Talk:Exoplanet/Archive 2

How can an exoplanet be able to contain water
For finding any theoretical explanation of mechanism which results production of water in planetary system see my works. I give new approach for this case ,as you will see the chemical kinetic which produces generally water and ammonia and methane in outer part of solar system that  contains three planets body together  with  some planet’s atmosphere and comets body are made now not remaining from first solar system nebula .--Akbarmohammadzade (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC) we were show that the solar CNO cycle produced particles with protons and electrons carried by solar wind are fouling on the outer part of system and make three famous molecules :methane and water and ammonia .--Akbarmohammadzade (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Life on Exoplanets
In the paragraph dealing with life on exoplanets, someone educated in the field of biology and development of life on earth should say something about the fact that for earth, complex lifeforms emerged only after 4 billion years and chances are that conditions on any planet just take so much time too be just right for complex life to develop.

It certainly should be mentioned with this new hype regarding the new KOI superearth analog in the habitable zone. No life will be there, not even detectable oxygen in the atmosphere. That took primitive life on earth something like 2.000.000.000 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.208.215.99 (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, while that sounds sensible, it is pure speculation. So, unless an RS made those speculations, it definitely does not belong in the article.  Geo Swan (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, with Creation Theory, who is to say it took billions of years to get where we are on Earth? Agreed that the 'unknown' does not need to be expanded in the article here. What would be a 'reliable source' on this anyway? — Just asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, a point could be made (in the article here) of the amazing creation of Earth (and plant, animal, Earthlings) and the delicate nature of our existence, supported by the Creator. As everyone may know, National Geographic Channel this evening features the new Fox science series “Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey”. President Obama will deliver the introduction. "Be there, or be square!" FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Creationism is just pure religious bullshit that is not supported by any shred of evidence and falsified by tons of evidence. --JorisvS (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * While I tend to agree with regard to so-called "creation science", one need not be a dick about it (unless, of course, you're just a dick). Besides, I can't help but think that much of the information in this article will likewise seem like bullshit to future generations.--172.162.66.156 (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Can we please keep this discussion civil? David J Johnson (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Alpha Centauri Bb
The existence of Alpha Centauri Bb has not been confirmed. I don't think it should be reported on this page until the evidence is more solid. Praemonitus (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've rephrased things to emphasize that there is doubt about its existence. There is also now a new section on Candidate discoveries which links to the article List of unconfirmed extrasolar planets. Astredita (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

KOI-172.02 paragraph in the introduction
Should this be removed and replaced with Kepler-62 paragraph as Kepler-62 planets turned out to be in the habitable zone? --Artman40 (talk) 11:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. The Kepler-62 planets are currently the best examples of almost earth-size planets in the habitable zone. Astredita (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Number of Kepler candidates
According to NASA's |ExoplanetArchive, the number of Kepler candidates has increased to more than 3400 (if you discount the confirmed planets). In addition, exoplanet archive now lists a few detection methods which the planet discovery graphs have not taken account for. --Artman40 (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Extrasolar planet → Exoplanet – Per COMMONNAME. The term "Exoplanet" is used far more than "Extrasolar planet". See, for example, this google ngram graph. Q6637p (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC) Support move, more common and more concise.  - WPGA2345 -    ☛   04:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Word confusion
OK I fixed the wrong problem before, but now I see the real problem. "It is expected that there are many billions of planets in the Milky Way (at least one planet, on average, orbiting around each star, resulting in 100–400 billion exoplanets)." OK I looked up that there are about 400 billion stars in the Milky Way. Base on the information in the, if it's true that each star has about 1 orbiting planet then it would be true to have 100-400 billion exoplanets. It is totally contradicted by the precedent statement. I know planets in Milky Way and 100-400 billion exoplanets are referring to exoplanets. I don't know about you guys, but many billions are not the same as 100-400 billion. To me, many billions mean 2-99 billions. "Many billions" should be change into "hundreds billion."Pendragon5 (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It does not say "about 1 planet". It says "at least 1 planet". There could well be much more than 1 per star but we just don't know at this point in time. There could be 10 on average for all we know, and that seems quite likely to me. "Many" is an unspecific term and therefore suitable since we don't know exactly how many there are. "hundreds" is too specific because it suggests that the number is known to the accuracy that it is possible to say hundreds but it isn't known that accurately. There could very well be trillions of planets in the milky way. i.e. thousands of billions, not hundreds. But we don't know. Maybe there are less than a trillion. Maybe more. All we really know is that there are billions, lots of billions, many billions. Astredita (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I personally don't find "many billions" to be limited to "2-99". Usually "many" is pretty open ended.  Rwessel (talk) 05:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I've deleted the 100-400b bit because: "at least 1 planet on average per star with an estimated 100-400b stars" does NOT mean 100-400b planets. It means "at least 100-400b planets". However that isn't a useful sentence. Combining a lowest estimate for planets per star with a range of estimates for the number of stars does not produce a simple estimate of the total number of planets. Astredita (talk) 06:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Use the refs "There are at least 100 billion planets in the galaxy, just our galaxy," says John Johnson 1 and Jonathan Swift 2. Jim1138 (talk) 06:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've rephrased it in that way. Astredita (talk) 06:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Distance
"In many cases the semi-major axis is approximately the same as the distance between the planet and the star."

OR

"In many cases the semi-major axis is approximately the same as the distance between the planet and the center of the star and to its surface."

