity they never clearly state — still less list alternatives on that basis. That would be exactly the original research and synthesis the rules forbid. The "most likely" qualifier is better than an earlier version. But if we stick to affirmative statements only, what the site's rules require us to do, HIP 99770 b needs to simply be called a 'planet' at this moment.

I will go ahead and incorporate the results from Balmer et al into the article some point in the near future. It reaffirms and strengthens the reasoning for why HIP 99770 b should simply be called a planet on Wikipedia, given current evidence, and is also a great paper. I suggested you do it primarily because Wiki entry editing seemed like a much stronger general interest than for me. I’ve got the technical details covered so I don’t need any help there. But Wiki-specific formatting is not my strength, so those kinds of errors are possible: a review on those things is appreciated. 2632cgn (talk) 06:23, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you again for your explanations and I agree we need to take the literature results at face value.

However, this does not mean we should should emphasize one side of a given publication as the pure result. Yes, Balmer+ say ' “strong evidence for enrichment in heavier elements” ' in the abstract. Yes, they present also empirical evidence. However, calling it clear is interpretive, since they write themselves 'We interpret this trend as uniform enrichment in metallicity compared to their host star', this does not necessarily mean it is 'clear'. When taking other parts of the publication and combining them to show that your conclusion is not necessarily their pure result: 'The large atmospheric enrichment our observations indicate could therefore be evidence that 29 Cyg b formed from the bottom-up ...' 'This ensemble of evidence is suggestive of formation' 'of a Super-Jupiter' 'within the protoplanetary disk ...'. Yes, they do write strong evidence in the abstract, but also that they interpret it this way within the text. On the other hand, neither the abstract nor the title include the word planet, at least being used for HIP 99770 b, just as a reference or comparison like 'planet formation' or 'transiting planet'. Again, this is pretty far away from your previous description 'emphatically conclude it is a planet' and even a bit from 'formed as a planet', why I criticized both.

That you misunderstand my usage of saying 'no orginal research' is surprising. Of course I meant that if you write some things in the article instead of here they would need to be deleted and marked as original research. I say it is surprising, because you critisized some things as 'original research' like 'not that different from noise (and, by inference, not significant)' that you claimed I wrote, but you actually came up with. Whatever. What I meant here, was that you emphasized 'HIP 99770 b is perfectly aligned *at the 2-sigma level* as described in the paper.' That is correct, but you probably know better than me, that it is misleading. Because if it would be perfectly aligned at the 10-sigma level (written in the same way) it would be excluded to be aligned, because it is 2 sigma (or 10) against alignment and not for it. Also you wrote 'misalignments seen for other much wider- separation, higher mass ratio planet-mass companions (e.g. Bowler et al. 2023)', while the wording in the publication is 'for massive and widely separated brown dwarf companions to cool stars in B. P. Bowler et al. (2023)'. Single objects do not necessarily give reliable results, why they are cautious (e.g. PZ Tel B - the object you removed from the other list as brown dwarf - is better aligned as HIP 99770 b, while AB Pic b, having lower mass estimates recently is found to be 'likely misaligned' in Bowler+ 2023). These are details though.

Thank you for giving examples for usage of 'Super-Jupiter' and 'substellar' among objects. That is impressive, but unfortunately does not mean much. You write 'And “substellar” is often used in text as an umbrella term (see examples above for HR 8799, beta Pic): it does *not* necessarily encode “not sure it’s a planet”.' This is true, but it also does not necessarily mean "not sure it's a brown dwarf" either, it does not even necessarily mean "there is a chance at all that it can be a planet". Substellar means to my best knowledge that something is surely below the hydrogen burning minimum mass. Objects like PZ Tel B or take the brown dwarf companions of Gliese 229 are called substellar (in the brown dwarf section!) or take Teide 1. Substellar means substellar, not brown dwarf and not planet, at least it is not always used as umbrella term, while the object is clearly a proven planet or brown dwarf, while it happens in both directions.

Related is your usage of 'But the fact is that they *didn’t*, period.' I usually distrust sentences that end with 'period.' and include 'fact' because in my experience they are less likely to be true.

You compare HIP 99770 b with Beta Pic b, 51 Eri b, and HR 8799 bcde. I told you this is not the ideal comparison. But not mainly because all the other objects have a lower estimated dynamical mass, the planets in the latter two systems even below 10 Jupiter masses. But for another reason. You said “beta Pic b is a brown dwarf” is a position 'no modern paper on the object takes.', well Franson+ do. But what you said is still true for Wikipedia, because a secondary source is easily available confirming your point of view. Let's not digress very far from previously used ones. 'Direct Imaging and Spectroscopy of Extrasolar Planets' from Currie+ clearly confirms that non of the objects (Beta Pic b, 51 Eri b, and HR 8799 bcde) is considered a brown dwarf. Such a secondary source, however, does not exist for HIP 99770 b, at least yet.

I am not worried about what you write about scientific results regarding HIP 99770 b, but I still think you strongly misunderstand the wikipedia guidelines! So I will have to list them again one by one to hopefully get an agreement:

Let's start with some you were fully correct:

- The discovery publication claims HIP 99770 b is a bona fide planet > correct

- Neither Winterhalder nor Zhang conclude explicitely 'brown dwarf' > correct

Now two you were incorrect:

- adding 'Substellar companion' as heading in the 29 Cygni artictle is 'original research' or synthesis > incorrect, a direct quote from Winterhalder+

- Using Fig. 4 from Franson+ to conclude some ambiguity about HIP 99770 b’s classification would be another example of “no original research” and improper “synthesis” WP:No original research. WP:SYNTH. > incorrect, please follow this link: WP:No original research, it starts with 'Source information does not need to be in prose form: Any form of information, such as maps, charts, graphs, and tables may be used to provide source information. Any straightforward reading of such media is not original research'. After this I have to assume you misunderstand the guidelines.

And now the difficult intermediate cases:

- The claim neither Winterhalder nor Zhang dispute the label 'planet'. > This is either 'evaluative' or 'interpretive' and I would need to delete it if you put it in the article because it would be against WP:No original research.

- The claim there is a general consensus among the available peer-revieved literature that 'planet' is the correct label. > This is against several guidelines if you put it into the article, among them WP:No original research, WP:SYNTH and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

You can find a good description here WP:No original research: 'Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source.' Such reliable secondary sources e.g. exist to confirm Beta Pic b, 51 Eri b, and HR 8799 bcde are planets, as discussed above. But there is no secondary source, e.g. a review that confirms that HIP 99770 b is a planet by consensus for the moment. If I am mistaken on this one please list it.

It is also nicely described here, if it helps to hear it in words of someone else: 'Reliance on primary sources can lead to interpretive clamps, analyses, or synthetic claims, which must be referenced to a specific source that makes the same claim or analysis. It is not proper to rely on original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.' So neither I, nor you are of course counted as a reliable secondary source, no matter if claiming HIP 99770 b is a brown dwarf, not for claiming it is by consensus a planet.

So, finally, let's go to Wikipedia:Verifiability to see how to proceed: 'Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been published in a reliable source before you can add it. If reliable sources disagree with each other, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight.' If we can't agree what the due weight of different labels is, we either have to ask others or we simply list all available labels ordered by how often they are used, until future secondary source publications solve the issue. In this case everybody can easily decide what they trust.

Please take your time with the guideline evaluation and tell me if you want to change the label and I correct it or vice versa. It seems necessary as the current one does not even list all publications. It also was a try to 'encourage more discussion & see your response first before doing any edits' and to 'converge' as you put it. Stevinger (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, I looked anew at the sources you mention. None of them support any hedging on the nature of HIP 99770 b: still just simply ‘planet’ on Wikipedia. Yes, I understand Wikipedia rules just fine: your invocation of them are misplaced, as I will explain below. I will respond to the most pertinent comments.

