Talk:Earth analog

Solar System Earth Analog comparison
OK boomer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.3.95.1 (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to restructure (without removing anything) as I don't think its necessary to make comparisons between Earth and Mars here when everyone knows that Mars is not an Earth Analog. But these constructive edits keep getting knocked back as typical by that negative force which is the Wikipedia police. I actually wrote this stuff initially but it makes more sense in the context of new discoveries to make comparisons in specific sections rather than one or two case studies from the Solar System. If noone objects then I'll assume that I have a mandate to continue with this edit. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @EvenGreenerFish - FWIW - Thank you *very* much for creating this discussion section regarding your proposed major changes to the main Earth analog article - as far as I know, this is the usual Wikipedia policy - especially when a possible major restructuring of a main article may occur - (if interested, a good recent example about discussing a proposed edit change to a main article regards only a few sentences of the main Big Bang article - See discussion here - this discussion so far has involved over 40 editors over a 3-month interval - and is continuing at the moment) - nonetheless, perhaps your proposed specific changes (and detailed reasons?) regarding the Earth analog article, before actually editing the article, may be presented (in small separate portions?) and discussed here first - this may greatly help in preventing future reverts (at least from other editors) I would think - in any regards, thanks again for your understanding - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Request Renaming: Earth-like planet
Why does Wikipedia need to invent new, more complicated terms for so many articles than what is actually being used? In this case, the overwhelmingly used word is "earth-like planet". I never ever encountered the word "Earth analog" outside Wikipedia. And here's some proof for that: http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%22earth-like%20planet%22%2C%20%22earth%20analog%22&cmpt=q https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22earth+analog%22&oq=%22earth+analog%22&gs_l=hp.3..0l4.425.1980.0.2104.14.8.0.0.0.0.536.1503.4-1j2.3.0.les%3Bcfrsh..0.0...1.1.dzud5QjqV5Y&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=73a2df482f71c0a7&bpcl=35466521&biw=1280&bih=606 app. 50,000 results https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22earth-like+planet%22&oq=%22earth-like+planet%22&gs_l=hp.3...12304.13769.1.13854.12.10.0.0.0.5.482.2294.4-5.5.0.les%3Bcfrsh..0.0...1.1.Sj6S2Xo_o6s&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=73a2df482f71c0a7&bpcl=35466521&biw=1280&bih=606 app. 2.5 million (!) results So let's go with what it is actually called and not some obscure neologism. --Bluebird47 (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)--


 * I partially support this move although it begs the question which the article attempts to address, "What exactly makes a planet Earth-like ?". I have to disagree on the neologism comment, however.  I'd say its more the other way around.  The way that Google keywords work is that they tend to change over time. "Earth-like planet" has been listed in the alternative titles from the start. Interest in the subject has obviously grown substantially with recent discoveries such that this is how the concept is now referred to by laymen.  "Earth Analog" has been used in scientific circles for decades.  The concept of Earth-like planets and extraterrestrial life have for a long time been denounced by the popular Rare Earth Hypothesis along with certain religions and relegated to science fiction.  Now that the scientific possibility has gained recent acceptance, it follows that use of this term is becoming more and more popular. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Earth analog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006095334/http://www.space.com/19157-billions-earth-size-alien-planets-aas221.html to http://www.space.com/19157-billions-earth-size-alien-planets-aas221.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Earth analog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120220081803/http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/articles/mars-ocean-hypothesis-hits-the-shore/ to http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/articles/mars-ocean-hypothesis-hits-the-shore/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080508224740/http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-release-details.cfm?newsID=731 to http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-release-details.cfm?newsID=731
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110505000325/http://exoplanet.eu/papers/Kepler-9-d.pdf to http://exoplanet.eu/papers/Kepler-9-d.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Colonization
The portion in the introduction regarding colonization needs to be deleted. It does not summarize anything from the body of the article and it also happens to be fringe because of the vast distances involved: "Astrophysicist Who Just Won The Nobel Prize Says We'll Never Colonise Exoplanets." The terraforming section needs a re-write, as it suggests it is possible, when in fact it is a very unlikely hypothesis. Anybody opposed to these two changes? Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Removing see also
I don't think this article needs a see also section. Also, it seems that some boosters of the much maligned ESI seem content to try to shoehorn it into this article. I don't think that's appropriate at all. jps (talk) 01:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Doesn't really matter, as long as Earth Similarity Index, Habitability of natural satellites, & List of potentially habitable moons see representation in the article.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  01:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Why should Earth Similarity Index see representation in the article? jps (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't it? ESI has been mentioned in Earth analog since 2011, and Earth analog has been mentioned in ESI since 2012. They are related, obviously. It seems like you're WP:NOTHERE, and just trying to orphan Earth Similarity Index.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  03:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Because ESI is not being used in the literature which works a lot on Earth analog. I'm definitely here to improve the encyclopedia. My students who write reports on things related to exoplanets sometimes reference ESI, but, you'll note, the best literature on the subject has no mention of it whatsoever. If you would like to point us to the best paper on Earth analogs in the last three years that references ESI, I'd be happy to consider some new reliable sources on the subject. jps (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Many concepts in astronomy, other sciences, and engineering have fudge-factors due to known-unknowns, unknown-unknowns, and/or simplification of computation, ESI included (though scientifically less useful, and more prone to pop-culture fodder). The concept has enough notability to be included in the wiki, and not soft-deleted via intentional orphaning.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, indeed, but my concern is that ESI is not being used in the literature even with fudge-factors. In fact, you cannot identify what the weights used by PHL even are because they aren't published. The question here is no directly about notability but rather about the prominence of the concept in other articles. Most articles about the concept of an Earth analog make no mention whatsoever of ESI. We should follow those sources as mirroring the best possible prose. jps (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

A list of recent removals @ Talk:Earth Similarity Index#Intentional orphaning, for those interested. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

History section includes obsolete estimates
The numbers of galaxies in the visible universe and earth-like planets estimated in the Milky Way are way obsolete. Those estimates increase nearly every year, and the ones listed here are from 2011. Sti11w4ter (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)