Talk:List of multiplanetary systems

=General=

Table of Extrasolar Planets
I think it would be helpful to have a column that noted what class the planet belonged to, if any, such as "super earth", "hot jupiter", etc. There are separate articles for these classifications, so I think it would be beneficial to denote them here. --Eddylyons (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Column sorting is broken
In the first table on this page, the "Distance" column sorts lexicographically instead of numerically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MKB (talk • contribs) 14:2012 (UTC)
 * This is still broken. In addition, sorting by distance shuffles the mid-table headers around. (Not sure why those are there in the first place.) Could someone who knows more about Wikitables fix it? —MillingMachine (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's the autodetection of the column type that doing things in here. The entry for the Sun is not being interpreted as a number.  Replacing the scientific notation with ".000016" fixes that (alternatively "1.6E-5" works as well).  There's also a way to force the type for a column (by specifying ::data-sort-type="number"::), but this is generated with a couple of layers of templates I'm still trying to dig my way through.  That would be a better solution in some respects, but will still get the old text-style distance for the Sun miss-sorted (although the .000016 will sort correctly).  Nor will the "unknowns" or approximate ("~1234") distances sort well, no matter what we do.
 * The embedded captions are there for readability, I suppose, so that the heading don't scroll off. Not really sure what we can do about that, perhaps a scrollable table instead of the fully expanded one, under a fixed set of headings.  Or just remove the extra headings.
 * Open to suggestions... Rwessel (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I found where to put it. This change at least removes the lexical sorting for the distance column. ~Michael Allan 10:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Doubtful planets?
Should doubtful planets be on this page at all? Perhaps they should go in hypothetical planet instead. 132.205.15.43 05:06, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Solar system planets on hypotethicals page are mostly just hypothetical; on the other hand these doubtful planets have been false detections. Maybe they should have a list of their own as List of unconfirmed extrasolar planets (after all, this is a list of confirmed extrasolar planets). Jyril 15:45, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've moved the list to hypothetical planet, since they are definitely not confirmed planets, and appear to be on the way to being disproven planets. Hypothetical planet article allows for unconfirmed and disproven planets, according to what it says. 132.205.45.155 01:11, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Confirmed?"
In what sense are these exoplanets "confirmed?". For instance, HD 187085 b was detected by one group, but no other group has independently confirmed it. On the other hand, the group that made the detection has an excellent track record, being without a single mistake in over 100 planet claims. So perhaps the word "confirmed" is not the right one? Maybe "likely"? "Solid"? "Strong"? There is a peer-reviewed Catalog, a Table, and an Encyclopedia of exoplanets all maintained by professional astronomers, perhaps they could be used as a referee? Enfolder 05:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of these planets are hot Jupiters which only take a few weeks of observation, max, to confirm yet another swing around the star. For them, the "confirmation" part isn't whether there's an orbital body. (Everyone knows there is.) The question is whether the body is small enough not to be a brown dwarf. No-one knows HD 187085 b's inclination, and so it is not confirmed to be a planet. (By contrast with, say, tau Bo&ouml;tis Ab, but that's another rant...)
 * That out of the way, your example is also a long-period orbit - say, on the order of three Earth years or more. There's certainly a problem there too. Anything published with a period of x years, if the only publication is from just one independent team 2x years from the start of the vigil, perhaps ought to be "non confirmed" even as an orbital body.--Zimriel (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comparison to Earth
I think most of the readers will want to compare the mass of the planets with Earth's mass, not Jupiters. The semimajor axis is already compared to Earth's, because of the unit used. Even if comparing the mass to Earth's mass means bigger numbers I think it is much more useful. Or at least we should have both columns. As an alternative, I wanted to add -for comparison purposes- Earth to the list, but it was removed. I still think it would have been useful. The current information is hard to handle if one has to consult a separate page with Earth's data.-Paul- (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * disagree - I hate Geocentricity, too many mistakes (especially by astronomers) are made from that presumptous perspective. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * agree comparing to Jupiter or comparing to Earth make as much sense to me. I would like to see a distance from our Sun as well.--Iv (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (2008)

 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

List of stars with confirmed extrasolar planets → List of extrasolar planets — This page is currently functioning more as a list of extrasolar planets than a list of stars with extrasolar planets. In addition there is ambiguity about what constitutes confirmation, which may be taken to imply that these planets have been verified by independent observations, or that their planetary nature is confirmed (not necessarily true for radial velocity planets, particularly in single-planet systems where there are no dynamical upper limits on the masses). Furthermore, the current title excludes free-floating planets which have occasionally been requested by users to be included in the article. Moving to this new title would remove the potentially misleading implications of the word "confirmed" and allow inclusion of the free-floating planets. — Icalanise (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support I agree that we should move to simply list of extrasolar planets; I like this proposed name better than list of stars with confirmed extrasolar planets. I see that the article name include 'confirmed' is misleading. Also it is better not including 'star' in title name. Moving this page would be consistent with the related articles list of unconfirmed exoplanets and list of brown dwarfs. Note the usage of the word 'unconfirmed' in list of unconfirmed exoplanets is important as this article lists exoplanets that are not confirmed. --BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 19:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose It should be List of confirmed extrasolar planets, to go with the unconfirmed list. 76.66.195.159 (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I like list of confirmed extrasolar planets. List of extrasolar planets can be disadvantageous because it mean the list of confirmed and unconfirmed exoplanets. If we rename it to list of extrasolar planets, then we got to merge list of unconfirmed exoplanets into this proposed renamed article, like we see in list of brown dwarfs, which list confirmed and unconfirmed brown dwarfs. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 17:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I prefer shorter titles, and unconfirmed planets are not really planets. Ruslik (talk) 11:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support The table is really driven by planet additions rather than host star additions. A simple introductory note and table category can point out what their discovery status is. LostLucidity (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * The reason for dropping the "confirmed" part is that most of the objects that are listed here are not in any way confirmed planets: the majority are low velocity semi-amplitude companions to stars for which a good case has been made that they exist, but can only be termed planets on probabilistic grounds that they aren't in fact in the brown dwarf or stellar mass range, and the many have not been subjected to followup by independent observations. If we say an object is a "confirmed" planet, that presumably means it is confirmed that it exists, and confirmed that it is a planet. The latter criterion means we have to transfer all the objects without confirmed planetary masses off to the "unconfirmed" page, despite the low probabilities involved for most of these objects that they are not in the planetary mass range. For the objects that survive such a cull, we then need to decide what constitutes confirmation: is having independent datasets enough (e.g. transits+RV), or do we also need an independent team to confirm the first team's work? In which case we'd probably be down to a dozen or so planets left here. I don't think the requirement of "confirmation" is particularly helpful for this list. Icalanise (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Flamsteed numbers
I personally feel that people are more interested in knowing where the stars are in the night sky as apposed to how bright they are or who or what discovered them. Therefore I added an extra column in the "star data" table. However, my knowledge of flamsteed numbers is very limited, so I hope other people will fill in the blanks in the future. Nate5713 (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