If you have any additional comments we should stick to the pertinent sources: i.e. what the 5 HIP 99770 b-focused papers say (or don’t say) and whether there are other reliable secondary sources (e.g. review articles) calling HIP 99770 b a planet (there are).

-First, you are mistaken on Balmer. Their identification of HIP 99770 b as a planet is unambiguous and it is mentioned in at least 6 different places. “[W]e set normally distributed priors on the planet’s mass” [pg 3, Sect 3], “SNR_bF,f is … the standard deviation of the nearby pixels compared to the peak flux on the planet” [Note on Table 1], “We interpret this as strong evidence for a global cloud deck … in the planet’s atmosphere” [Sect 3.1, pg 4], [referring to HIP 99770 b] “How can such a large planet accrete this much metal-rich material?” (top of pg. 7), “evidence that 29 Cyg b formed from the bottom up … and/or that an unknown process fed metal-rich material onto the planet” [pg 7], “Higher-resolution measurements of 29 Cyg b … even isotopic signatures in the planet’s atmosphere and investigate the specific formation location of this massive planet in detail” [again pg 7], “We used these PSF models to measure the planet astrometry” [Appendix A].

In case you are somehow still not convinced that the authors meant what they clearly said (which you have to admit is untenable), see the official NASA press release on this work: https://science.nasa.gov/missions/webb/nasas-webb-redefines-dividing-line-between-planets-stars/ . The authors themselves state this is a planet and formed like one: e.g. ““We were able to update the planet’s orbit …”; ““In other words, it formed like a planet and not like a star.”

The argument about 2 vs 10 sigma is also incorrect. In the exoplanet direct imaging literature (and in general) the 95% confidence limit (i.e. “2 sigma”) is a common standard to denote *agreement* or “lack of significance”. In contrast, 10-sigma is a true deviation: e.g. in Gaussian statistics it has a false alarm probability of <1e-15, more than a trillion times smaller than a 2-sigma deviation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%9395%E2%80%9399.7_rule . Also note (again) my prior comments about the solar system planets alignments (delta(i) ~ 6 deg) still being interpreted as evidence for formation in a disk.

Finally, you are misreading/misinterpreting PZ Tel’s apparent alignment. PZ Tel’s measurement – where the star’s axis is not *directly* measured as it was for HIP 99770 – is just noisier than HIP 99770’s: taken at face value, the 95% confidence interval is identical (i.e. 0—0.24 at 95% CI ~ 12+/- 6 at 68% CI). More importantly, this single measurement by itself is not dispositive: i.e. it does not render meaningless the other lines of evidence (e.g. mass, eccentricity) against PZ Tel B being a planet [also, the most important point, the *literature* *on* PZ Tel overwhelmingly calls it a brown dwarf].

I do agree that I should not have used the word “perfectly”, though: I should simply have said that the authors conclude that HIP 99770 b has spin-orbit alignment with the star, within errors (which is a true statement).

- You said “please give me an example of HR 8799 bcde or especially 51 Eri b being called a Super Jupiter”. Why? I’m honestly not sure but supposedly if “Super Jupiter” was reserved for objects like HIP 99770 b it means its classification is more suspect? [I have no idea if this was your point]. Regardless,I responded with multiple examples where HR 8799 bcde are called super Jupiters because you asked specifically for it. Also note that I mentioned beta Pic b because it is more massive (in this sense more HIP 99770 b-like) than the others you listed. Your response may seem like goalpost moving, but I’ll set it aside. Moving on …

-you claim there is no “secondary source” (e.g. a review article) describing HIP 99770 b as an exoplanet. This is false. The PPVII review article – the same one you say “clearly confirms” that beta Pic b, HR 8799 bcde, and 51 Eri b are not brown dwarfs and includes multiple authors unassociated with HIP 99770 b’s discovery -- EXPLICITLY cites the HIP 99770 b discovery as "the first joint direct imaging and astrometry discovery of an exoplanet (Currie et al. 2022)" in Sect 3.5 [in case there is any confusion, the citation points directly to the HIP 99770 b paper]. Furthermore, a *DIFFERENT* review article -- Claudi & Mesa 2025 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.07976 -- also lists HIP 99770 b as the"1st Planet found with Astrometry and HCI synergy". So that’s at least two ‘reliable secondary sources. The official NASA ExEP Science Gap publication – another secondary source https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.18665 (March 2026) – in Sect 2.4 cites the HIP 99770 b discovery from imaging and astrometry as a current capability of studying planetary system architectures. Furthermore, the NASA Exoplanet Archive lists HIP 99770 b as a "confirmed planet": https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/overview/HIP%2099770. In a separate compilation, the NASA Exoplanet Catalog, HIP 99770 b is listed as a planet: https://science.nasa.gov/exoplanet-catalog/hip-99770-b/ . Both are official NASA sources. Even if you consider all these NASA sources as ‘tertiary’ instead of ‘secondary’ sources they at worst help “evaluate due weight”.

On the items you list:

-glad we agree that discovery paper says ‘planet’. Also, glad we agree that *no* HIP 99770 b-focused paper explicitly says “it is a brown dwarf”. Furthermore, I want to emphasize NONE of the 5 papers even hedges “it could be a brown dwarf” and the majority describe it as a planet in unambiguous terms.

The things you claim I was wrong on: either we are talking past one another or again you are incorrect.

-On the 29 Cyg section labeling [different article] … The ‘no original research’ reasoning was purely in response to your note of “no consensus” when you reverted, which at the time drew from an improper synthesis of results. The better, more detailed reasoning was described earlier by me in this talk thread. The easy fix is relabel the section “Superjovian Companion and Planetary System” with some notes added about the debris disk (since debris disk by itself -> planetary system). Hopefully, you agree that is uncontroversial.

-On Franson et al – No, you are incorrect on this one. The plainest reason is simple: earlier in the *same* article they explicitly call beta Pic b a planet. “Most of these benchmark companions orbit old field stars (>1 Gyr); only three planets—beta Pic b, beta Pic c, and AF Lep b—are young (<200 Myr) and have precise ages based on membership in kinematic associations” [second paragraph]. I agree that it is a straightforward reading to say that both beta Pic b and HIP 99770 b lie within the blue-lined regions. But for reasons explained above it is manifestly not true that a “straightforward reading” of that Figure tells you whether *they* think each particular object overplotted is a planet or not. In case there was any doubt, a later paper by the same author calls beta Pic b “an early L dwarf planet” (Franson et al. 2024, ApJL, 974, L11). Note also that they never say “HIP 99770 b is not/might not be a planet” either: to get to that conclusion, you have to draw an *inference* from the plot which would put into their mouths words they didn’t use.

On this the broader issue is that this is not the first time where you have cited a paper not about HIP 99770 b but another object/topic, tried to draw an inference about HIP 99770 b being questioned (which the authors never say explicitly), and shown that the paper was saying something else. To me, this really feels like a game of whack-a-mole and further iterations are likely to yield the same outcome. You have convinced me, though, that *other* Wikipedia articles likely need a language edit, though.

The key thing you claim is “difficult”. They really aren’t:

-“- The claim neither Winterhalder nor Zhang dispute the label 'planet'.” – Sorry, this is *true*. It is not interpretive or evaluative, as it does not require moving beyond a plain recounting of factual statements. I.e. it is an empirical observation. There is no line in the paper saying “and thus the planet label is uncertain” or “given our results, the classification of HIP 99770 b – planet or not -- is unclear”, etc. It is no more interpretive than, e.g. “"Zhang/Winterhalder do not explicitly say that HIP 99770 b's mass draws from the substellar mass function extending to the hydrogen burning limit" (a factual statement). Or “didn’t say HIP 99770 b formed in a binary system” (also a factual statement). Similarly, I also have never said “the sky could be green” in this Talk thread (another empirical observation, not interpretive).