I found the second version difficult to read. I'm not sure it is necessary for this sentence to specify the point on the star that the distance is measured from because the sentence is talking about approximateness. On the other hand the section as a whole is distinguishing between different points so perhaps the sentence should be reworded. Astredita (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe it should be reworded somehow. As you say, we're distinguishing between different points. Then we should try to be crystal clear to which point we're referring at any time. --JorisvS (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

New version: "If the sizes of the star and planet are relatively small compared to the size of the orbit and the orbit is nearly circular and the center of mass is not too far from the star's center, such as in the Earth-Sun system, then the distance from any point on the star to any point on the planet is approximately the same as the semi-major axis. However, when a star's radius expands when it turns into a red giant, then the distance between the planet and the star's surface can become close to zero, or even less than zero if the planet has been engulfed by the expanding red giant, whereas the center of mass from which the semi-major axis is measured will still be near the center of the red giant." Astredita (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

NASA Kepler telescope helps identify 750 new planets outside our solar system
Headline-1: Planet bonanza: NASA announces discovery of 715 new worlds "NASA says its Kepler telescope has discovered a bonanza of 715 planets outside our solar system, pushing the number of planets discovered in the galaxy to about 1,700."
 * http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/02/27/nasa-announces-mother-lode-new-planets-715/?intcmp=trending

Headline-2:  ‘We Almost Doubled Just Today the Number of Planets Known to Humanity’  " "Our galaxy is looking far more crowded and hospitable. NASA on Wednesday confirmed a bonanza of 715 newly discovered planets outside our solar system." "Scientists using the planet-hunting Kepler telescope pushed the number of planets discovered in the galaxy to about 1,700. Twenty years ago, astronomers had not found any planets circling stars other than the ones revolving around our sun."
 * http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/26/we-almost-doubled-just-today-the-number-of-planets-known-to-humanity/

Headline-3: '''NASA Scientists Discover 715 New Planets — Data From Kepler Space Telescope Suggests 4 Alien Worlds Have Potential for Life''' NOTE: This is a subscription article: "NASA scientists announced Wednesday the discovery of 715 . . ." — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303801304579407340824861278?mod=WSJ_hp_EditorsPicks&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303801304579407340824861278.html%3Fmod%3DWSJ_hp_EditorsPicks

Beta Pictoris
I see a picture/photograph of Beta Pictoris at the top of the article here.

Headine-1: '''Did two planets around nearby star collide? Toxic gas holds hints.''' QUOTE: “This artist's impression of the Beta Pictoris system shows carbon monoxide gas permeating the star's dusty debris disc. Astronomers say this gas could be the signs of a massive collision of two icy, Mars-sized planets or constant collisions among a population of comets. (F. Reddy / NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center)” [Fascinating Los Angeles Times article.] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-beta-pictoris-star-planet-gas-collision-comets-carbon-monoxide-20140307,0,1884709.story#axzz2vT2YFwwV
 * FWIW - *May* also be relevant as a way a planet can receive complex organic chemicals (starting materials for life - or even primitive life-forms themselves?) (per Panspermia, Abiogenesis and related) - ref details => < ref name="LAT_20140308"> AND < ref name="SCI-20140306"> - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Breakup article
The article is intimidating in its current length. I think it would be much better as shorter articles. I noticed that the 'further reading' section is very long; could that be a separate article? Sanpitch (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is long enough. Many of the sections hardly say anything. I think it would be even worse as short articles - there are already dozens of very short Wikipedia articles on exoplanets which could be merged into this one. I've moved the further reading items into the sections of the article where they can be expanded upon. The study of exoplanets has hardly begun. I think the article will end up being very much longer than it is today. Astredita (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

For a shorter introduction to exoplanets there is the exoplanet section of the planet article. I've added a hat note to this effect. Astredita (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I am happy that you're so passionate about Exoplanets that want to make a very detailed and extensive article. I also like Exoplanets.  FYI, Article Size says that for articles above 50kB of readable prose, one should consider moving parts of the article to other articles and replacing them with summaries.  The Exoplanets page has about 63kB of readable prose, while Life has about 40kB and Astronomy has 36kB.  From What Wikipedia is Not we see that Wikipedia is not an collection of links, or scientific journal, or a means of promotion; the article is moving in that direction. I suggest that if you want it to be useful to other people (besides yourself and a few other enthusiasts) that you consider making it "as simple as possible, but not simpler." Sanpitch (talk) 03:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The further reading items can be converted into prose over time so the article doesn't become just a collection of links. A few of the items were incorporated into the article prose today. Some of the sections probably will grow to the point that they will be split into separate articles. Astredita (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It sounds like you agree that the article is too long and parts need to be split off. I'm glad to hear this. The article as it stands today is not that useful for the general audience. I do not think that your change of moving the further reading sections into the article helped, but exacerbated the "link list" nature of the article. Also, adding a link to the exoplanet section of planet sounds to me like an acknowledgement of the convoluted and messy nature of the article.  I wish you the best as you work to clean it up.Sanpitch (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * That is not even remotely close to what I said. Astredita (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You have pointed out that Article Size says above 50kB of readable prose, one should consider moving parts of the article to other articles and replacing them with summaries. You also suggested the 'Further reading' section could be another article. However the 'Further reading' section was no prose just titles, i.e. the ultimate summarization of the content in those articles. So moving 'Further reading' elsewhere and replacing it with summaries is therefore nonsensical. Astredita (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is that the article seems too long. I do not plan to contribute to this article other than via these comments; if you don't value my feedback, I will not hinder you further from growing the article size.Sanpitch (talk)