=Individual planet comments=

HD 154345b
The parameters for this planet could do with updating... seems to be a Jupiter-analogue in a circular orbit. See The Jupiter Twin HD 154345b and the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia entry. The HD 154345 and HD 154345 b articles need an update too. 131.111.8.96 (talk) 09:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

HD 40307
Please add info on the newly discovered triple planet system of HD 40307. Thanks 82.16.1.141 (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Please reply to my question here. Crystal whacker (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

HAT-P-7 link sends me to "HAT-P-7 b" redirect
Which contained s a redirect link to "HAT-P-7b", which works when I click it. Therefore I changed the table link for the star "HAT-P-7" to "HAT-P-7b" (piped) so that a reader gets to see the planet page instead of a confusing redirect page. I guess the star page has not been made yet? -84user (talk) 03:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC) changed tense to past-84user (talk) 03:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Confusing isn't it? I am working on all of the references between the star and planet names for a couple of projects such as HAT, TrES and CoRoT. I have finished TrES (see the TrES Talk page for notes on the naming rules used) and I am now working on HAT. I hope to have correct designations for the planets, stubs for all of the parent stars and more meaningful redirection for these articles in a week or so. BTW - a parent star article exists for HAT-P-7b at GSC 03547-01402. I think the redirection from HAT-P-7 should be to the planet article and the general catalog designation (HD, GSC, etc.) for the star should be used for the exoplanet list's 'Star' column, if one exists. Please let me know if there are other redirects that are broken and I will add them to the list. Aldebaran66 (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed planets by other-than-transit
There was an article back in 2001 which claimed to have the inclinations of 55 Cancri c and HD 192263 b among others. We've since made more checks of the inclinations of HD 192263 b, and of 55 Cancri d and so probably c as well, which proved the prelims to be WAY off. But I think we're close enough to inclination to get us the mass for these planets. It's now time to promote them - probably gamma Cephei Ab too - like we promoted upsilon Andromedae b.

(Also, I reorganised the discussion a bit, because the chaos of the original was giving me a headache) -- Zimriel (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I did the deed for 55 Cancri d and Gliese 876 b. c.f., [Benedict, McArthur, & Bean]. As for the rest - yeah, I guess we need to await their future publications. --Zimriel (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears most of the results in the Han paper were due to systematic errors in the reduction procedure. See . Note also that the Han paper appears to be referring to 55 Cancri b (which is the second planet in order of distance), not c.
 * Regarding the Gliese 876 astrometry result, it conflicts with the inclination from radial velocities and taking planet-planet interactions into account, e.g. . Furthermore the astrometric reduction was done assuming Gliese 876 b was the only planet in its system: the 2:1 resonance hid the planet c as excess eccentricity in the orbital solution for b, so this might be suspect. Going from RV measurements, we can probably promote both Gl876b and Gl876c.
 * It should be ok to promote the Gliese 581 planets based on which excludes i<10° - which is sufficient to constrain the true masses to the planetary range.
 * Tau Boötis b also has a weak constraint on the true mass by assuming it rotates in the plane of its star's equator (reasonable since the star appears to be tidally-locked to the planet), see . Icalanise (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

HR 8799
Can someone please add HR 8799 to the list? It is currently an orphaned article(!) but absolutely requires a link on this page. Sorry, but editing the list is beyond my skills... --210.248.139.34 (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Lalande 21185
The main entry suggests Lalande 21185 has planets but there's nothing on either here nor the list of unconfirmed extrasolar planets. I don't know enough about the research to know whether they're confirmed or not, and so whether they should be listed here, but someone who does can include it on either list. 92.40.144.141 (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the star's absence in the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia and the lack of a refereed publication of the detection (despite being 12 and a half years since the conference announcement), I'd say the Lalande 21185 planets belong in the unconfirmed extrasolar planets article. Icalanise (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thought as much but preferred to leave judgement to someone with more familiarity with the astronomical literature. Presumably it gets the attention it does because Lalande 21185 is one of our nearest stars. 92.40.144.141 (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Gliese 581
According to Gliese 581, it has 3 (now 4) planets, not only "candidate planets". The corresponding lines should be moved to the right table. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Gliese 876
Gliese 876 is listed in the second paragraph as the closest multiplantary system to Earth, but the article for Gliese 876 states that it is "the fifth closest such system known to consist of multiple planets (after Wolf 1061, Kapteyn's Star, Tau Ceti and Epsilon Eridani)." I think that the Epilson Eridani planets are controversial, but can Tau Ceti be listed at the closest non-controversial multiplanetary system to the Sun? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleinhern (talk • contribs) 08:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