In all of these cases, these are simply factual statements: no interpretation needed. Using ambiguity about HIP 99770 b’s formation from these papers (again, not the same topic) to draw an inference about a classification ambiguity – which they never state – would be forbidden for exactly the reasons you cite.

-The “general consensus” issue is already covered by what the 5 specific HIP 99770 b papers + review articles/NASA sources, etc. say. If you have a problem with the wording in an *article* (which I didn’t do) – thinking it is Wikipedia violation (fair, unless explicitly stated somewhere) – that’s fine. Most importantly, this is beside the point (in fairness, I should have framed my first response purely in site terms). What matters is what articles directly on HIP 99770 b and secondary /tertiary sources affirmatively say. The only affirmative statements from papers specifically about the target are ‘planet’, a label corroborated by other types of sources (e.g. official NASA documents).

Overall, the original description of the object was ‘HIP 99770 b is a planet’. This is pre-Balmer, whose result only added *additional* multiple lines of evidence in favor of the object being a planet, and they clearly labeled it a planet. The burden of evidence for changing the lead from 'planet' to 'likely planet' rests on identifying a reliable source that characterizes HIP 99770 b's planetary classification as uncertain. I have looked carefully again at the five papers focused on HIP 99770 b and do not find such a statement. 2632cgn (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I disagree, we should take any reliable source into account, if there is no reason to not do so, but of course you can look as often as you want anew at the sources.

- First, you are mistaken on Balmer. First I will ignore any example before the results or conclusion section, as you told me to be careful with those and you gave enough examples anyway. ' “How can such a large planet accrete this much metal-rich material?” (top of pg. 7), ' good example, but the full version is 'similar to the estimate... for the planets AF Lep b and β Pic b' and then what you cited. How do you even know that they did not mean AF Lep b and β Pic b? The other two examples are fair ' “evidence that 29 Cyg b formed from the bottom up … and/or that an unknown process fed metal-rich material onto the planet” [pg 7], “Higher-resolution measurements of 29 Cyg b … even isotopic signatures in the planet’s atmosphere and investigate the specific formation location of this massive planet in detail” [again pg 7] ', and they use planet, but only after the conclusion based on their evidence how sure they are about the object being a planet and then they stick to it. And their conclusion is 'The large atmospheric enrichment our observations indicate could therefore be evidence that 29 Cyg b formed from the bottom-up ...' and then they discuss the implications if true. However, that it has to be a planet, what you claim for the publication and so the 'planet' from the implication discussion did not make it to the abstract, where they write 'This ensemble of evidence is suggestive of formation ...' or the title where they decide to go with '... of a Super-Jupiter: Enhanced Metallicity Suggestive of Formation in a Disk'.

You had a point there that they had a press release. But the full quote is '“Put together, this evidence strongly suggests that 29 Cygni b formed within a protoplanetary disk through rapid accretion of metal-rich material, rather than through gas fragmentation,” said Balmer. “In other words, it formed like a planet and not like a star.” They explained what the formation part means for the public, but the proper reforming of the combined sentence would be '“Put together, this evidence strongly suggests that 29 Cygni b ... formed like a planet and not like a star.' As you put it in another context, this is not the first time something important was missing in a quote of yours.

As an addendum, I did not understand in the first place why you claimed before 'did resulted in [M/H] = 0.4 +/- 0.1, which is even more decisively metal rich: they explain why the adopted the other measurement, to be conservative.' Where did you find that? Yes, the value is of course there, but they write '[M/H] = 0.4 − 0.5, and produced unphysical surface gravities despite the dynamical mass prior'. The important word seems unphysical, not conservative, wherever you got the latter one from.

Not sure why you tell me I am incorrect regarding 2 vs 10 sigma and then repeat half of what I wrote in other words. 'the authors conclude that HIP 99770 b has spin-orbit alignment with the star, within errors (which is a true statement)' is a true statement, but some need 68% for this true statement and some only 3%, while at the same time the 'within errors' part is not their wording. But you now said 'perfectly' was a bad choice, so this is fine.

Regarding PZ Tel I also have to disagree. 9.2 +4.1 -9.0 is not the same thing as 12+/- 6 regarding consistency with 0, but that was not the point. I am not trying to show PZ Tel B is a planet. On the contrary, it just shows aligment alone, at least for a single object like HIP 99770 b, can not show it is a planet. And 'At the very least, it can be stated that there is no strong evidence for spin-orbit misalignment in this system.' seems to take into account everything.

- Super-Jupiter: I assumed it would not help to discuss this further. If you provided a good example I ignored I apologize, but the ones I saw were 'super-Jupiter planets' ... this is not really helpful. This way it just confirms your umbrella explanation. However, I actually asked you for examples within the title, while I admit I did not do that very well, again why I did not follow it further. The reason is simple, authors often use in the title a label they identify as typical for the object. About half of the references for HIP 99770 b use 'Super-Jupiter' alone, while among the hundreds of publications for HR 8799 bcde or 51 Eri b none seem to use 'Super-Jupiter' in the title. It is usually 'planetary' or no label.

- Now the interesting “secondary source”s you provided. First the PPVII review article. You are correct it cites (Currie et al. 2022). But this is basically what it does. You were incorrect, I did not claim 'there is no “secondary source” (e.g. a review article) describing HIP 99770 b as an exoplanet'. What I actually claimed was 'But there is no secondary source, e.g. a review that confirms that HIP 99770 b is a planet by consensus for the moment'. At the time of this review, the discovery publication was maybe fully published, but none of the other 4 publications, but we both already agreed what the discovery publication claims, not a surprise the review agrees, too. The '*DIFFERENT* review article -- Claudi & Mesa 2025' seems more interesting, at least 2 publications were out at the time. You are correct '1st Planet found with Astrometry and HCI synergy' is given, I assume you took it from Table 2. Now if this would be the full picture I would need to agree, but the very same table also provides LkCa 15 (with a controversial number of protoplanets) is the '1st protoplanet seen in process of active accretion', which is an example object you mentioned before. If you examine instead of the table the text it tells you LkCa 15 are 'widely disputed' and so on. So I decided to examine the 5 lines the review provides for HIP 99770 b. Their verdict is 'HIP 99770b could be considered the first planet found with the PMa technique.'. That they doubted the PMa technique is being used is unlikely as it is well documented. So the first planet nature is what must have been meant with 'could be considered'.

Since a verdict of 'could be considered' is hard to quantify and as I am subjective from one point of view I decided to ask a search engine, which gave me the following result (I am well aware asking AI can be let's say erroneous, but it seems a good way to get something more objective!): 'Describing something as "could be considered" implies it is technically possible, but lacks concrete confirmation. The actual likelihood of the event or condition is generally estimated to be low to moderate. This phrasing typically operates in the 20% to 50% probability range, where evidence is mixed or subjective. It suggests that while the criteria for the outcome exist, the weight of evidence does not yet make it a probable or certain occurrence. The phrase is essentially a semantic hedge. It falls into the lower half of likelihood vocabulary, meaning the event may be conceptualized as a possibility, but you should not bet on it happening.'

But you provide even more, the NASA sources. They seem very convincing at first sight, but they are actually exactly what another editor warned me about. Why? Because LkCa 15 are for example marked as 'confirmed planet, controversial', but e.g. your favorite PZ Tel B is simply given as 'confirmed planet' and seems to have been added after the Franson publication, despite them calling it a brown dwarf clearly. I would argue these are 'tertiary sources' and would not consider them for any due weight.

- 'NONE of the 5 papers even hedges “it could be a brown dwarf”' is fair, but 'the majority describe it as a planet in unambiguous terms' is still incorrect.

- On the 29 Cyg section labeling. 'Substellar companion' is still better, while the label here is not that important. Planetary system seems not warranted, as to my best knowledge a debris disk not necessarily means it is a planetary system and so far a debris disk is not even mentioned.