Sub-brown dwarf with planet or Rogue planet with moon
Even if MOA-2011-BLG-262 is a planetary-mass object that doesn't necessarily mean its companion should be called a moon. Free floating planetary-mass objects can form from interstellar clouds just like stars and brown-dwarfs do. In which case they are sub-brown dwarfs. The satellites of sub-brown dwarfs could be considered planets just as the satellites of stars and brown dwarfs are planets. That MOA-2011-BLG-262 has a companion makes it unlikely to be a rogue planet that has been ejected from orbit around a star. Although The Survival Rate of Ejected Terrestrial Planets with Moons by J. H. Debes, S. Sigurdsson suggests it's not impossible for ejected planets to hold on to their moons, so the presence of a moon doesn't necessarily mean the main object is a sub-brown dwarf. Astredita (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

NASA-TV (07/14/2014@2pm/et/usa) - Search for Life Beyond Earth.
NASA-TV (0714/2014@2:00-3:30pm/et/usa) - Panel of leading experts to discuss plans leading to the "discovery of potentially habitable worlds among the stars" => < ref name="NASA-20140710"> - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * FOLLOWUP - NASA VIDEO REPLAY - Space Experts Discuss the "Search for Life in the Universe" (86:49) at => http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNjuz6MO0eU - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Definition of exoplanet correct?
"An exoplanet or extrasolar planet is a planet that does not orbit Earth's Sun and instead orbits a different star, stellar remnant, or brown dwarf."

So what is a "free-floating" planetary body? An "interplanet"?

Samuel Webster (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * A "sub-brown dwarf", as mentioned in the article. Tbayboy (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I see, it's lower down under "IAU". I still think it would be better to open with:

"An exoplanet or extrasolar planet is a planet that does not orbit Earth's Sun. Normally, exoplanets orbit ... but there are apparently rare cases of free-floating planets that do not orbit ..."

Something like that. But not a big deal.

Samuel Webster (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

NASA-TV (08/20/2014@5:30-6:30pm/et/usa) - Habitable Exoplanets.
FWIW - NASA-TV (08/20/2014@5:30-6:30pm/et/usa) - panel of experts discuss ancient Earth and Habitable Exoplanets< ref name="NASA-20140819"> - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * FOLLOWUP - NASA VIDEO REPLAY - Excellent imo - Space Experts Discuss "Ancient Earth, Alien Earths" (59:38) at => https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwvj9SUUVlo - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Radio detection of exo moons
I believe that radio detection of exo-moons has been described as-in theory-possible(moons like Io). Should we add this to the article? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Featured article status
This article no longer appears to meet criterion 2 of Featured article criteria: (a) the lead is over long, (b) the table of contents is too extensive, and (c) the citations are not formatted consistently. There are several very short sections and paragraphs consisting of single sentences; some sections are merely lists of topics, wikilinks, external jumps or references. After 8 years of edits since its promotion, the layout and style of the article is considerably different. DrKay (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Converting the lists of topics etc into prose will take a lot of time so I've removed the fa template from the article. Astredita (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a lengthy process to remove featured article status. DrKay (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Metallicity
All sizes have a higher occurrence rate. The increase with metallicty increases with size. I guess what I had written wasn't very clear so I've put the actual numbers in. Astredita (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks much clearer now—it needed only minor copyediting now. --JorisvS (talk) 10:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Repeated wiki-linked separate references to free-floating and rogue planets without clarification

 * 1) It might help the reader to understand why they're being directed to "rogue planet", and that these terms are interchangeable. Using both terms without ever explaining that they refer to the same thing seems unhelpful.
 * 2) It's customary to link the first occurrence of a term and not wikilink subsequent occurrences (for those that like guidelines etc., here's the link: Manual of Style/Linking).

Applying these two principles, my change was mostly reverted. Time for discussion?

Samsara 11:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I was copyediting the same things at the same time you were. I redid the 'free floating, "rogue" planets, not orbiting any star' part, because that is poor text. In this case "rogue" breaks the sentence flow because it adds only a synonym (presented in quotes!) in a structure that suggests it adds something to the following noun. A synonym is easy to find by following the wikilink.
 * As for another wikilink far down in the article: readers may want to go to the article about it, only to find they either have to use Wikipedia's search function or have to search the article for the relevant wikilink, which may make it useful to repeat a wikilink occasionally. Links to the same page close to each other, of course, do not suffer from this problem. --JorisvS (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * At Talk:Free-floating planet, it was argued that '"Rogue planet" [...] is [the] more commonly used' name - I'm not sure why we're not using that consistently, or alternatively, arguing for free-floating to be the standard across the encyclopaedia, as it's more accessible. I find the construction we have now rather cumbersome. Samsara 12:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. I'm all for consistent usage of one term and only mentioning alternative terms in the leads of the articles in question. --JorisvS (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As per this discussion, I've now made an edit that changes all instances of free-floating planet(s) (only where exact phrase used) to rogue planet(s). "Free-floating" is used in other configurations in the article, among them "free-floating planet binary" - I did not modify these. I also did not change the amount of wikilinking, but noted that there are currently four instances where "rogue planet" is wikilinked. Samsara 12:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The rationale for this change was consistency, and yet changing only the exact phrase "free-floating planet" and leaving unchanged "free-floating" is totally inconsistent and only serves to obscure the meaning of free-floating when it appears. The paragraph on captured planets was made less understandable by this change as the phrase free-floating then appeared without first introducing the term free-floating planet at the beginning of the paragraph. (this paragraph has since been moved to the planetary system article.) Things often have different names e.g. United States, US or USA, - that's what redirects are for and that's why articles usually begin by listing alternative names. They should not be changed to enforce consistency without reading and understanding the context in which each usage is used. Astredita (talk) 10:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Page split to Exoplanet, page 2
This page was overly long, that's why I tagged it for content to be moved. This move must be to more-specific articles, not to a second page covering just the other half. What this page should do is summarize the core aspects of the exoplanet topic and refer to the dedicated sub-topic articles for more details. Just splitting it up to two pages is absolutely a no-go. --JorisvS (talk) 11:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * yeah have to agree - we never split pages like this. can you please revert yourself and then we can discuss what gets moved where here. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes - *entirely* agree w/ the comments of JorisvS & Cas Liber above - a prioritized listing of sub-topic articles might be a helpful start I would think - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , please take care not to revert my intervening edits when reverting this merge. --JorisvS (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted the split. If there is to be no page 2 then I think the paragraphs on captured planets and galactic distribution of planets would be better in the main article than the exoplanet host stars article. Astredita (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Specific comments from Cas Liber