=Restructuring discussion (re-RFC) =

Relisting. @harej 22:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Would be good to get feedback on how this article can be improved. I've placed below two sections where discussion of this was started, would be good to get feedback from the wider community here. Icalanise (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Structure, inclusion criteria and referencing
Just thinking about various ways this list could be improved, would be good to get some opinions on the following... Icalanise (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) Is the separation of planets for which true mass estimates are available versus those which don't useful? Furthermore is having a different set of fields for each table a good thing?
 * (2) Are all the fields in the tables necessary? For a start, too many fields causes problems on smaller monitors. Which fields could be eliminated? Are there any fields which are missing that would be useful?
 * (3) Bearing in mind the "references needed" tag on this article, what is the best way to do referencing? An extra table column, like on list of unconfirmed exoplanets? Anything else?
 * (4) Is the 13 Jupiter mass cutoff a good idea? Does it make sense when weighed against the sin(i) degeneracy of most of these objects? Does it make sense when this criterion is not universally accepted by scientists working in this field?
 * (5) What exactly constitutes confirmation?
 * Any other issues?
 * Thanks for starting this discussion: these are all good issues that need discussing. In particular, as I mention below, I think the current separation into two tables based on availability of a true mass estimate is confusing and misleading, and that we would do better to simply have one big table in which the detection method(s) are indicated for each planet, with the accompanying text discussing the strengths and weaknesses of each method. The current approach encourages disorienting (and passive-aggressive) violations of WP:OR as editors shuffle planets between tables to reflect their prejudices. — Aldaron • T/C 19:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This makes reasonable to me. Unless there is an English meaning for "candidate" that is not familiar to me, the seperate tables is just a cause of confusion. One table as described further on in this talk makes much more sense.
 * Another issue I'd add is whether to include artists conception images in the individual articles for the planets. This has been discussed elsewhere, but not (to my knowledge) resolved. Some editors seem uncomfortable with "favoring" a given artist (since any "impression" is pretty arbitrary), but I would argue that use of images supplied by official organizations associated with a discovery should be is fine, and should in fact, be encouraged (since for most of these planets they are the best impressions we will have for quite some time) as long at is made clear that the image represents an artist's impression of one possible form of the planet. — Aldaron • T/C 19:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You want to cut this out and move it to a more appropriate place, there are no planet pictures in this article, so you muddle the discussion.  GabrielVelasquez (talk) 05:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please start a conversation in the appropriate place then and link to it from here. Also it would be great if you could reference the previous discussions you mention on this topic, so we have some context and can understand better how the "consensus" against artists conceptions was reached. Thanks. — Aldaron • T/C 05:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd rather keep the discussion here on the subject of this article, rather than policies for a whole bunch of other articles. Icalanise (talk) 10:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Can you point me to where it should go? — Aldaron • T/C 13:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

(6) Error value ranges for the planet masses
best example is planet GQ Lup b / GQ Lup b is listed in the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia (full spreedsheet) as a 21.5 Jupiter mass object when it is in fact (±20.5) anywhere from a 1.0 Jupiter mass object to a 42 Jupiter mass object. I find this also deceptive. I see the ranges in the individual planet article, but I don't want to see the same mistake made with these charts/lists at this article. Jean wrote me back and told me they were going to add the error values to his chart and to be patient; that was over a year ago. I know you want fewer columns, but I think this is an issue worthy of it's own column. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 05:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Including error values are a great idea. I think including them would go a long way to cleaning up the confusion currently caused by multiple tables and the confusing categorization of "candidate" planets. In a single combined table we could let error values speak for themselves. — Aldaron • T/C 05:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