-On Franson et al: To be honest, I think you speak way too much about Beta Pic b. In the second paragraph of the INTRODUCTION they cite someone else about the nature of Beta Pic b, it does not need to be their opinion. Also they can have changed their mind until 2024 or found that there are better luminosities, who knows. Most importantly the status of Beta Pic b, which is also confirmed in Claudi & Mesa 2025 is not connected to the status of HIP 99770 b at all. You show that “HIP 99770 b is not/might not be a planet” is not provided in Franson, that is fair. Claiming this is what I wrote is not fair, because these are your words, which is funny regarding you telling me about putting words in others mouths. So this is not the first time where you have put words in my mouth, but now you even complain that this shows repeated improper behaviour of mine. As you put it: To me, this really feels like a game of whack-a-mole and further iterations are likely to yield the same outcome. What your last sentence should mean and whether I should assume it is personal, I don't know, so I'll ignore it.

- Winterhalder or Zhang: 'There is no line in the paper saying “and thus the planet label is uncertain” or “given our results, the classification of HIP 99770 b – planet or not -- is unclear”, etc' is fair.

I am glad you agree that thinking a 'general consensus' term or equivalent is 'Wikipedia violation (fair, unless explicitly stated somewhere) – that’s fine.' The sentence 'The only affirmative statements from papers specifically about the target are ‘planet’' is, however, still incorrect. Substellar or Super-Jupiter are affirmative statements. But I think we are making progress.

I agree, 'the original description of the object was ‘HIP 99770 b is a planet’ (in the discovery publication). The next sentence 'This is pre-Balmer, whose result only added *additional* multiple lines of evidence in favor of the object being a planet, and they clearly labeled it a planet.' is, however, not shown. That Balmer agree with the conclusions in the discovery paper and consider their results additional evidence is nowhere given within the reference, so is interpretive. And again, Balmer conclude it is a 'strongly suggested planet' or similar. Let's check again what the search engine says: 'In everyday language, describing an outcome as "strongly suggested" generally indicates a probability of 65% to 80%. However, because this is a verbal phrase and not a strict mathematical formula, the exact percentage depends heavily on the context: In Statistics & Science: A "strongly suggested" result—or a strong statistical suggestion—usually corresponds to a \(p\)-value between \(0.05\) and \(0.10\). This means there is a \(5\%\) to \(10\%\) probability that the outcome occurred entirely by random chance. In Weather Forecasts: Meteorologists typically define "strongly suggested" or "likely" precipitation as a 60% to 70% chance of rain, while anything above 80% is usually described as "highly probable" or "almost certain".In Professional/Intelligence Reports: Analysts frequently use standardized terminology like Words of Estimative Probability. In this framework, "suggested" or "likely" means the event has roughly a 70% chance of occurring.'

Overall, we all agreed that the discovery publication says 'planet', then the latest 'secondary source' Claudi & Mesa 2025 says could be considered a planet, and the latest primary source says strongly suggested planet, which can also mean 'likely' in meteorology. I assumed these findings should be paraphrased, if you dislike 'likely' tell me what it should be, maybe 'probable'? Or tell me another rephrase. Again, if we can't agree, we can list all possibilities, maybe something like 'HIP 99770 b is a Super-Jupiter^1-5, could be considered a planet^6, is a strongly suggested planet^1 ... orbiting ...' if you should insist to provide the information word by word. Stevinger (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Your response is helpful in the sense that it narrows the discussion. We agreed that no paper calls HIP 99770 b a brown dwarf. Furthermore, you called the following “fair”: "There is no line in the paper saying 'and thus the planet label is uncertain' or 'given our results, the classification of HIP 99770 b – planet or not -- is unclear' … is fair." Yes, it is true that no paper ever states the planet classification is uncertain or unclear.

Two questions decide this:

1) **Does any reliable source on HIP 99770 b clearly state that it is a planet?** Yes — multiple HIP 99770 b papers (the majority: including the discovery paper and latest paper) and three separate review articles (see below).

2) **Does any source clearly state that the planet classification is uncertain, or present an evidence-based argument clearly stating that it should instead be classified as a brown dwarf?** No — as you have agreed.

That settles the label. The justification offered for "likely" is, among other things, original research, which Wikipedia prohibits — see below. The rest responds to other specific points for completeness.

-“Substellar or Super-Jupiter are affirmative statements.” – This is the crux, and it is why hedging is not warranted. Neither statement affirms anything incompatible with "planet." "Substellar companion" is a scientific umbrella classification encompassing both planets and brown dwarfs — it contains "planet" rather than competing with it. "Super-Jupiter" is a descriptive term routinely applied to objects whose planetary status is uncontested (a further example beyond those already discussed: Konopacky et al., "A system of super-Jupiters," on PDS 70 b/c). Neither term, by itself, expresses uncertainty about whether an object is a planet, and no paper on HIP 99770 b pairs either term with such a statement.

A simple analogy. Suppose one source says "x is a dog" and another says "x is a canine," where the species is not strictly necessary to the discussion. It would not follow that Wikipedia should say "x is likely a dog." "Canine" is not a competing taxonomic conclusion with "dog" — it contains it. Likewise, papers on beta Pic b and HR 8799 bcde variously call them planets, super-Jupiters, and substellar companions in different places in text and title. It would plainly be incorrect to conclude that Wikipedia should therefore describe those objects as only "likely" planets. Different types of affirmative descriptors are not, by themselves, evidence of disagreement or uncertainty.

Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources *state*, not what editors *infer* authors may have believed. Broader descriptive words like "super-Jupiter" cannot be interpreted as implicit hedges on planet classification **unless the source itself makes that connection** (e.g. “we are not sure about it being a planet but it’s definitely a super-Jupiter”; “this Super Jupiter could be a planet”). None of the papers we’ve discussed do.

Note also the following symmetry problem. The discovery paper never explicitly uses "super-Jupiter" either. Neither do the Claudi/Mesa and Zurlo review papers. So under the reasoning that a label must be hedged because not every paper states it, "super-Jupiter" would need a hedge too (i.e. "HIP 99770 b is most likely a super-Jupiter and most likely a planet."). No article is written that way, and no rule requires it. A label is supported by the sources that state it; silence in other sources is not contradiction.

----

The justification given in the previous post for “likely” is itself also inconsistent with Wikipedia’s prohibition on original research/synthesis. You explain that you used an AI chatbot and analogies to meteorological probability scales to infer numerical confidence levels from the language used by Claudi/Mesa and Balmer et al. Irrespective of whether this is a valid approach, these probability estimates and methods do not appear in any of the cited sources.

Whether they came from an AI chatbot or your own reasoning is immaterial: they are editorial inferences rather than published statements. Wikipedia does not permit editors to introduce unpublished numerical interpretations of source language nor should that be the basis of any wording in articles. In other words, the claimed 20–50% or 60–80% confidence ranges used to support ‘likely’ are not source content; they are interpretations, which is precisely the kind of synthesis WP:NOR is intended to prevent.

The broader question accompanying classification is on the balance of this evidence. The discovery paper introduced multiple lines of evidence – mass, mass ratio/orbital separation, etc. – and ancillary evidence (Jupiter-like luminosity-scaled distance, location interior to a debris disk). Science determined that this was sufficient to support HIP 99770 b’s identification as a planet.

Which one of these pillars has been undermined by one of the later papers we have discussed? I.e. where is the “the discovery paper claims a mass ratio consistent with planets but we call that into question”? Such a statement is nowhere to be found in the HIP 99770 b papers we have discussed, and the evidence has only strengthened (Balmer). Technically, this situation is different than for HR 8799, as there *is* a paper explicitly suggesting that bcd could be brown dwarfs: yet there is no hedge for HR 8799 bcde on WP.