 * I'd try and cite all the sentences - then figure out what needs removing. It is difficult at first glance....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The Habitable zone section has some references in the text, which should be reviewed and reworked to support text or removed.


 * Prose is generally written in paragraphs. try and meld sentences into paras, especiallt standalone ones.


 * Atmosphere doesn't need to be chopped into subsections.


 * I'd cull any external link that doesn't specifically add something not covered in the article (e.g. videos, images we can't use due to copyright etc..)


 * Material should not be removed for the sake of removing material, or merged for the sake of merging. The organization of the article should follow the logic of the topics, and not be arranged to meet quotas on paragraph length. Despite reverting the split to page 2 the article is already shorter than it was a couple of days ago due to material being moved to Exoplanet host stars, Planetary system and Methods of detecting exoplanets. Astredita (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That move of material to those article is the way to reduce overly long articles. The atmosphere section needs to summarize the most important points made and the rest of the material can go to a section on the Atmosphere article and be expanded there. I've moved the Venus zone section to planetary system, where it is more appropriate. The many items of further reading can best be used to support material here or, more likely, in specific articles on suptopics and then be removed. --JorisvS (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Mixed use of numerical suffixes ("Jupiter masses" vs. )
Blockquote cut from my talk page: (for the summary, see the first unindented paragraph below, beginning with "The relevant section is Exoplanet#Alternatives [...]") ''' I've reverted your recent edits to Exoplanet. They obfuscated the text and disrupted the flow of prose. I see you're adding these templates to all articles. I can't check whether all those articles have similarly disrupted text. Is there some talk page where these changes were discussed beforehand?

For example you changed "For colder gas planets there is a maximum radius which is slightly larger than Jupiter which occurs when the mass reaches a few Jupiter-masses."

to

"For colder gas planets there is a maximum radius which is slightly larger than Jupiter which occurs when the mass reaches a few ".

Replacing text prose with a symbol does not make things clearer.

You also inserted an unnecessary MJ into the middle of the sentence "The most massive planet listed on the NASA Exoplanet Archive is DENIS-P J082303.1-491201 b, about 29 times the mass of Jupiter, although according to most definitions of a planet, it is too massive to be a planet and may be a brown dwarf instead."

These templates also make the text harder to read when editing.Astredita (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Astredita, yup this example ("when the mass reaches a few ") does interfere, sorry for that. I'm just standardizing usage of common solar system units via their templates (i.e. Jupiter mass, after introducing them in the next) when numerical values are used, similar to any document which refers to frequently used text, be it acronyms or standard units. To see why, see the now-existing instances of "13MJup" and "1 MJup" in the article you reverted back to, which used to read "" and "". Also, the "unnecessary" in the middle of the sentence about DENIS-P J082303.1-491201 b is the introduction of the symbol in the text and is required.


 * I definitely don't intend to interfere with the flow of the text, but I don't agree that my edits warrant a full-on revert, since the rest of the instances are well-placed, imo. Instead, please only remove the cases you don't agree with, or revert back to mine and I can do it?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk&#124;contribs&#124;dgaf) 10:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Those were not the only examples. I completely disagree with automatically replacing text such as earth radius, earth mass, etc with symbols. Astredita (talk) 11:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No, not automatically (those weren't automated edits btw), only when preceded by numerical values. What's your stance on that? If no, I'd like to move this to the talk page to gauge consensus. If yes, since you've made subsequent edits to Exoplanet, I'll re-introduce my edits (more carefully this time) and you can vet.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk&#124;contribs&#124;dgaf) 11:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Automatic in practice, if not by bot: You replaced text in the title of the paper "Kepler-62: A five-planet system with planets of 1.4 and 1.6 Earth radii in the Habitable Zone".


 * Whether you prefer symbols or not, titles of references should not be changed.


 * In the sentence "Kepler-186f is the first Earth-sized planet in a habitable zone to have been discovered, a 1.1 Earth radius planet in the habitable zone of a red dwarf, announced in April 2014." there was no benefit in replacing the text with a symbol and no reason to force the reader to guess what was meant when "Earth radius" is just fine and easy to understand. Astredita (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Titles shouldn't be changed,$[my bad]$ I agree. I don't agree that persistent use of "Earth radius", "Jupiter radii", "Jupiter masses", "Solar masses", "Solar luminosities", etc. lead to a better reading article. In my opinion, they lead to a slower, protracted read. I'll concede excessive use on Exoplanet, but I'd still like to see where consensus lies, so I'll put up a new section in Talk:Exoplanet in the near future. I might link back to our talk or I might just start with your last paragraph, since that seems to be the concise main issue and hits the nail on the head.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk&#124;contribs&#124;dgaf) 15:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Talk:Exoplanet posted. No link to here; I decided to make the focus Exoplanet#Alternatives since that section happens to put our discussion in a nutshell :)  ~ Tom.Reding (talk&#124;contribs&#124;dgaf) 16:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The relevant section is Exoplanet#Alternatives, where "13 Jupiter-mass", "25 Jupiter masses", and "" are all used in no particular order. I'm trying to find consensus on which numerical suffix to use, after the symbol (or, which is more common, and easily changed in the Jupiter mass template) is defined in the text. Is there a benefit in replacing the text with a symbol, or is there no reason to force the reader to 'guess' what is meant by the symbol when (if) "Jupiter masses" is just fine and easy to understand? To me, using English language persistently leads to a slower, protracted read and does not benefit the article nor the reader, especially if the symbol(s) are wikilinked and properly defined. ~ Tom.Reding (talk&#124;contribs&#124;dgaf) 16:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