(2) Star data on planet lists and space on chart. "Are all the fields in the tables necessary?"
I want to add somewhere in here the suggestion that maybe the star data (except name) should maybe be left with the Star's article, as it is linked from the name anyway, and this list is about the planets. I was thinking that since adding the mass error value/range column would make it list pretty wide display wise, some data columns may have to be forgone and those seem to make sense to me. Constellation, Right ascension, Declination, App.mag.,Distance (ly), Spectral type, are there but Effective temperature, Radius, Luminosity, Metallicity are not. Let's be fair, I would like to have them all but, I think the focus of the lists should be the planet data. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Removing right ascension, declination, app.mag. distance and spectral type removes the possibility to sort the planets in the table for these criteria which I think is a very useful information for people to have. Even though you can go to the star and look up that information, having a table that provides you with the information immediately and in context with exoplanets and sortable just makes sense. I for one like e.g. to sort the list for distance. I can live with removing the "Constellation" column - which is taking up a lot of space.Themanwithoutapast (talk) 09:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are confounding "useful to have information" and "sortability," it doesn't take the information away from people for them not to be able to sort by Spectal Type or apparent magnitude. Sorting by either of those is neglegable in notability. I think since I can see the notability of sorting by right acension and declination that perhaps the better option is to have a seperate list for the stars with a column for the planet letters at the end, the way they are boxed in the star articles. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 06:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Upsilon Andromedae's three planets appear separated: b is in the Planet Data Table while c and d are in Candidate extrasolar planets, and the Star Data Table lists only b. Shouldn't they be together? 84user (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Upsilon Andromedae
 * This is an ongoing process, I had to go to bed and didn't finish. If you look at the history you'll see how much has been done already. I hope to have time to finish it but other people who are following this should feel free to continue it. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * After looking at the articles for Upsilon Andromedae's three planets I now see why b is where it is: its mass is better constrained than the others according to the cite. So I did not move them together, instead I added in-page links for each Ups And planet in List of extrasolar planets. This might be too complicated so my edit is just an experiment. The idea is that Star Data Table should hold in-page links to where each planet's extended details can be found. For example, b links to List of extrasolar planets (a row in List of extrasolar planets), while c and d link to List of extrasolar planets and List of extrasolar planets (rows in List of extrasolar planets). -84user (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Would it be interesting to add physical properties of stars, including mass, radius, luminosity, temperature, metallicity, age, and rotation period? The spreadsheets and interactive catalog table in the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia list these physical properties of stars, not just magnitudes, distance, coordinates, and spectral type. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 21:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally would like to see all of them, including Lumiosity. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 04:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(4) Is the 13 Jupiter mass cutoff a good idea? Does it make sense when weighed against the sin(i) degeneracy of most of these objects?
All those objects above 13 times that of Jupiter listed in the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia are found in list of brown dwarfs article. According to my planetary mass classification, 13 Jupiter masses is the upper limit to be classified as a planet, and 0.01 Earth mass is the lower limit. If an object more than 13 times that of Jupiter formed from circumstellar disk and core accretion like the planets do, it should still be classified as a brown dwarf, just like a star in binary system formed from the disk left over from the formation of a primary star. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 21:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC) I'm tempted to keep thinking outloud (babbling) on this one but I think you're smart enough to get me. Criterion refinement, or criterion elaboration, or ...criterion bedtime? GabrielVelasquez (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your planetary mass classification system doesn't count here. It's a bunch of Original research. In addition binary star formation is thought to be from fragmentation of the cloud as it collapses, not from formation from a disc. Can you provide references for why 13 Jupiter masses should be a hard cut-off? Examples where the distinction between brown dwarfs and planets becomes blurred includes the case of HW Virginis, HD 16760 , HD 202206 and possibly also BD+20 2457 which hosts 2 objects with masses likely above 13 Jupiter masses close to the 3:2 resonance which are likely to have formed from a disc . Furthermore there is this study  of the evolution of planets of various masses, which considers the possibility of planets more massive than the deuterium-burning limit but with rock or ice cores, and concludes "these results highlight the utter confusion provided by a definition of a planet based on the deuterium-burning limit." I do not think it accurately reflects the diversity of planetary systems to include the cut-off, when there are so many examples of where the real world disobeys the neat criterion. Icalanise (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with your point but don't see it as confusion just lack of research. I discovered how to calculate the irradiance on an extasolar planet from its parent star as a layman on my own with a little algebra and I don't think this is such a difficult issue, just lacking in expert scientific attention. What I mean is, for example, tidal lock zones are calculated for various star sizes, the "frost line" (irradiance on water) is calculated for various star sizes, and you seem to be insinuating that the same type of calculation can not be made so as to catagorize a planet that has an ice core even though that same planet would not have an ice core if it were on it's way to becoming a Chthonian planet, for example. In short I am saying the criterion you are refering to is too simple, at present. There are some red "supergiants" that are smaller than "main sequence" (O/B) Blue stars, but that hasn't stopped scientists from catagorizing them, no? I mean I like doing that kind of chart but would the formula be published if I did the math. You are better equiped to do the math, but instead you lean toward bash the effort. Give it shot, add the extra dimension and see if you can't come up with a Hertzsprung–Russell type diagram for classifying planets vs Brown dwarfs. Am I just saying Deuterium burning doesn't depend only on mass?...I guess I am.
 * Also can anyone (Icalanise retired) define what you mean by "the sin(i) degeneracy" and how that contrasts?? It would help some of us help the solution along to know the difference. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The short answer is that for the radial velocity method there is a large uncertainty in the mass of the planet with the quoted mass typically representing the minimum mass of the star. Therefore some fraction of planets with quoted mass less than 13 M_j actually have masses greater than that.TStein (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(1)&(5) Current Candidate/unconfirmed/confirmation structure: confusing (and misleading)
The current organization, which distinguishes between planets and "candidate" planets is confusing and misleading. It implies that we either know less about the latter companions than we do, or that the data characterizing them (or the quality of the science behind them) is suspect. I propose that we reorganize the tables strictly by detection method, and rely on the text to clarify the advantages and disadvantages of each and the combinations of method and mass estimates that could result in a "mis-categorization" of a non-planet companion as a planet. — Aldaron • T/C 05:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The extrasolar planet candidates section contains most of the planets detected by radial velocity method while extrasolar planets section contains most of the planets detected by transit method. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 22:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the point: the way it reads now, transit == real planet, radial velocity == doubtful planet. I think we'd be better off to just combine the tables, indicate the detection method there, and note the issues with each method in the text. — Aldaron • T/C 22:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue of what is a "Candidate" planet and what is a "confirmed" planet and what is an "unconfirmed" planet are linked together. I don't yet see it as just a detection method issue, unless I am missing something, as with the example above, GQ Lup b, if this is a confirmed object it is sure is a rough and ugly estimate if it could be anything from "Jupiter size" to 42 Jupiter mass object. Maybe someone could explain why Jean has them laid out this way (catalog)???
 * All Candidates detected  353 planets
 * Candidates detected by radial velocity or astrometry:  278 planetary systems /update : 01 July 2009   327 planets /34 multiple planet systems
 * Transiting planets  59 planetary systems /update : 01 July 2009   59 planets / 0 multiple planet systems
 * Candidates detected by microlensing  7 planetary systems / update : 19 September 2008   8 planets / 1 multiple planet systems
 * Candidates detected by imaging  9 planetary systems / update : 24 November 2008   11 planets / 1 multiple planet systems
 * Candidates detected by timing  4 planetary systems / update : 25 November 2008   7 planets / 2 multiple planet systems
 * Unconfirmed, controversial or retracted planets / update : 16 June 2009
 * Candidate "cluster" and "free-floating" planets
 * GabrielVelasquez (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with calling them all "candidates"; or calling them all something else. The issue is that the current tables make a distinction between "candidate" and others (a distinction not made by "Jean"). If you're suggesting we follow the schema you quote above: one list, all of which are called candidates, with the detection method indicated, then I'd absolutely support that. — Aldaron • T/C 01:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, you know what Schneider meant. He is clearly making a distinction by using the terms "Candidate," "Unconfirmed," "Transiting" and even others still (controversial or retracted) as you say he is not. He may have started this confusion because his layout may have been misinterpreted, but I see that he is making the detection method a distinction between the "candidate" planets (although that organization took me a while to get) and that may be a better way of distinguishing them as long as you don't insinuate that a cruise ship is now taking reservations as some other editors have done from the suggestion that a planet in question is perfectly Earth-like and absolutely there. The layout he uses is a good suggestion I think as long as you have (as I said before) the mass possibility/error range. So, yes your initial suggestion was fine, except that it wasn't the "Candidate" concept that you should have been bashing, But rather clarifying what anyone would mean by the unused term "Confirmed" and I believe Icalanise set himself that task. Most of this debate hinges on that, why is Schneider using "Candidate" instead of "Confirmed?"GabrielVelasquez (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

One point is that the Catalog of Nearby Exoplanets doesn't bother with "candidate", but lists anything with low m sin(i) as a planet. This is of course problematic - RV planets have low but non-zero probabilities of being brown dwarfs or even stars (case in point HD 33636b which turned out to be a red dwarf star rather than a 9 Jupiter mass planet). I brought up the issue of confirmation issue because of the split between this list and the list of unconfirmed extrasolar planets, which seems fairly arbitrary: we've got objects in here that are unpublished in peer-reviewed journals. Directly detected planets have masses which hinge on evolutionary models and in several cases have suspiciously wide separations or low mass ratios which may indicate they are brown dwarfs (depending on how you define the term - the 13 Jupiter mass limit, deuterium fusion, or formation). One point is that some things definitely lead to the conclusion that what we are dealing with are planets - for example having 2 or more companions in a non-hierarchical relationship is a pretty good case (though hierarchical systems are more ambiguous): I'm not sure that you'd find many who would argue against the planetary nature of the five companions in the 55 Cancri or HD 69830 systems for example, despite the lack of true mass estimates. I'm not entirely sure myself what is the best way to handle this hence my starting the RfC in the first place. Icalanise (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I really miss having a "year of discovery" column or "year of confirmation" or something. This is all relatively new, in that you can point to exact dates when an actual planet outside our solar system was discovered/verified/confirmed/whatever within the last 20 years. That's amazing! And such dates are still happening. Can we bring that back? The way it looks now, all the exoplanets are something that have always been. The graph is nice, but meh. How can I know what was discovered yesterday? As compared to 20 years ago? How can I look in the table to tell me what was discovered first? --Eddylyons (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

