Talk:List of exoplanet extremes

PSR B1257+12 D
PSR B1257+12 D could be defined as a planet if the 2006 redefinition of planet... it's larger than Ceres. 132.205.93.195 03:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

HAT-P-1
How does the discovery of HAT-P-1 affect the status of HD 209458 b as the largest and least dense? ThreeBlindMice 02:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

excised sections

 * ==Discovery firsts==


 * ==Most Earthlike planets==

Least massive
I've added this, because we know much about the lower bound of planetary mass for discovered planets. Since the exact mass of the pulsar planet is known, and it is smaller than the lower bound of any non-pulsar planet, it seems reasonable to include on the list. 132.205.44.5 23:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Playing Devil's advocate here, true masses are only known for planets B and C. The true mass of planet A is based on the assumption that it lies in the mean plane of the outer two planets. While this is almost certainly a reasonable assumption (the two outer planets are nearly coplanar), strictly the true mass of PSR B1257+12A is unknown. Chaos syndrome 23:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no way to tell the most massive known extrasolar planet.
Well, aside from XO-3b not yet being published in a refereed journal (only thing we have is some text submitted to an abstracts listing service and a press release), saying we can tell the most massive planet is misleading, because it is perfectly possible that one of the planets for which we know only a minimum mass is more massive and still below the brown dwarf boundary (which if defined by deuterium fusion is actually a function of metallicity: the value of 13 Jupiter masses is for solar composition). Chaos syndrome 07:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Is 2M1207b known to be in a bound orbit?
According to, the object 2M1207b may or may not be in a bound orbit around 2M1207. So while on the assumption that the orbit is bound, this object would have the largest orbit of any known planetary mass object, I'm not sure making the assumption is valid. I'm going to remove the entry for largest orbit on this basis - feel free to put it back if you can cite evidence that the orbit is bound. Chaos syndrome 13:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Add category
I propose "Least massive planet around normal star", because it is distinct from "least massive in general". Why? Simple I'm not interested in some dead world around some pulsar. But I would be interesed in record holder by lowest mass around normal star. --84.10.180.181 (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Define normal star. Do you mean main sequence star, Sun-like star, star still actively fusing? Or star larger than a red dwarf, of Sun-like metallicity, smaller than a subgiant, and on the main sequence? One can argue that a "normal star" is a red dwarf, only. 70.55.87.10 (talk) 11:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The | Extrasolar Planet Encyclopedia Catalog can probably answer this question. Today, the confirmed exoplanet with the lowest known mass (not minimum mass) appears to be | LHS 1678 b, at up to 0.16 Earth-masses, orbiting a red dwarf. Or else it's | Kepler-138 b, also orbiting a red dwarf, at 0.029 to 0.127 Earth-masses. Either one may be be more massive than Mercury, though. :I would also want to see a category for highest known inclination. 2601:441:5000:13E0:249B:F4FF:6165:5B41 (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

1RXS J160929.1-210524 b
Is 1RXS J160929.1-210524 b the planet with the largest orbit? 76.66.195.196 (talk) 06:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ohhh yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh! BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 22:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Excised 6 August 2010
This was recently excised. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal notes: 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (Longest orbital period) HD 80606b is not the longest orbital period; longest orbital period is uncertain as the widest-separation exoplanets do not have well-determined orbits
 * (Largest orbit) this object does not have a well-determined orbit, and the radial separation is not known at all
 * (Lowest metallicity) depending on definition of "planet" there may well be lower-metallicity planet hosts; removed pending rigorous definition of "planet"

HD 80606b
As this is the longest well characterized orbital period, it should go in the table, with a note that many others have longer not well characterized periods. (like the notes about SWEEPS-10 for other planets) 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Please include citations with edit updates.
In order to avoid edit reverts, please include appropriate references (WP:RS) with newly added updated edits - in any case - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Planet in a quadruple star system confirmed
A planet currently named PH1 has been discovered around KIC 4862625 system, now known to have of 4 stars. Source here. --Artman40 (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

HEC: Top 10 Lists of Exoplanets
Is http://phl.upr.edu/projects/habitable-exoplanets-catalog/top10 an acceptable source? It has a note

A similar List of Extrasolar Planet Extremes is available in wikipedia but needs to be updated.

IMPORTANT NOTE: These lists were automatically generated by HEC for all confirmed exoplanets. Radius or mass was estimated when not available from mass-radius relationships. This page is only updated when necessary.

Which seems to make this a rather poor source to use. It's being used to update this page, List of extrasolar planet extremes, which the source claims is in need of updating... so seems to be soliciting edits to Wikipedia to match itself... -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 09:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Smallest planets in habitable zone
Hello, I don't know where to include it, but I think it should be somewhere in this page : Thanks for adding it! SenseiAC (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Smallest planet in its star's habitable zone : Kepler 62 e and f
 * Smallest planet in a Sun-like star's habitable zone : Kepler 69 c
 * I wouldn't mind adding them, though these are two of the few cases where the Solar System still holds a record. A problem is that the terms "Sun-like" and "habitable zone" do not have a fixed definition... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Most distant protoplanet/planetissimal/planetary formation core
according to there's a gap in the proplyd of TW Hydrae at twice Pluto's distance, with a suspected formation core of mass 6-28Mearth. It's called the "farthest forming planet", which table would it go in? -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 08:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Most Distant - Contradiction in confidence level between intro and category
I've just read this article the first time as a non-technical reader.