A good example is when the word "mass", "luminosity", "radius", etc. are used excessively in a sentence where a numerical value is given. A symbol would remove redundancy and wordiness, like:
 * blah has a mass of 30 Jupiter masses →
 * blah has a mass of


 * "Neptune's mass equals 17 Earth masses, Jupiter has 318 Earth masses, and the 13 Jupiter-mass limit used in the IAU's working definition of an exoplanet equals approximately 4000 Earth masses." →
 * "Neptune's mass equals, Jupiter has , and the 13 Jupiter-mass limit used in the IAU's working definition of an exoplanet equals approximately ."

While "the 13 Jupiter-mass limit" is better left as-is. ~ Tom.Reding (talk&#124;contribs&#124;dgaf) 15:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Since this affects more than just the Exoplanet article, I've posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. Astredita (talk) 13:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion that was here has been moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. Please continue the discussion on that page.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk&#124;contribs&#124;dgaf) 13:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Update Exoplanet vs Detection Chart
I don't know how you guys want it so I'll leave it to the pro's http://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/exoplanetplots/exo_dischist.png --User:Davidbuddy9 (NOTE => moved the above post by User:Davidbuddy9 from the top to the bottom of talk page - the usual location for the latest posts - should be easier for more editors to discover and read the post (seems worthy imo) - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC))
 * Thanks but that image already is in the article. This one has a white background, but it is the same thing. Anyway, thanks for sharing that Tetra quark (don't be shy) 13:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the 2015 one. The current one includes only 2014 '''Davidbuddy9 17:59, 12 January 2015 (EST)
 * Oh, right. But still, I'm not the one who's uploading it. I always get copyright issues Tetra quark (don't be shy) 22:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate Reference
Reference 83 is a duplicate of reference 50. Not sure of the best method to fix this. Ref 75 is used in two places and has added a name to use the second time. Is this the proper way to avoid messing things up? Ref 83 has supplied only the publication year (not month or day), but they are otherwise written identically. 174.28.217.189 (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 10:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

NASA-TV (04/07/2015@1:00-2:00pm/edt/usa) - Our Solar System and Beyond: NASA’s Search for Water and Habitable Planets.
FWIW - NASA-TV (Tuesday, 04/07/2015@1:00-2:00pm/edt/usa) - panel of experts discuss "Our Solar System and Beyond: NASA’s Search for Water and Habitable Planets". - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Naming convention. What happenned to a?
Consider a (fictional) star named Fred. According to the naming convention, planets start at b, so Fred's first planet would be "Fred b". What would "Fred a" refer to? Op47 (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be the star (Fred A, actually, although that is just never used for single stars). Analogous to stars Fred A, Fred B, etc., planets follow the same convention, except written in lowercase to indicate it refers to a planet. --JorisvS (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

NASA-Audio - Kepler mission - News TeleConference (12 noon/et/usa, Thursday, 7/23/2015)
NASA-Audio - Kepler mission - re new exoplanet discoveries - News TeleConference (12 noon/et/usa, Thursday, 7/23/2015) - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

"observationally problematic due to the sin i ambiguity"
One of the alternative definitions of an exoplanet takes issue with the IAU's mass distinction as being "observationally problematic due to the sin i ambiguity". I presume this is something to do with Minimum mass and and Radial_velocity_method, but this should be better explained and/or linked to the appropriate article. Iapetus (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've linked to a section on mass which explains the sin i ambiguity. Fdfexoex (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

IAU voting
So IAU actually is taking votes for names on 20 systems here. Nergaal (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Already referenced in the article (under Proper names). But it doesn't give the number, so I've added that bit.Cuddlyopedia (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Why it's hard to find smaller planets
Even in Popular Science, the myth is repeated that "...Earth-like planets, which have turned out to be surprisingly rare".

The truth is that it's harder to find smaller planets than larger planets. It's also harder to find planets around large stars than small stars. And it's harder to find more distant-orbiting planets than close-orbiting planets. That's simply in the nature of our detection methods.

I'd be gratified if we could find a way to explain this clearly in the lede. Kortoso (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * While this is touched on in the Detection methods and Orbital parameters sections, and Methods of detecting exoplanets discusses the various limitations in more depth, a more specific and succinct addressing of the detectability bias would probably be a good idea. I too have heard people consider the relative rarity of detected earth-sized planets as evidence of actual rarity.  I don't know if this should go in the lead, and the overall size of this article (it's quite big already) is something to consider as well.  Rwessel (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Conservation of nomenclature

 * Apparently the exoplanet Alpha Centauri Bb has been shown to be non-existent: "According to a new study, Alpha Centauri Bb, a world in the nearest star system to us, was merely a ghost in the data."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/10/151028-planet-disappears-alpha-centauri-astronomy-science/
 * Newly found exoplanets around component B will be named c, d, e etc, and apparently b will not be reused? Is that accurate? Kortoso (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Scrolling references
has implemented a scrolling box for the references. This has been done on some other articles as well (HATNet Project, for example). I fully understand why this would be desirable, with 242 references, even in two columns, the references fill *ten* or more pages for typical users, which borders on the absurd. OTOH, boy is the scrolling box ugly. At least, IMO. And I'm not trying to beat up Quantanew, who's at least trying to deal with the issue. One practical drawback is that you can no longer search (via the browser page search/find function), for anything in the scrolling box that's not currently visible (at least this is true in Chrome). For example, you cannot search for other references with the same author, if you wanted to do that. Clicking the reference number still takes you to the correct reference.