= New and unsorted discussions =

References and links
Hi. I added the information that all exoplanets were given unofficial names, and tried to link a reference to it. But this wiki doesn't seem to have numbered references like most others. Do you guys know how to fix it? Or should I just link it as external links? (less desirable) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabeln2 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * These additions are about one proposed scheme, and not a particularly useful one at that. — Aldaron • T/C 22:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

this page is a mess
several months ago this page was neat and clean and all the planets were listed in increasing order of their mass. The table(s) are compeltely random. Can somebody actually put them in some rational order, probably by their masses? Nergaal (talk) 08:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that their mass is at best a very rough estimation I would prefer them being ordered by some other criterion. Dr. Loosmark  13:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

the NEVER announced extrasolar planets by extrasolar planet encyclopaedia since august of 2009
i was check the extrasolar planet encyclopaedia (EPE) ,and there is 5 extrasolar planet that NEVER been announced…

the title of this paper is: “FIVE NEW GIANT EXOPLANETS FROM THE CALIFORNIA PLANET SURVEY1″

and this is scientific paper of 08/2009: http://exoplanets.org/papers/sixpack.pdf

and this is extrasolar planet catalog in alphabetic order: http://exoplanet.eu/catalog-all.php?&munit=&runit=&punit=&mode=1&more=

i send a e-mail for EPE, but they just told that the authors of this paper,don’t give the EPE the right of publicate this paper on the EPE

this is strange because this planets it’s not secret, it’s already been announced since august of 2009 on the California Planet Search http://exoplanets.org/papersframe.html

i don’t know, but for me, look like if something like that start happen in the EPE, that is the great reference in extrasolar planet of all.Now they could lose the credit of announce new exoplanets

now because of this it's supposed to have 429 planet and not 424,anyone know why,this planets it's not on EPE catalog?

the unannounced planet are: HD34445b, HD126614b, HD24496b, HD13931b, Gl179b

there is one small note on the discussion on the end of this paper that talk about of the unannounced planetary system of Gl 179 a M dwarf star ,on a recently announced planet around HIP 79431 another M dwarf star with a gas giant planet see at:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1001/1001.1174v1.pdf

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Extrasolar_planet" 14/01/2010  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.48.38.158 (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

HD 126614
HD 126614 it's a triple star system and a NOT binary system like said at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_126614

6. HD126614 A 6.1. Stellar Characteristics HD126614 (=HIP 70623) is identified in the Henry Draper and Hipparcos catalogs as a single star. As described in § 6.5, we directly detected by adaptive optics (AO) a faint M dwarf companion separated by 489mas from the bright primary. We refer to the bright primary star as HD126614A and the faint companion as HD126614B. These stars are unresolved in the Doppler and photometric variability observations described below. The planet announced below orbits HD126614A and is named HD126614Ab. In addition, HD126614A is orbited by a second M dwarf, NLTT37349, in a much wider orbit (Gould & Chanam´e 2004). This outer stellar companion is separated from HD126614A by 42"" and does not contaminate the Doppler or photometric observations

see at: http://exoplanets.org/papers/sixpack.pdf  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.141.52.206 (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

unreferenced title holder
At 17:20, 3 September 2009 IP 203.129.156.28 gave Upsilon Andromedae b a radius of 2.2 Jupiters. Unless someone can find a reference for it, I think the number should be removed. -- Kheider (talk) 08:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears to come from Extrasolar Visions . I think removal is probably the best policy as there has been no actual radius measurement, and Extrasolar Visions is not particularly reliable anyway. Icalanise (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am only a casual follower of the exo-planets, but when I go to http://www.extrasolar.net/ it seems like all the "latest news' is from 2006. Is this site even kept somewhat current or has the site been completely stagnant for a few years? -- Kheider (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been stagnant for a while. Unfortunately the reason for this is the death of the website's author. Icalanise (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's sad to hear. Back in 2005/2006 this site must have been on the cutting edge.  Was the webmaster an astronomer of any kind?  Do you know how long the site will stay up?  Is someone paying the domain host to keep it running? -- Kheider (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah it pretty much was cutting edge back then, actually got me interested in the whole exoplanets thing in the first place. I don't think the webmaster was an astronomer but just someone who was interested and motivated. Not sure what the current situation is with hosting though. Icalanise (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Exclusion of Upsilon Andromedae c
This ties into some discussion that took place a while back regarding what we should use as a cutoff for the upper end of planetary masses, but is booting Upsilon Andromedae c off this list really a good representation of the system? The paper about the astrometric measurements consistently refers to this object as a planet, and it should also be noted that the best fit mass in the dynamical fits with stability constraints is below the deuterium fusion limit, and even in the Keplerian solution the error bars are compatible with mass below this limit. Icalanise (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Should we add the 312 Kepler planets?
There was a paper released on 312 candidates. Should we add that in the unconfirmed, or in here... because there is a section with about 300 of them that aren't "confirmed" by the standards. i'm not sure what that's supposed to mean... so...