--

Bottom line: The article’s leading description then cannot hedge on “planet”. As a compromise, I am willing to consider “superjovian exoplanet” or “Super-Jupiter exoplanet”, even though I’m not enthusiastic about mixing a descriptive and scientific label on WP. Neither label is used in every paper, but both are uncontested: just as no source explicitly questions the scientific label "planet," none explicitly questions the descriptive label "super-Jupiter."

Other comments:

- Balmer adopts the same classification as the discovery paper: planet. There is no rule that a paper's classification only ‘counts’ as representing the authors’ position if it appears in the results or conclusion section: you are misinterpreting me if you thought I suggested one. Furthermore, Section 3 is a *results* section, not an introduction repeating labels for another object. It reports the *results on* HIP 99770 b (e.g. dynamical mass, metal enrichment, spin-orbit alignment). The paper refers to the object as "the planet" throughout — methods, table notes, results, conclusion, and appendix. That profuse, consistent usage leaves no doubt that the authors’ position is HIP 99770 b is a planet, without hedging.

Even setting all of that aside (which is well more than enough), the conclusion section alone separately suffices. The cautious language you cite — e.g. "suggestive of" — is about formation mechanisms. It is not a hedge on classification. There is no "candidate planet" or similar hedging language on the classification anywhere in the paper; it is simply "planet."

On "how do you know they didn't mean AF Lep b and beta Pic b?" … It is very straightforward. First, "this" is singular — one object (i.e. HIP 99770 b) — while AF Lep b and β Pic b are two (plural). If they meant AF Lep/beta Pic they would have said “these”. In the preceding paragraph HIP 99770 b is the subject whose metal mass is newly estimated and AF Lep b/beta Pic b are only brought in to establish context in a single sentence. "Such a large planet" and "this much metal-rich material" refer to the object whose mass and accreted-metal-mass were just computed as a new result in *this* paper: HIP 99770 b. In case there was any doubt, the paragraph is bookended by another reference to HIP 99770 b as a planet — the answer to "how could such a large planet [HIP 99770 b] accrete this much metal-rich material?" is "…29 Cyg b formed from the bottom up…and/or an unknown process fed metal-rich material onto the *planet.*" The press release confirms the authors’ position: "the planet's orbit," and "the inclination of the planet is well-aligned with the spin axis of the star” are simple, unhedged declarative statements. ‘Planet’ is what they *literally* say: no hedging.

So Balmer classifies HIP 99770 b as a planet, repeatedly and in multiple sections, with no hedge on classification anywhere — not even a hedge that is later refuted. This is simply true.

What is new in Balmer vs. all preceding papers is the evidence: enhanced metallicity and spin-orbit alignment. The authors frame these as evidence for planet-like formation: note, as described earlier in the thread, classification is *not* equivalent to formation, but evidence that an object’s mode of formation is specifically planet-like *does* support the ‘planet’ classification. Whether one personally sees this as dispositive or somewhat more tentative is beside the point: it is additional evidence in the same direction, by the authors' own account. Reporting that is not at all ‘synthesis’ but simply an empirical observation repeating the authors’ own words.

-On review articles … saying a “review must say planet ‘by consensus” misstates WP’s requirements. For this discussion, Wikipedia asks whether a reliable secondary source **makes the classification** — not whether it contains the specific meta-sentence "this is a planet by consensus". The PPVII review does use the word “consensus” in just a single instance but only for *illustrative* purposes (to later set up the point that ‘some other’ objects are ambiguous) and including an “etc”: the named objects do not form a complete list. It contains no hedging language on key objects absent from that list: HIP 65426 b, PDS 70 bc, or HIP 99770 b. To require a review to add the phrase “This is the consensus” to every single factual claim before it ‘counts’ is just not credible: that’s not how reviews are done.

You are also misinterpreting the Claudi & Mesa review language on HIP 99770 b. They are not hedging on whether HIP 99770 b is classified as a planet. In Table 1, it is labeled a *planet* in two columns, Fig. 12 reports the discovery images of all “planets” (including HIP 99770 b); its *planet-to-star* mass ratio is “similar to *other planets* discovered with DI” (Sect. 6.11). No hedging language. Hedging on the classification in the phrase you cite would directly contradict these other unambiguous descriptions and makes little sense.

Rather, it hedges whether HIP 99770 b is the first planet “*found with PMa*” (here, they mean the first joint imaging + astrometric discovery). I.e. perhaps a different planet found with this technique deserves the ‘first’ title. HIP 99770 b is definitely *not* the first *substellar* object found by this method: e.g. HIP 21152 B preceded it and has a dynamical mass of ~27.8 [+8.4,-5.4] MJup (Kuzuhara et al. 2022) or ~24 [+6, -4] Mjup (Franson et al 2023). My understanding of the literature is that this hedging on “first” is a minority opinion – and taken literally, there is a slight inconsistency with their wording in the Table, which contains no qualifier. But I will not revert your change until I examine further.

Finally, *a third* review article – Zurlo (2026) – calls HIP 99770 b a planetary companion, post-dating all HIP 99770 b papers except Balmer. To be fair, the three reviews – PPVII, Claudi/Mesa, Zurlo – do not have perfect overlap on their set of objects: e.g. Claudi lists “many” planets, not necessarily all they accept. However, the three *do all* have the following objects: HR 8799 bcde, beta Pic b, 51 Eri b, PDS 70 bc, HIP 65426 b, and *HIP 99770 b*. Agreement from three independent reviews in the company of long-established benchmarks can only add weight.

I agree that NASA sources are tertiary but it is incorrect to say they are not given “*any* due weight”: these are effectively official government agency documents. The examples you cite cut the other way: the Archive has a "controversial" flag and uses it — you note LkCa 15 b carries it. It does not apply that flag to HIP 99770 b. So the database distinguishes contested from uncontested objects, and places HIP 99770 b among the latter. Again, more evidence.

-You write: "You show that 'HIP 99770 b is not/might not be a planet' is not provided in Franson, that is fair." Agreed. That admission settles the substance. My whole response on this point was that any claim that it does bear on classification is an *inference* -- not explicitly stated anywhere – that would lead to other absurd conclusions: i.e. that beta Pic b is a brown dwarf. And indeed Franson declares *in* the paper and in a future paper (the JWST one, in the results section, not Intro) that beta Pic b is a planet [note: no, there was no major result in between the two papers that changed beta Pic b’s status: it’s as rock solid as has been for a decade+].

-You say “it just shows aligment alone, at least for a single object like HIP 99770 b, can not show it is a planet.” Yes and this was exactly my point in saying “this single measurement by itself is not dispositive: i.e. it does not render meaningless the other lines of evidence” [the word dispositive = definitively resolves]. It is simply another additive increment of evidence in favor of ‘planet’, one beyond that considered in the discovery paper. The technical discussion about statistics was to clarify why this is so. I.e. that agreement within the 95% confidence interval is taken to mean consistency with alignment, whereas one uses 10-sigma to denote outliers. And it is incorrect to infer somehow that PZ Tel B is ‘more’ aligned. Its posteriors *are* slightly noisier. Taken at face value, the 95% confidence interval for HIP 99770 b is consistent with 0 misalignment and, taken at face value, is identical to the 95% CI for misalignment for PZ Tel (i.e. 0 to 24 deg at 95% CI = 12+/- 6 at 68% CI).

More broadly, we have gone through numerous papers offered in support of hedging or used to cast doubt on the planet classification in some way that, on inspection, does not support said position or the conclusion is synthesis/original research — Franson, the kap And b papers, PPVII, the HIP 54515 paper, Winterhalder, Zhang, Claudi & Mesa, etc. Same with the use of statistics. In each case the paper either does not cast doubt on HIP 99770 b's classification as a planet or affirms it.

-On the 29 Cyg main article – A debris disk *is* a clear indication that the primary is surrounded by a planetary system of some kind: this is a foundational pillar of debris disk theory [e.g. see many reviews by Mark Wyatt]. Looking at other similar articles, a simple “Planetary System” section is typical, so I will retitle that section once I add information about the debris disk. 2632cgn (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

You tried to settle the label within your first 200 words or so, but unfortunately it seems to be built on sand.