The problem at HATNet Project is much less severe, with only 62 references.

I wonder if a collapsible section (that defaults collapsed - the way many large navboxs do) might not be better (at least those become searchable after being expanded), but I'm not sure how that would work with the reference number links. That would both reduce the vertical space required (by default) and make all the reference quickly visible when wanted - more so, I'd say, than the scrolling box, where you can never see the entire list.

But since I've never seen references done with a scrolling box, or in a collapsible section, I'm first wondering if there's well established policy on how to deal with very long lists of references? Is a scrolling reference box (or a collapsed reference section) even acceptable? Or at least are there precedents to follow? About the only things I see are Citation_overkill, which is not exactly on point, but basically suggests (unhelpfully), that the number of citations should be reduced, and WP:ASL which appears to flatly ban scrolling list (this appears the be the result of a discussion in 2007: Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources/Archive_18), although I don't know if that would also apply to a collapsible section. I’d also wonder if all of the reasons supporting the 2007 decision are still valid in 2015. Rwessel (talk) 05:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

As noted in the Formal Policy Discussion on Scrolling Reference Lists, they make it impossible to print the references and have accessibility issues. I am against implementing one just because it makes the article seem shorter. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Rogue references
I removed the following text from the bottom of the "Distance from star, semi-major axis and orbital period" section. Perhaps someone can figure out what part of the article they're relevant to, if any, and re-insert them as proper references. 2.99.206.248 (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

2MASS J23062928-0502285
An interesting article today. I don't know where to put this info exactly, but i don't think that star has an article. This could make it notable enough but maybe not.

http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1615/

http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-id?Ident=2MASS+J23062928-0502285

Cheers Autumn Wind (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , Thank you. I think that such reports are included instead in the List of exoplanets; but I think that only confirmed exoplanets make the cut. Please ask there. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Split out discussion of orbital parameters
In response to the suggestion that this article is too long, I suggest that the section on orbital parameters can be split out into its own separate article. Very little of the information is special about exoplanets. Much is relevant to the Solar System, including comets and interplanetary probes. Or even about obits of satellites. TomS TDotO (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC) TomS TDotO (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * How can you say "Very little of the information is special about exoplanets." On the contrary most of the information is specific to exoplanets and the place for it is in this exoplanet article, so I oppose splitting off of this section. Fdfexoex (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * A summary should remain. Also the Nomenclature section could probably be summarized and split out.  Rwessel (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In addition, I suggest to summarize the sections on "Detection methods" and "Atmosphere", and as well as deleting the specific plant entries that look like timeline of discoveries. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that this topic can get out of control. Just to split out "Orbital parameters" is complicated because of the various articles on Astrodynamics which touch on the same topics. TomS TDotO (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I deleted some of the material that was not specific to exoplanets. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

As regards the various suggestions to split, it appears to me that there is no consensus for splitting out the "Orbital Parameters" section. Even the original proposer seems ambivalent. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I trimmed the "Atmosphere" section, but as regards "deleting the specific planet entries that look like timeline of discoveries", I'm not currently sure how to go about it. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * If the "Orbital parameters" section has to go, I strongly suggest we move it to the article Exoplanetology. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll check out your suggestion. It seems preferable to creating a new article. Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait! I see that you are already performing that move! :-) Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Split nomenclature section
Since we're discussing splitting this article for size, I'd suggest that the nomenclature section would make a good independent article, with just a summary and link left here. Rwessel (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. It's been years since I've split an article, so I have to read over Splitting before doing it. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Performed the split. It was a lot easier than when I last performed a split, because Template:Split from and Template:Split to are both being deleted. These templates were a bit of a chore to create properly. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The deleted templates Template:Split from and Template:Split to look like they are both being replaced with Template:Copied. I will get to this later. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Exoplanet. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20140521031952/http://www.nouvelles.umontreal.ca/udem-news/news/20140513-enlightening-pisces-star-signs-lead-scientists-to-discovery.html to http://www.nouvelles.umontreal.ca/udem-news/news/20140513-enlightening-pisces-star-signs-lead-scientists-to-discovery.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131202223111/http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/4188/alien-life-more-likely-on-%E2%80%98dune%E2%80%99-planets to http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/4188/alien-life-more-likely-on-%E2%80%98dune%E2%80%99-planets
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141207205111/https://science.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-space-and-subcommittee-research-joint-hearing-exoplanet-discoveries-have-we to https://science.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-space-and-subcommittee-research-joint-hearing-exoplanet-discoveries-have-we