 * I would say add it to the unconfirmed list article, instead of this article. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Split off list of firsts
I suggest that the list of exoplanetary firsts that was split from exoplanet onto this article, be split again, off this article onto its own list, since this article is getting very long (120kB+), and that is a logical split location. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It was a very major move... it seems to have been done on the quick, since it wasn't announced to the wikiprojects, or this talk page... and he only waited one week. Made one very long article longer, from another very long article... 76.66.193.119 (talk) 03:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not get the second post. So I say yes. We should. Synthetical connections  ( talk )(my contribs) 17:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, unless there are any objections, I will split the page in one week. Battleaxe9872  وکیپیڈیا 01:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅. --Waldir talk 10:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Split of candidates list
To get the size of this list article under control, I suggest that the candidate extrasolar planets also be split off into its own article. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No to this idea, and no to it even being there. These "candidates" are listed as being real planets by the EPE, and many other sources. It should be merged with the above table called "Planet data Table". The EPE is the only source I know that classifies "unconfirmed and candidate extrasolar planets", that is what the List of unconfirmed extrasolar planets article is for. Synthetical connections  ( talk )(my contribs) 17:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The split of the "candidates" from the "planets" is really a question of how we want to handle the mass/inclination degeneracy in this article. From what I can tell, the exoplanets community seems to operate on a policy of assuming that sin(i) is close to 1 (i.e. that the true mass is not substantially larger than the minimum mass), until proven otherwise. This has in the past led to some objects being unceremoniously booted from the planets list (the best example of which is the companion of HD 33636, which turned out to be a red dwarf star in a nearly face-on orbit). Even if we do have the separated lists, we should have the same quantities displayed in both to facilitate moving objects between one and the other. Definitely the list of parameters we are listing seems to have grown over the years, it may well be time for some pruning.

Planet links in star table
In the star table, there are links to the planets. Some of these go to the planet table, most directly to the article on the planet. Which should we use? CS Miller (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia style Exoplanet Catalogue
There are quite a few exoplanet catalogues out there on the internet. But I am quite frustrated by the inconsistency, the number of typos and the slow response time after new discoveries.

An 'open source', wikipedia style exoplanet catalogue could circumvent most of these problems. So, I've started a project over at GitHub that does exactly that. It's a database that can be forked by anyone. I'd be also happy to give some people direct write access if they want to. Alternatively, if they spot small errors or typos, they can contribute a patch. In the long term, it would be great to have the raw observational data in the catalogue. Similar to what NstED does, but again, crowd sourced. At the moment, I run a couple of script every hour/day to update the catalogue automatically based on other databases (exoplanet.eu, NASA ADS).

The project is still in it's infancy, but you can already get a flavor of what it might look like. Please let me know if you want to contribute to it in any way. At the moment the most important thing is to get the framework right and not so much the data. It might also be interesting to think about how wikipedia can be incorporated in such a database. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannorein (talk • contribs) 16:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That looks great already! A suggestion: add a search field :) --Waldir talk 21:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I can ask?
I often supplement and translate your list into Russian (Thanks) In your list of 458 planets and candidates - whereas on The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia 493. 19 candidates are not included In the list with weights of 13-25 weights of Jupiter. It is clear. But where 16 more planets?188.114.205.50 (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The 16 most recent planets are not listed yet. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 23:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Reason? I don't understand 188.114.205.50 (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Splitting this long listing article that is getting longer
I would suggest to split this article into list of extrasolar planet candidates and list of exoplanetary host stars since this already long listing article is getting even longer as more exoplanet discoveries are made. Any thoughts? BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 03:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I knew that there are over 500 known planets and over 100 planets were discovered in 2010. There's no doubt that exoplanet discovery pace will continue to be rapid, perhaps even more rapid. That means if we want to add new planets to the list every time when new planets were discovered, we gotta do it lot more often! But right now, the list is way outdated even though it had all the planets in the list up till July 2010 as well as few later exoplanet discoveries such as the HD 10180 system. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 22:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need a list of host stars on this article at all. I don't see why it's there, or what it's used for. atomic  77  32  22:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We are splitting this into list of exoplanetary host stars. The reason why we need this list of host stars article is to show not just the coordinates, distance, and spectral class, but also physical properties as well, such as mass, radius, temperature, metallicity, and age. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 22:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't all this information already be on the star's articles? atomic  77  32  22:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeap if articles exist for exoplanetary host stars while only some list physical properties. Stellar physical properties are important for exoplanetary host stars because it can tell you how the star and the Sun relate to each other. Metallicity determines how likely the star to contain planets while mass determines how likely the star to contain giant planets. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 23:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

In addition to list of exoplanetary host stars and list of extrasolar planet candidates, I would now suggest to split it into list of transiting extrasolar planets, list of extrasolar planets detected by microlensing, list of extrasolar planets that were direct imaged, and list of extrasolar planets detected by timing. Any thought about that? BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 21:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion is now closed!! BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 23:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Flamsteed Number
Gliese/GJ numbers aren't flamsteed, to my knowledge, or am I incorrect? atomic 77  32  22:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Generally Gliese numbers aren't flamsteed but just a specific type of star catalogue. Some Gliese numbers can also be catalogued with flamsteed numbers, such as Gliese 882 = 51 Pegasi. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 23:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

"Canditate" planets
Possibly may have posted this before, but the "candidate" planets here are published planets. They aren't like unconfirmed planets, so why isn't it just one list? atomic 77  32  23:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Candidate planets means the planets have only their minimum masses known, and some of those candidates may in fact be brown dwarfs or even dim red dwarfs. That’s why this list will be split into its component article partly because there are so many planets that the current listing article takes longer for browser to load this page. Another thing that we don’t need inclination column in this component article. Candidate planets and true planets are two distinct statuses of exoplanets. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 23:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

List of terrestrial planets
On Requested articles/Natural sciences/Astronomy and cosmology we have a request for an article called "List of terrestrial planets". Is there a need for such a list? If so, would any of the people who maintain this page like to set up that article? Otherwise, I'm not clear about the need. Thank you.&mdash;RJH (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Recreate/Move
This page should be moved to extrasolar planetary systems, which would include only the systems with at least two planets. That list would be manageable since there are only about 50 systems known. Nergaal (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps automating this from UNESCO would be best (aside from the prose).Julzes (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Gliese 370
Why is Gliese 370 on this list if it has just 1 confirmed planet (Gliese 370 b)? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Because an anonymous user added this star as that user didn't know that this list only contains stars with at least two planets. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 22:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