I mean your question 1 is still debatable, I just disagree with the majority part mainly. But your question 2 is just clearly answered incorrect. I have not agreed to a 'No' for 'Does any source clearly ... present an evidence-based argument clearly stating that it should instead be classified as a brown dwarf?' I said 'Neither Winterhalder nor Zhang conclude explicitely 'brown dwarf' > correct' and ''NONE of the 5 papers even hedges “it could be a brown dwarf”' is fair', that is not the same thing and I am sure you know the difference. We have discussed 10+ publications.

But we do not need to get that far into the discussion, already your second sentence 'We agreed that no paper calls HIP 99770 b a brown dwarf.' is incorrect. As my quotes above already show I have not agreed to that. But that is not the main problem. The problem is that even you disagreed to that on 9 July 2026 by writing 'Fig 4 from the PZ Tel B paper ... Like HIP 99770 b, beta Pic b on that Figure lies within the region covered by blue curves, which is “ostensibly” for brown dwarfs. However, this position (“beta Pic b is a brown dwarf”) is one that to my knowledge no modern paper on the object takes.' Until you wrote that I did not even consider this could be a major point, but I afterwards looked up for you what the guidelines say about that and they state that evidence does not have to be provided in prose only.

I specifically asked last time to please stop putting words in my mouth, but instead you stepped up your game and did it twice within your first 200 words. And then you start to disagree with yourself from about 8 days earlier, too. I really tried, but at this point it seems not to make sense to discuss further, since I am not sure with whom I should find a consensus, the 'current answer you' or the '8 days earlier answer you'.

I also want to keep the rest short, because several things you write are a repeat of previous statements you made, and as written here (WP:BLUDGEON), 'Each time you use an argument, it becomes weaker'. But I should respond to some of the new points you raised at least:

Regarding the Claudi & Mesa publication: LkCa 15 b is given as a planet. In Table 2, it is labeled a *protoplanet* in two columns, Fig. 12 reports the discovery images of all “planets” (including HIP 99770 b and LkCa 15 b). It's 'an ideal place for the search for planetary-mass companions' and talks about 'directly imaging young giant planets' (Sect. 6.6). Still, they say LkCa 15 b is 'widely disputed' only in the section text. Nevertheless, you conclude that 'Hedging on the classification in the phrase you cite would directly contradict these other unambiguous descriptions and makes little sense.' with regard to HIP 99770 b. They do the same thing for LkCa 15 b, so assuming it can't happen to several other objects seems to make little sense.

'Finally, *a third* review article – Zurlo (2026) – calls HIP 99770 b a planetary companion, post-dating all HIP 99770 b papers except Balmer.' This is interesting, thank you. I again would rather stick to the full explanation. In the paragraph they explain: 'The planetary-mass companions discovered so far are listed in Table 1' and these are the ones with '(M ≲ 13 MJup)'. It is good that it is mentioned there, because it might be a planetary-mass companion. However, it is in company of 2M1207 b, 2MJ0441+23 b, WD 0806-661 b, COCONUTS-2 b and YSES 2 b among others. I would be really surprised if you see all of these examples as clear planets. Moreover, if you look closely, HIP 99770 b is least well fulfilling the prerequisite of '(M ≲ 13 MJup)' within the full table, it just barely fulfills the criterion.

Regarding the NASA sources you are right, I shouldn't have written no weight. I actually think NASA sources are among the most reliable, but the goal of the NASA exoplanet archive seems to be, like the one of other archives, to provide information on any object that could be a planet potentially, which is good. Yes, LkCa 15 b has a controversial flag, as I told you, but PZ Tel b has not. Or take Luhman 16 B. If you would sign that the entry as 'confirmed planet' has a relevance to the classification or label of PZ Tel b and Luhman 16 B, then of course it can have also the same relevance for HIP 99770 b.

Your sentence 'As a compromise, I am willing to consider “superjovian exoplanet” or “Super-Jupiter exoplanet”, even though I’m not enthusiastic about mixing a descriptive and scientific label on WP.' surprised me in multiple ways. You are arguing regularly that the discovery paper material is not proven wrong, and now suggest to compromise from 'planet' as given throughout this publication to 'superjovian exoplanet' or 'Super-Jupiter exoplanet', so a variant of their 'Superjovian Planet' (title) or 'superjovian extrasolar planet' (abstract) and say you are not enthusiastic to do the same thing as has been done in the Science publication?? Hey, I really don't mean this personal, but you might have to look up the definition of 'compromise' again, since you started to use the word. I am not very eager to call the object Super-Jupiter or superjovian, but the current version 'a directly imaged super-Jupiter, most likely a planet' was a strong compromise for me, but you at least clearly let me know you don't want it.

Overall, it seems I have to take the minimum consensus we could achieve yet, again confirmed by you, e.g. by 'Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources *state*, not what editors *infer*' or by 'A label is supported by the sources that state it'. So I will include labels that are explicitely stated by sources, as several times mentioned by me as alternative way if we can't agree. Of course, you can change it, as you can change the section name in the 29 Cygni b article, but let me mention two more things:

It is all about Wikipedia:Verifiability, if you have a good reason or source that states it, just do it.

But 'Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone.' (neutral point of view).

Have a good one. Stevinger (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The criteria used to pinpoint the appropriate label for HIP 99770 b are clear, scientifically robust, and compliant with WP guidelines. [note: yes, my exact wording from my prior reply was loose: it was very unclear that the statement on the 2 core questions refers to just the 5 specific HIP 99770 b papers. Apologies on that.]

To summarize, the discovery paper calls this object a planet, backed by multiple lines of evidence. The majority of the 5 HIP 99770 b-focused papers clearly call it a planet; a minority take no position but none even hedge “it could be a brown dwarf” or provide any clear evidence-based case for calling the planet classification uncertain. The evidence added after the discovery paper –e.g. metal enrichment and spin-orbit alignment from Balmer et al. – only further supports the planet classification. These points are simply true, empirical observations.

Furthermore, multiple review articles and tertiary sources classify HIP 99770 b as a planet, just like they do for long-standing cases like HR 8799 bcde and beta Pic b, even as they differ on the status of other objects. As stated before, Wikipedia articles can only summarize what reliable sources *state*, not what editors *infer* authors may have believed, otherwise we violate WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. There is no justification for any hedging based on the HIP 99770 b-specific papers.

We have discussed many papers that turned out not to support any hedging on HIP 99770 b’s status. My responding substantively and earnestly to serially-new objections requiring unique responses is not “bludgeoning” [aside from the inaccuracy, I had hoped we were past this kind of slight].

So what is left? From what I can tell, your claim is that a remaining article, the Franson/PZ Tel paper, provides a basis for calling HIP 99770 b a brown dwarf, even though you appear to also call ‘fair’ the statement that they never say “HIP 99770 b is not/might not be a planet”. As well described before, this argument also fails. Your implication that I somehow contradicted myself on this is not correct: my position is unchanged. Rather, the July 9 note incorporates a “reductio ad absurdum” argument: i.e. *if* we actually tried to use that Figure to *infer* the status of objects (the quotations around “ostensibly” in my prior response are a clue), we are left with absurd conclusions: beta Pic b would be a brown dwarf, which the same paper contradicts by calling it a planet.

More importantly, you misread the entire purpose of the Figure. The specific figure panel – which the text never discusses– plots *predicted* luminosity evolution curves from a single model grid (1997 era) against measured luminosities and ages. The curves are model- and formation-conditions-dependent (see Spiegel & Burrows 2012) and grouped by mass. Proximity to one tells you what the models would *infer* the mass to be *if* the models are 100% right and stellar ages accurate, not how the authors themselves classify an object. Any classification would be your inference and WP:SYNTH, not the paper’s statement. Note: HIP 99770 b has a *direct* dynamical mass measurement: we don’t have to rely on these model inferences. Franson’s purpose here is to assess how the masses *inferred* from these models compare to direct dynamical masses. I.e. the models are *compared* to empirical data, not used to classify objects. This is why, even for their own subject (PZ Tel), the authors classify PZ Tel B from its dynamical mass posterior in Sect 4.1, not from this plot.

