Talk:Kepler-452

Added apparent magnitude according to the absolute magnitude of 4.60 listed but that reference has disappeared. I believe it's still correct given the luminosity and distance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:eec4:5000:ad2b:17cf:605d:c860 (talk • contribs)
 * It wasn't even a reference. There was no link to any website. Ĉ i u ĵaŭde Discuss 17:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

You can't be sure of the apparent magnitude just from the distance and luminosity. Especially in cygnus, it could have dust between it and us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.9.251 (talk • contribs)

I'm adding GSC (Guide Star Catalog) number because it is one of the catalogs most frequently used in amateur astronomy software programs. GN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gn842 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect Planetbox usage
The image in the infobox should not be used as it does not follow the usage guide for the template:

This template is part of a group of templates that are used to display information about a specific extrasolar planet. Images of published planetary properties are preferred where available, especially when they are available from cited publications. ''' Artist's conception, regardless of the source, should be avoided. ''' Examples of acceptable images include * direct images, such as one used for GJ 758 b, in the rare cases where these are available; * output of a model that is integral to a cited paper, such as the image used in HD 80606 b; * user-generated images that clearly illustrate published properties, such as the size comparisons currently used in GJ 1214 b or Gliese 436 b.

My edits followed these guidelines but were revered by User:MarioProtIV. I'm opening discussion as to why ...

The habitable zone image belongs in the orbit section, not in the infobox, as it doesn't follow the guidelines above.

--EvenGreenerFish (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would like if the discussion was held here, rather then on all of the other pages. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 11:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Better yet would be to take it to the source. That would also be a good opportunity to review the extensive discussion already on the template talk page. Lithopsian (talk) 11:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

452b confirmation questioned?

 * Re-Evaluating Small Long-Period Confirmed Planets From Kepler Using the final Data Release 25 (DR25) Kepler planet candidate catalog statistics, we find that the previously confirmed single planet system Kepler-452b no longer achieves a 99% confidence in the planetary hypothesis and is not considered statistically validated in agreement with the finding of Mullally et al.(2018). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomruen (talk • contribs) 19:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)