What is screaming out loud is a contradiction between the one line introduction, which states " The properties listed here are those for which values are known reliably.",

and the very first category of most distant, which states "A controversial microlensing event of lobe A of the double gravitationally lensed Q0957+561 suggests that there is a planet in the lensing galaxy lying at redshift 0.355 (3.7 Gly).[3][4]"

The bold words (my emphasis) of "controversial" and "suggests" imply anything but "for which values are known reliably.".

For the article to become self-consistent, either the introduction needs to be changed to state that the article includes speculative information, or the speculative information should be removed. --Savlonn (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There's no contradiction, the "controversial" claim is only a "Note" to the actual record holder, another planet which is uncontroversial. But I wouldn't mind removing these "speculative" notes.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Longest period
Although we don't yet know HD 106906 b's period, it is apparent that it likely exceeds that of Fomalhaut b. because HD 106906 b is now an estimated 650 AU from its primary, which has 1.5 +/- 0.1 solar masses, while Fomalhaut b has an estimated apastron of ~300 AU and its primary has 1.92 solar masses. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Least dense may be right, but density is off.
The mass of Kepler 453b is not that low. It's 0.1±16 Earth masses at 1 standard deviation. According to the original source on the discovery. Why anyone would use a 1 standard deviation measurement as an upper bound, especially when 49% of the range is below zero, is beyond me, but regardless, that means our 95% confidence interval is about 0-32 earth masses. Not 0.200. Not only don't we have 3 significant figures. We can't even truthfully state the order of magnitude. Is it 10 earth masses? 1? 0.1? 0.01? A kilo? All of these are within the error range as presented. Why we would arbitrarily choose 0.2(00) Earth masses is beyond me, especially given what we know about planets in this size range. I would be more inclined to give a value of 30 or 40 Earth masses, if we're in the business of making up numbers. Source: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1605v1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.127.160 (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Stop saying large errors are new records.
An upper bound with no lower bound, a lower bound with no upper bound, or huge errors do not equal a new record. Take the old Kepler-51d record. A planet of 6.5-8.7 Earth masses with a radius of 0.9 plus or minus 0.5 Jupiter radii. What's the density? 9 grams per liter? 120 grams per liter? 530 grams per liter?

The answer is that we have no business claiming its any of the above. It's less than 530 and more than 9, but that didn't mean we get to arbitrarily pick some point to call it at. That means that unless 530 is less dense than everything else, it's probably not the least dense. It's probably a case of randomly introduced statistical noise.

Quote reliable statistics please. Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.127.160 (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

TRAPPIST-1
Please check if the informnation provided here is affected by three planets of ultracool dwarf TRAPPIST-1 which have newly been found. Thanks in advance. Ernsts (talk) 12:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of exoplanet extremes. 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/20120317203801/http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~dsp/PrincetonSite/Home_files/darkest_world.pdf to http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~dsp/PrincetonSite/Home_files/darkest_world.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) 06:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of exoplanet extremes. 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/20060711093521/http://www.astro.psu.edu/users/alex/pulsar_planets_text.html to http://www.astro.psu.edu/users/alex/pulsar_planets_text.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101122054924/http://exoplanet.eu/planet.php?p1=2M+J044144&p2=b to http://exoplanet.eu/planet.php?p1=2M+J044144&p2=b

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) 05:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Most massive and most dense
I have reverted the recent edits by User:Ysku. A red dwarf star is clearly not a planet. Also the most dense is not Kepler-131c - that comes from a paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.4195 which says the density is unphysically high and the mass must be too large and is anyway highly uncertain. The reference for Kelt-1b gives the most uptodate density for Kelt-1b and Corot-3b and says Kelt-1b is the most dense. Fdfexoex (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit of "most dense" listing
I've altered the listing for the most dense exoplanet to display K2-38b instead of EPIC 22881391 b. After some research, I wasn't able to determine the definitive densest exoplanet, however, K2-38b was the densest that I could find. In any case, it's at least less wrong than the previous listing for most dense, which was only 1.884g/cm3, which is about three times lighter than Earth itself. If there is a more dense exoplanet, please do change the listing, as I explained in the edit summary, this is a shaky change. Mexxmer (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Systems
This is an exoplanet list. Then why is the Solar System included in the multiplanetary systems records? Maybe we should rename the record to "Exo-multiplanetary system with largest range in planetary mass, log scale". 🪐Kepler-1229b &#124; talk &#124; contribs🪐 20:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Same with the "Multiplanetary system with smallest range in planetary mass, log scale" . We should rename it to "Exo-multiplanetary system with smallest range in planetary mass, log scale" . -- 🪐Kepler-1229b &#124; talk &#124; contribs🪐 20:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of exoplanet extremes
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of exoplanet extremes's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "exoplanet.eu": From Kepler-1625: exoplanet.eu: Planet Kepler-1625 b From 51 Eridani b:  From List of exoplanets discovered using the Kepler space telescope: Exoplanet.eu, "Kepler-41" From SDSS J1228+1040 b:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)