The review articles and NASA sources corroborate HIP 99770 b’s planet classification: the details you raise do not change this. Yes, Claudi & Mesa list LkCa 15 b as a planet in the table while also calling it widely disputed. In other words, the review distinguishes disputed objects from undisputed ones, while not describing HIP 99770 b as disputed (just like some NASA sources). On Zurlo, the table says “planetary companions”. Calling HIP 99770 b the “least well fulfilling” object to cast some doubt is putting words in the author’s mouth (again, WP:No original research). They apply a criterion and HIP 99770 b meets it. That’s it. At least one of the objects you mentioned is explicitly called an exoplanet in the text. As I’ve said before, the lists do differ on some objects. What matters is that three independent reviews, with different authors, all place HIP 99770 b in the planet category, just like for HR 8799 bcde. For the NASA sources, the fact that PZ Tel B and Luhman 16B are unflagged tells you nothing about other unflagged objects like HIP 99770 b (or HR 8799 e). Each object has to be evaluated according to its own body of evidence considering due weight from the full set of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources.

The published paper, what counts as the version of record, does *not* call HIP 99770 b a "super-Jupiter" or even a “superjovian planet”. You are probably quoting the old original arxiv preprint posting (the authors’ original Science submission, prior to review), which was updated. Papers may change substantially after the review process due to comments from expert referees and editors on both substance and style.

On ‘compromise’, the WP article long described HIP 99770 b as a planet. “Most likely a planet” is an alteration you alone introduced. A ‘compromise’ measured from your own edit alone, rather than from the article's stable text, isn't one. Even if it is less scientifically inaccurate than “a brown dwarf”, "most likely" is still precisely the wording no source supports. The basis you offered for it — probability ranges obtained by asking an AI chatbot what phrases like "could be considered" and "strongly suggests" imply and referencing meteorology (entirely different discipline)— appears in no source. That is WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH in a clear form.

The longstanding description of HIP 99770 b as simply an exoplanet was and is accurate per WP rules. Nothing in this discussion justifies replacing "planet" with "most likely a planet" or retaining "brown dwarf" in the lead, per WP:YESPOV, WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. While I personally dislike the mixing of descriptive and scientific terms on WP, you have convinced me that “Super Jupiter” is likewise an uncontested label. So I have retained a version of that label as well.

Beyond that, the article needs to incorporate results from the Balmer et al paper fully, since it is now a key part of the HIP 99770 b literature. I will do so sometime in the near future. 2632cgn (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

You write: 'The published paper, what counts as the version of record, does *not* call HIP 99770 b a "super-Jupiter" or even a “superjovian planet” '. That is fair. The more surprising it is that you reintroduced again a version of the article that gives the discovery publication as source for Super-Jupiter (before you changed 'most likely planet' to 'planet' in an additional edit).

You also write: 'My responding substantively and earnestly to serially-new objections requiring unique responses is not “bludgeoning” [aside from the inaccuracy, I had hoped we were past this kind of slight].'. Well, I did not call it “bludgeoning”, I just reminded you 'Each time you use an argument, it becomes weaker', because you repeated several of your points and gave (WP:BLUDGEON) as source, so you don't think I am the original source of this idea [aside from the inaccuracy, I had hoped we were finally past that you put words in my mouth].

So what is left? Regarding the the Franson/PZ Tel paper you can call it however you like, “reductio ad absurdum” or else, but it refers to Beta Pic b. Even if it contradicts with anything, you probably agree, that it could be because they used an outdated or unwise or inaccurate luminosity of the object or for a thousand other reasons that are not connected to HIP 99770 b at all. You write two paragraphs later: 'the fact that PZ Tel B and Luhman 16B are unflagged tells you nothing about other unflagged objects like HIP 99770 b (or HR 8799 e). Each object has to be evaluated according to its own body of evidence'! Please follow your own advice and evaluate each object on its own.

You further write: 'Any classification would be your inference and WP:SYNTH, not the paper’s statement.' No. I don't want to sound like a broken record, but No, because WP:No original research starts with 'Source information does not need to be in prose form: Any form of information, such as maps, charts, graphs, and tables may be used to provide source information. Any straightforward reading of such media is not original research'.' So two exceptions remain:

- if the graph reading techniques are used incorrectly. This is excluded, since you read the graph 'Like HIP 99770 b, beta Pic b on that Figure lies within the region covered by blue curves, which is “ostensibly” for brown dwarfs.' It does not matter if you agree with the interpretation, but you read the graph exactly as I would and you wrote that before I even told you how I would read it.

- if the authors disagree with this reading of the graph within the rest of the publication. If they write 'we find HIP 99770 b is a brown dwarf from Fig. 4, but actually it is a planet' or something similar.

Since none of this seems the case please again follow your own advice that you gave several times (also in your most recent response which I cite): 'Wikipedia articles can only summarize what reliable sources *state*, not what editors *infer* authors may have believed'. They state 'brown dwarf', you read 'brown dwarf' originally, but you believe differently or at least infer that it means something different.

On ‘compromise’. So we have publications calling the object 'planetary-mass companion' '(M ≲ 13 M_J)', 'substellar companion', 'planet' and 'brown dwarf' as direct quotes. From this I inferred that "most likely a planet" would be adequate. Since you naturally might call me subjective, I weighed in AI responses, hopefully more objective, but as I wrote potentially erroneous into my follow-up answer to convince you the original choice makes sense. Well, maybe all of this is WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH because it is intepretation what a short version of 'planetary-mass companion' '(M ≲ 13 M_J)', 'substellar companion', 'planet' and 'brown dwarf' would be. But since you have no source for it, but saying there is a consensus on it, it seems not more or less WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH than your 'The longstanding description of HIP 99770 b as simply an exoplanet was and is accurate' if no (recent) sources for exactly this are provided. I tried to help to make it shorter, but if you do not accept that others speculate on a shorter version, while doing it yourself on and on I cannot help.

Nothing in this discussion above justifies that you this time:

- deleted a direct quote from the latest secondary source Zurlo 2026 from the article without a reason.

- deleted a direct quote from the reliable primary source Franson+ 2023 without a reason.

- deleted a direct quote from the reliable primary source Winterhalder+ 2025 without a reason.

- deleting the reliable primary source Zhang+ 2024 without a reason.

- deleted the reliable primary source Balmer+ 2026 without a reason and adding now 'Beyond that, the article needs to incorporate results from the Balmer et al paper fully', while deleting it in the first place. Stevinger (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Before discussing the substance …  you are misreading my recent edit, and the implication accompanying it was unwarranted. As I said previously, I would retain your "Super-Jupiter" label while restoring the long-standing "planet," and then incorporate the Balmer results — a two-phase edit. There is a great deal to clean up in this article, and doing it properly takes some time and care.  I thought a single unified justification after I was all done with both was more efficient, and you caught me mid-draft on phase two, including a fix with the Super-Jupiter attribution. Nothing was removed to ‘hide’ anything.  Both the original description (with justification in article history) and the citations are now restored.

Similarly, you quoted "Each time you use an argument, it becomes weaker" and linked WP:BLUDGEON (which references this quote). Your response misses the point.  Citing a link to this guidline  in response to another editor's writing is plainly invoking that guideline, whether or not you explicitly use the word – much like citing  "sealioning" would, whether you used that word.  The citation is the charge. In any case the substance is unchanged: responding to serially-new objections, each raising an entirely different paper, is *not* repetition of a single argument.