redundancy/simplification
Seems to me that this page is redundant with List of exoplanetary host stars. I understand that a system could contain multiple stars, but a list of systems would also be a list of stars by default. The lists seem to contain pretty much the same information anyways. Is this a topic which has been discussed? If not, what do people think about merging that page into this one? plcoffey (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The point of this page is to have the stars with at least two planets. Nergaal (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the reason not to include stars with only one known planet. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't, either. My definition of "planetary system" is "star with planet(s)".  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  09:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've put the question to User:Aaron Rotenberg who added the phrase "(i.e. stars with at least two confirmed planets)" in the opening sentence on 28 April 2011; hopefully he can clarify. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The answer is quite simple, but probably not what you're looking for: I have no idea. When I made that edit, I was blindly changing the page's introduction to match what was in the table. I'm definitely not the right person to ask what the list should contain. Oh, the plight of the poor WikiGnome! « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 03:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Serves you right. You know WP's not a reliable source. ;p  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  06:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should merge list of exoplanetary host stars to list of planetary systems by transferring one-planet systems since planetary systems mean that the star contains at least one planet, not two. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 22:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * support merge to List of planetary systems. Better list name, and list should include stars w/single planets, which are definitely "systems".(mercurywoodrose)76.232.8.123 (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I've clarified the topic of the article by moving it. Nergaal (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Colour coding
The tabulated data is great, but could somebody please explain/improve the colour coding of the different rows? It says, Coloured rows indicate stars with at least three planets. Assuming then that the colour represents the number in the Confirmed Planets column, the first section uses Yellow=3, Green=4, Blue/Cyan=5. That's fine. However, further down KOI-961 is Blue/Grey=3, then at the bottom Kepler-11 is Blue/Grey=6. So perhaps I have misunderstood. Either way it's confusing. A legend/scale at the top would be handy. Also, please avoid using similar colours! Blue/Cyan and Blue/Grey are both blue. And in the bar graph at the top Purple=Pulsar timing and (Slightly different) Purple=Timing (whatever that means). Other than that there's some fine work gone into this page. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Beta Pictoris
Someone please add Beta Pictoris' and update its 2 planets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.159.234.239 (talk) 09:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

KOI-961
Hi! Is KOI-961 a star located in the constellation Cygnus or in Lyra? On main article location is Lyra, but on star page location is Cygnus. --MaxDel (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

HD 10180
This is listed as having 9 confirmed planets which is incorrect. Two have just been announced as candidates but only 7 are confirmed. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 04:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
I think more structured representation would be more helpful. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The current table is not ideal, but I don't think that listing every single planet is useful. Nergaal (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry that's not the proposal. I have updated. If you check the code you can see now everything is labeled so it is less confusing. Also the color coding is automatically handled now. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 21:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate the effort, but the table already contains 100 items. By having such a detailed table the size of the page would more than double. Nergaal (talk) 02:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see the value of the size & metallicity & the rest; that's for the linked page. This page should mention the systems, the star, the number of planets, & not much (anything?) else.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  06:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The "size" of the page will not increase with this. I do not understand. It is the precise same data. MediaWiki ignores white spaces so the reader will not be impacted. Once Templated information can be hidden with few edits. It is best to keep the info in as it can be used for different purposes such as sorting. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 01:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with removing size and metallicity from the table. By size I meant that instead of "|| 3" it will appear as "|Confirmed planets = 3" . Nergaal (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't change anything as far as the reader is concerned though as the templates are pre-rendered (upon you click the save button). I do not quite understand the concern behind "size". It is very difficult to read the table when there are so many ||'s and the labeling will help improve anyone to update the page.
 * I think "size" is a more useful info since comparing star sizes (and the number of planets around them) is worthwhile. I can remove metallicity though.
 * -- A Certain White Cat chi? 03:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support After thinking for a while it makes sense to convert the table to a structured representation as suggested above. Go ahead and change the entries. Nergaal (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and applied the change. :) I have also included a "Notes" field to the template to cover the recent additional column. I have not however added the "Total suggested planets" column since it is empty. How do we want this column handled? I have also restored the "Metallicity" and "Radius" information but have hidden it at the template end so that it is not visible. I think the information should be kept in code in case we change our minds or if these fields are useful somehow. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 04:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Mis(re)direction
Why do List of extrasolar planets, List of exoplanets, List of stars with planets, and god knows how many other redirects end up here where single-planet systems are not included? I would think they should point to something like List of exoplanetary host stars. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Because the hosts list was originally hosted on this article before it got moved and this article was recreated as a trimmed down version of that. Nergaal (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are too many single-planet systems and multi-planet systems are a subset of "List of planetary systems". -- A Certain White Cat chi? 04:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Lists should not redirect to a subset of what they (the redirects) advertise they are. Anybody object to changing the redirects to List of exoplanetary host stars, or is there a better candidate? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Color codes
Current defined colors are:
 * 3 = #ffffb0
 * 4 = #c0ffc0
 * 5 = #c0f0ff
 * 7 = #d0d0ff
 * 8 = silver

We might want to define all of them perhaps with a color pattern that isn't random such as something like red to blue (ugly color choice but an example never the less). Template handles the color pattern so applying a change is trivial now. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 04:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have marked "6" with red (tho show entries with 6 planets). I think it is ugly. If we can come up with a pattern I would be happy to apply it to the template. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Middle mark
Not opposing the inclusion but since the table is a sortable list, why are we segregating by distance? I am rather confused by the "middle" markings since they do not work well with sorting. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Terrible lists
Regarding Talk:List of extrasolar planets which redirects here: this list doesn't list the planets, just other lists. And unless you are an expert, you don't even know which list will list the planets. Somebody messed this page really bad... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 23:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

New planets
Since a few hundred planet hosting multiplanetary systems validated, it is going to be too much of a chore to add those planets in manually. What should we do? --Artman40 (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * One suggestion - cut all 2-planet-only systems from the list-table. A 'total number' of these systems could be included in the article's write-up. But 2-planet systems could be cut from the table itself... --IJBall (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Still there will be a lot of planetary systems. Also, 2-planet systems are still multiplanetary systems. In addition, Kepler team said that this method will help to discover at least a few hundred more planets. In another addition, even more Kepler planets will be confirmed in reality as validation process helps to determine the planets which need further follow-up observations to confirm. --Artman40 (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Split the current article into "List of ternary panetary systems" and "List of planetary systems with at least 3 planets". Nergaal (talk) 09:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi I'm a new user (but been reading wikipedia for a couple of years) - I agree with having the ~280 systems with 2 planets become a separate list & change the main list here to "Multiplanetary systems with at least 3 planets" 202.185.32.3 (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, remove some of the star characteristics, such as constellation and apparent magnitude. Nergaal (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Would a bot be necessary? --Artman40 (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia should not attempt to maintain a complete list. At some point in the not too distant future there could be tens of thousands. Better instead to make the list into a representative sample of known systems. Astredita (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There is a list "Meanings of minor planet names" where there are a lot of asteroids. --Artman40 (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just use the Dynamic list template. 117daveawesome (talk) 09:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Missing non-Kepler planets
Tau Ceti