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Offline 00:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Exoplanet ≠ exoplanetology
Dear FedEx, one is an object, the other is a discipline. This was discussed previously, so please stop your obnoxious behavior of reverting so much work blindly and without expressing a bit of logic. In addition, Wikipedia does not have to list your 46 WP:External links (''Some external links are welcome but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic.) Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Split up List of exoplanets
I have asked to split up List of exoplanets into sublists, for the discussion, see talk: List of exoplanets#Split apart -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Third sentence
The third sentence reads "as of then, there have been 3, 660 exoplanets" but I do think it would be better English if it said "as of then, there have been 3, 660 exoplanets detected". Vorbee (talk) 07:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The whole sentence is since then, and as of 1 September 2017, there have been 3,660 exoplanets, in 2,744 planetary systems and 614 multiple planetary systems, confirmed detections. Granted, there are way too many commas there, but the general sentence is "since then there have been 3660 expolanets confirmed detections". That, I suppose, does need some fixing, at least for consistency of tense and plurality. I'll tweak it. Primefac (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The grammar/syntax is still wrong. It states: "As of 1 January 2018, there are 3,726 planets in 2,792 systems, with 622 systems having more than one planet.[6]"  Scientists will never state that is how many planets there are, but how many they have counted. See the difference? It has to state "there are 3,726 planets confirmed in 2,792 systems..."
 * Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That particular line of text has been moved to Extrasolar planet counts, so the discussion should probably be moved there. Primefac (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * yes - agree with the comment by User:BatteryIncluded above - seems adding the confirmed wording to the Extrasolar planet counts template may be preferred - is there some easy way to do this? - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. Primefac (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate referencing
With the additional information I've provided, I noticed that the article was utilized in another section. However, my edit provides more information in a different section that wasn't covered. I'm new here, so apologies for any mishaps. Bmartin216 (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Planet Hunters
A simple link to Planet Hunters in the See also section is enough. No need to curate this person's soapbox peddling his "famous" book in Wikipedia. Rowan Forest (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how "crowdsourcing" means these weren't amateur discoveries. In fact a quick check of the papers shows they are listed as co-authors.  Perhaps this section can be improved (yes the book is over the top), but the fact that non-scientists have detected planets that have been missed by scientists is not irrelevant to the article. ChiZeroOne (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Then lets add a section to Planet Hunters without the Soapbox and backyard tripod discovery which has never happened. Rowan Forest (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Many people have contributed to exoplanet discovery. I see absolutely no reason why Bruce Gary is exalted over all names oh yes, the reason is you are peddling your "famous" book! Besides half the text is a rehash of "interesting" planets. In addition, take a look at WP:NOTHOWTO, and while you are at it, please review WP:PEA, WP:SPAM and especially: WP:COI. Rowan Forest (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear i'm not user Planethunter91. I agree with you regarding pushing particular people/books, but a short cleaned up section mentioning amateur contributions is not unreasonable.  ChiZeroOne (talk) 03:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the amateur discoveries section better fits in Methods of detecting exoplanets. The how-to paragraph doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia at all, except maybe as a see-also link. Tbayboy (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If it's to be included at all, it should be a single paragraph in the Methodology section. Primefac (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. The fact that a couple of known regular transits (not "discoveries") can be observed from your backyard is trivia best mentioned in the methods article. In addition, no amateurs discover planets in their backyard, but are part of focused projects using crowdsourcing to screen data. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, no aficionado ever discovered an exoplanet with a tripod-mounted telescope on his backyard. If you want to go argue that, take it to the Talk page at Methods of detecting exoplanets. Also, there is no use to rehash which exoplanets planets are more interesting than others in such section. After the SPAM and COI are removed, we are left with the crowdsourcing projects fron Zoounivere, which I added to the summary of the  Methods section.  The undeniable fact is that the vast majority of volunteers work through Zoouniverse, and your only reason to push your section is to peddle someone's book.  Rowan Forest (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Where to put this in the article
I'm going to restart the discussion about where to put amateur astronomy into this article. From my reading of the above conversation, we're all in agreement that it should go into the #Methodology section, since the description is how amateur astronomers can detect exoplanets. Am I just missing something? Why is there a push to have an entirely separate section for amateur astronomy? Primefac (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree, several amateurs have discovered exoplanets from their backyards, for example: https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/backyard-stargazer-discovers-earth-like-planet-ng-b88449627z This is worth including in the article and has nothing to do with methodology. That's why the amateur discoveries section makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planethunter91 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So move it to #History of detection as a new subsection? This article is not about specific exoplanets or their discoveries (unless you want to list "the first" amateur-astronomer-detected exoplanet), it is about exoplanets and how to find them in general. "How amateur astronomers find exoplanets" is valid to include, but that means putting it into the #Methodology section. Primefac (talk) 20:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Update: I will also note that List of exoplanet firsts doesn't say anything about "firsts" in amateur astronomy. Primefac (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Looking and pondering more, I think it belongs in the Transit Photometry section of the methods page. Planet hunters (etc.) is one way or processing the data; i.e., the method is suitable to the utilisation of citizen science. That the method can even benefit from amateur level setups should be listed as one of its advantages. The first discoveries (not detections) using these are worth mentioning in the history sub-section there.
 * The whole "how-to" bit should be removed. The article is about exoplanets, not telescope configurations. Pages like Sun or Galaxy don't mention similar setups.
 * Amateur astronomy looks like another good place to put mention of this stuff -- probably its primary place. At a quick glance, it currenly has almost nothing, just a mention of an amateurn who discovered 4 exoplanets. I haven't looked, but there may be a page near to it where the configuration bit fits nicely.
 * This main exoplanet page should be about the exoplanets themselves. Tbayboy (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I looked at the link you show above, as well as the web site of Bruce Gary, and I stand corrected. Amateurs have discovered exoplanets from their backyard. My apologies. We can fix that in Wikipedia, and I think the best place to create a section on amateur exoplanet detection is at the methods article; mentioning general hardware and software would be reasonable, but omit book promotions and 'how to' instructions. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * All editors but one agree in that the section on methods used by amateurs does not belong in this article, which is focused on the exoplanets only. I am moving it to the Methods of detecting exoplanets. I hope that single-purpose editor continues to build that section there. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, Primefac and me think that the correct place is in the main page of exoplanets. Amateur discoveries have nothing to do with methodology. Cheers.