Substantive points:

-Again, your reading of the Franson paper is incorrect and you misunderstand my response.  The ‘reductio’ invoking beta Pic b is not a direct inference about HIP 99770 b from beta Pic b. It is a test of *your* method (reasoning) for classifying objects.  Both HIP 99770 b and beta Pic b are in this same “region”, as you say. If position in that region is supposed to establish a brown dwarf classification, it establishes one for beta Pic b too.  Yet the same paper calls beta Pic b a planet in its prose.

Your interpretation cannot be what the figure means, certainly not a “straightforward reading”, because applying the same interpretation to beta Pic b yields a conclusion the paper itself directly rejects.  Your suggestion that beta Pic b might be misplaced due to an outdated luminosity is valid and would also refute your own point.  If the interpretation depends on uncertainties in the underlying models or adopted luminosities, then position on the figure cannot by itself establish classification from a "straightforward reading".

More broadly, you are still fundamentally misinterpreting this figure:  your “graph reading techniques are used incorrectly”.  The figure’s own caption makes this explicit and clear.  It does not say “everything in this region defined by the lines *is* a brown dwarf”.  The panel says “The background *models* [emph on models] show the luminosity evolution of planets, brown dwarfs, and stars *from Burrows et al. (1997)*”.   I.e the figure *compares* *model predictions* for the luminosity evolution *against* real data.  This plot is *testing* the models, *not using* them to classify/interpret objects.   The curves tell you what the models *would infer* the mass to be *if* the models and ages are 100% right, not how the authors classify anything.  Which is why, even for their own subject (PZ Tel), the authors classify PZ Tel B from its dynamical mass posterior, not this plot.    And no I did not “read the graph exactly as [you] would” (again, see air quotes around ‘ostensibly’ and the reductio form of response: you are misunderstanding).

For both reasons, any classification would be *your* inference -- one whose method is self-refuting-- and WP:SYNTH, not the paper’s statement.

As yet another piece of corroboration, look at how the objects are labeled. Brown dwarf companions use an *upper case* (note: multiple systems like HD 33632 and eps Ind follow a different hierarchical scheme and aren’t comparable), while planets are usually noted with a *lowercase* letter in the literature.   Beta Pic bc, AF Lep b, HIP 99770 b, and HD 206893 bc all have lower cases; the remaining non-multiple systems use upper case.   Should we thus infer that HIP 99770 b and beta Pic b are planets from this plot?  Not here. Regardless of what passes in a professional setting, WP articles are not professional scientific articles, and the article does not explicitly make this connection: doing so would be WP:SYNTH just as your inference is, except that mine would merely be unsupported while yours also contradicts the paper's own text.

Your comparison of the NASA examples (PZ Tel B/Luhman 16 B) with Franson et al. confuses two entirely different issues. For the former, my point was that the classification of PZ Tel B or Luhman 16 B does not determine the classification of HIP 99770 b, nor vice versa. The latter concerns your claimed "straightforward reading" of Figure 4 in Franson et al. I showed that this reading is self-contradictory and inconsistent with both the figure caption and the paper's explicit textual statements. These are entirely different arguments on entirely different topics.

Finally, selecting the best-justified article leading descriptions is an ordinary editorial judgement made on all WP articles.  For comparison: the leads for HR 8799 e and Beta Pictoris b simply call them exoplanets/(extrasolar) planets, while an object that is widely disputed in its source material like GJ 504 b (but not like HIP 99770 b) is called “a jovian planet or a brown dwarf”.  None of the cases include the “core dump” of all given labels offered for HIP 99770 b, even though 4 of the 5 would be technically accurate for HR 8799e/beta Pic b and all for GJ 504 b.   Part of the reason is redundancy (a jovian planet is a substellar object: there’s no reason to call it the latter).

A lead gives the classification, not an inventory of every phrase the literature has used. "Superjovian exoplanet" already carries both the descriptive term you prefer (and is unquestioned in the literature) and the planet classification the sources state (likewise unquestioned in the literature) ."Substellar companion" is an umbrella containing planets and brown dwarfs and is redundant . "Planetary-mass companion (M < 13 MJ)" also redundant: in the cited context it was used as a planet designation.  Listing “super Jupiter”, “planetary-mass companion”, “substellar”, and “planet” in series with an ‘or’ at the end confuses as a reader may see a disagreement among all labels -- i.e. that they are different competing things -- that does not exist.

As explained thoroughly above, the literature does not call HIP 99770 b a brown dwarf: your citation to Franson et al is incorrect (they do not say it, their figure does *not* support this conclusion).  That is enough.  But even pretending for a moment that it ‘might’, WP:DUE weights views by their prominence in reliable sources. Here it would be a single inferred (again, incorrect) reading of a single figure in a single paper about an entirely different object — against the discovery paper, four subsequent papers, three reviews, and the NASA Exoplanet Archive.  Giving ‘brown dwarf’ prominent placement in the lead violates WP:DUE. The same reasoning would put "or brown dwarf" in the lead of HR 8799 bcd (which *does* literally have one ‘it’s a brown dwarf’ paper): the WP articles on these planets contain no such qualifier.

I have now restored the long-standing description (with justification in article history) and the citations.  Given the above thread, I have also now initiated a formal WP:NORN filing on this topic (see next response).  I would kindly request that we both not consider any further article changes to the lead description until after uninvolved editors have weighed in. 2632cgn (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Here is the WP:NORN filing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#HIP_99770_b%3A_repeated_NOR%2FSYNTH_in_recent_lead_description_edits 2632cgn (talk) 02:28, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Before discussing the substance … no I don't think I misread your recent edit. You did not comment in the edit summary what the reasons are and did not respond on the talk page for 2 days, what you can of course. Writing after two days 'Beyond that, the article needs to incorporate results from the Balmer et al paper fully' does not mean you plan to change the label again 'in the near future'. So, seems warranted.

Regarding 'Each time you use an argument, it becomes weaker' I think I know best what I meant, what you make out of it I cannot influence.

Again, my reading of the Franson paper is fine and you misunderstand my response.

You write 'Brown dwarf companions use an *upper case*', well in practice they only might. A good example is given by yourself by writing 'an object that is widely disputed in its source material like GJ 504 b', the object was found as planet, usually people state GJ 504 b, that does not mean they don't see it as brown dwarf, as it seems you do, too.

You write 'A lead gives the classification, not an inventory of every phrase.' Well, people are good in finding what is relevant for them. If you want an example try PSO J318.5−22. It is not directly in the lead, but nobody said it needs to be. The problem is that instead of changing its position you decided to delete 5 references without saying anything will be changed again except maybe for including Balmer again after two days had passed.

As explained thoroughly above, a literature item does call HIP 99770 b a brown dwarf: The comparison with HR 8799 b, c, d is flawed. The system is not disputed, it was in the beginning, then it was shown to have masses below the deuterium burning limit. HIP 99770 b was claimed to be a bona fide planet, and afterwards given as brown dwarf because having a good chance to be above the deuterium burning limit. Clearly a different case.

I have now restored the updated description (with justification in edit summary). If redundancy is your only problem, then it is relatively easy. Given the above thread, I have also now initiated a formal WP:NPOVN filing on this topic because I think it is necessary (see next response). I would kindly request that we both not consider any further article changes to the lead description until after uninvolved editors have weighed in. (in order to let people more easily decide what we are talking about, instead of just seeing 'planet'). Stevinger (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Here is the WP:NPOVN filing:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#HIP 99770 b: repeated POVDELETION in recent lead description edits Stevinger (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

Noting here that there is a firm consensus (3-to-1) at WP:NORN that the Franson paper never states explicitly that this object is a brown dwarf, its citation for the chart says the opposite, and that a consensus has been established, so anyone wishing to change it now has the WP:ONUS fall onto them. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:52, 6 August 2026 (UTC)