Nergaal (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Planets around Tau Ceti are not confirmed. --Artman40 (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Current total?
How many entries have been added? Is anybody still updating the table? I am tempted to trim out the 2-planet entries (or move them into a separate table) so perhaps there is more interest in keeping this updated. Nergaal (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

New planet
How about the new planet discover this 2015????? Breeddragon (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , you'll have to be a bit more specific, there have been nearly 100 extrasolar planets discovered this year. Rwessel (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yup i watch in news Breeddragon (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to chip in. There have been so many news that regular editors have found it difficult to keep up. Nergaal (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on List of multiplanetary systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140303235308/http://www.openexoplanetcatalogue.com/system.html?id=Kepler-65 to http://www.openexoplanetcatalogue.com/system.html?id=Kepler-65

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 :Online 21:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Dropping 2-planet systems?
The list stopped being maintainable for a while now. Even though it is not ideal, I think for practical purposes only >=3 planets should be kept. Nergaal (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I would support this. If somebody wants to try to manage a 2-planet systems list separately, that'd be their call. But cutting this list back to >=3 makes sense. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Trimming will allow better maintenance quality, and trimming is already partially implemented - the summary list for 2-planets systems is omitted.Trurle (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Planet Nine
I may as well create this as it seems to be a recurring issue. Should Planet Nine be listed as an unconfirmed planet or not? It seems as if this hypothetical planet has a lot of evidence to back it up; and in my view hypothetical and unconfirmed are synonymous, or, at least they can be. X2A3Q (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Synonymous? Not even close. It's not been imaged in any fashion, nor (AFAIK) has the math proposing it even been verified. It's a far cry still from "unconfirmed".  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  11:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ↑ This. Until the Planet Nine article advances beyond describing it as simply "hypothetical", it should not be listed as "unconfirmed" at any article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright. X2A3Q (talk) 05:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Next stop, the Twilight Zone?
I'm not sure why anybody wants to include Sol in a discussion about exoplanets. Is it really in dispute our system is multiplanetary? As it's now written, the text seems a little overwrought. So, I'd suggest unpiping the link to exoplanet, del mention of Sol, & list the systems with most planets as "Kepler-90, with eight, & [the others], with seven each". TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  20:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Workaround for script errors
This article has shown "Lua error: too many expensive function calls" for a couple of weeks. I edited Template:Multiplanetary systems list to avoid the problem which was that  was being used multiple times on each row. A bad side effect is that the article now has a lot of red links in the first column (Star). If the table stays this large and is kept in one article, tolerating the red links might be better than mucking around with the template to see if some  tests could be restored. Johnuniq (talk) 04:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * @Niceguyedc: Thanks for devising a very nice workaround in your recent edits. My edit to the template means that if a star begins with  the star is used as given, otherwise the star is linked. However, a link is always added around a constellation. I did that because I wanted to keep my change simple and there were no cases where a linked constellation was needed. The template could be tweaked if needed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Single planetary system
Is there a list of Singleplanetary systems?--Wyn.junior (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

List of planetary systems
Is there a List of planetary systems for systems with any number of planets? Why is there only a list for systems with two or more planets?--Wyn.junior (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably because listing all of the 1-planet systems would be too long, would be very hard to maintain and keep up-to-date, and would effectively be an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. It's been argued that this list is getting too long to maintain as well, and that the 2-planet systems should maybe be cut from here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Then this should be noted in the first paragraph of the article so anyone wondering why only multiplanetary systems would know.--Wyn.junior (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The list is far to be updated. There are at least 146 exoplanetary systems with 3 confirmed exoplanets, and 450 exoplanetary systems with 2 confirmed exoplanets.-- Luxorion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7e8:c4c6:ac01:8062:280a:ee25:36b (talk) 12:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Trimming the list
I am in the camp of saying that there should only be planetary systems with 3 or more planets listed. This would lead to a far tidier graph. We could go further still and make it only 4 or more, since those would make an even more concise list, but that may be too far. TheWhistleGag (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As I stated in the thread before this one, I fully support removing the 2-planet systems from the list. To me "Multi" means >2 anyway (and it might even mean >3, but I'm not in favor of removing the 3-planet systems from the list at this point...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. There's a definite distinction between 1, 2, and many of something, and I feel planetary systems should be no different. Though perhaps we could add duoplanetary systems with at least one unconfirmed planet as well. TheWhistleGag (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support trimming. Trimming will allow better maintenance quality, and trimming to 3+ planets is already partially implemented - the summary list for 2-planets systems is omitted.Trurle (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Trimming now as consensus has been reachedTrurle (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Are we also including systems with 0-1 confirmations which have at least three potential planets in total? To avoid having to add new colors to the main table, perhaps all of these "maybe" systems should be moved to a new section below it. Ionmars10 (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, i am keeping in list for now systems with confirmed+unconfirmed planets >2. Large part of them will be confirmed in future, and non-deleting these border cases allows to reduce a page maintenance workload.Trurle (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Should we include the the colouration of a nine-planet system?
It seems that there was a small edit over over whether the nine-planet system colouration should be included at the start of the table. Although no systems have nine confirmed planets and therefore use this colour, the Sun and HD 10180 have unconfirmed ninth planets. Should we include the colouration already, or only use it when a ninth planet has been confirmed? InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 08:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Adding color for 9-planet systems in advance os ok. For this type of format change WP:TOOSOON is not applicable.Trurle (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Kepler-2213
Does Kepler-2213 even exist? No article or list mentions it. I even went the extra mile and searched about it, but I found nothing. 117daveawesome (talk) 09:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It does not exist. Currently, Kepler numbers only go up to 2001. There's a KOI-2213, also known as Kepler-1145, but it has only one known planet. SevenSpheres (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! (Whoever typed that thing probably didn't do his research.) 117daveawesome (talk) 10:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)