 * Really? He wrote: "that means putting it into the Methodology". And here he reverted you. The consensus stands. Rowan Forest (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read his opinion again. He says to leave the amateur discoveries in the main page of exoplanet, and to move the 'How amateur astronomers find exoplanets' to the methodology page. the Sorry I had to open a dispute resolution request due to lack of consensus. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planethunter91 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please do not put words in my mouth. I originally said that my interpretation of the consensus was that, if the content were to be included, it should go in the #Methodology section. I never said Amateur discoveries have nothing to do with methodology, and in fact the diff that you refer to actually does say that if we're going to include anything, it should be "how they find exoplanets" and put it in the #Methodology section. I have never advocated for a separate section about the Planet Hunters, and in fact I agree with the move to include it in the Methods_of_detecting_exoplanets article and not here. Primefac (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we have grounds for an ANI report. Planethunter91 replaced this science reference with a link to his YouTube channel called Exoplanets Channel. And over here, he inserted a link to Quora Answers (hardly a reliable reference) in which he is again SPAMING his YouTube Channel. That is in addition of his multiple reverts. I have no time at the moment to open an ANI report and collect all the diffs required, until later tonight, but if someone has the time now, please go ahead. Rowan Forest (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I made the time and opened a report at ANI . Rowan Forest (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * By no means I own any youtube channel and by no means I'm promoting anything. I have added sources from several youtube channels that I consider professional. And again, the amateur section is not about planet hunters, but a large array of important discoveries made by amateurs (including habitable planets). They have nothing to do with methodology. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planethunter91 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Planethunter91's account, along with a couple of his sock-puppets were blocked. And it is beyond doubt that he unsuccessfully tried twice to create an article on his YouTube channel "The Exoplanets Channel":  and he also promoted it in a few WP articles. I am grateful the Administrators accepted to look into this self-promotion and editing abuses. Whatever relevance of amateur discoveries of exoplanets remains to be seen, and whether they are significant to be mentioned in the Methods article, but I have other subjects to work at. Cheers,  Rowan Forest (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

" ... occurred in 1992. This was followed by the confirmation of a planet detected in 1988 ... "
Which happened first? Any references avialable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.6.116.186 (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ask he thinks that any casual reader knows the difference between confirmation and detection, and that such  history can be written in one sentence. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's two sentences, actually, and I think the only real addition needs to be "...of a planet originally detected in 1988...", indicating that while it was detected in 88 it wasn't confirmed until after '92. Primefac (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Footnote 23
For centuries scientists, philosophers, and science fiction writers suspected that extrasolar planets existed, but there was no way of knowing whether they existed, how common they were, or how similar they might be to the planets of the Solar System. Various detection claims made in the nineteenth century were rejected by astronomers.

^ "1992 --"The Year the Milky Way's Planets Came to Life"". Daily Galaxy. 10 January 2017. Archived from the original on 10 January 2017. Retrieved 15 January 2017.

I can't get anything at either of these two links. It is meant to support the statement that for years scientists, writers, and philosophers speculated and assumed that there were planets around other stars.

I wonder if there is a way to re-write this section so that this assertion is more strongly supported and that doesn't point to dead and expired links.

Just putting it out there. Archive. https://web.archive.org/web/20170110130851/https://dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2017/01/exo-1992-the-year-the-milky-ways-planets-came-to-life.html

Original: https://dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2017/01/exo-1992-the-year-the-milky-ways-planets-came-to-life.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nateguimondart (talk • contribs) 21:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I've removed the broken ref and replaced it with citation needed tag. Fdfexoex (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts we don't need these cn tags as this is explained in the next two sections on early speculations and discredited claims. Fdfexoex (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Planet Sizes
When looking at this chart, here, it seems obvious to me that if most planets are much larger than earth's, and they rotate very quickly around their sun, that we are only picking up the easiest to find, and there are many others out there that have yet to be discovered. Is it possible that something is wrong with TESS, or that we are too trusting of planet hunting technology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.223.92 (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean; the largest planets will of course be the easiest to find. Primefac (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

TESS is supposed to pick up everything under the sun, yet it has found almost nothing. We were expecting 20,000 discoveries, but we will be lucky to find 2,000. It that because of aa problem with TESS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.223.92 (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure what you're looking for as a reply; we're not NASA. Primefac (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Faults With Transit Method
Thank you whoever put in the intro that almost all the planets we have found (via transit method) have been inner orbit planets close to Red Dwarfs, and virtually none of the Earth-type planets around main-sequence stars such as the Sun (I.E. most likely to have life) can even be seen by transit or the other methods we currently have (how can you be aligned with mid orbit planets light years away, it is statistically like trying to see a molecule with your naked eye.)

--JLavigne508 (talk) 09:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding habitability.
Since the short list of discovered exoplanets consists of Jupiter-sized worlds where gravity would be much "stronger" than it is on Earth, shouldn't that be addressed as a factor affecting habitability? Since gravity on Jupiter is about 2.5 times that of the earth, could living things survive? 2600:8801:B011:300:B09F:3FEF:E7EB:2AC5 (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC) James.
 * Not quite sure what you mean - the paragraph we have on habitability is really just an overview, and it doesn't really talk about gravity much (or the size of the world), just general concerns about conditions needing to be similar. If you've got some specific wording, though, I'm sure that can be discussed (or, of course, clarification on what you mean if I'm wildly off here). Primefac (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)