This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gliese 581g article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Gliese 581g was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " In the news" column on October 1, 2010. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
I think this is clearly unencyclopaedic speculation and should have no place in the article. The source is not even scientific, it's simply a statement by the managing director of a jewelry company. [1] Why is his speculation credible and notable? Offliner ( talk) 23:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't mean to throw a damper on this awesome article (I think that the subject is really interesting), but I found the wording in some of the sections presupposed things that weren't even referenced. In the atmospheric section there was a whole bit about how the atmosphere behaves even though in the last section it clearly said that we cannot detect the atmosphere of a planet with current methods. I neutralized the context, and I hope that we do eventually get a way to find out if there is an atmosphere, but until we do, anything more is speculation, and that does not belong in Wikipedia, even from scientists. I suggest that the editors of this article don't let their hopes mess with their objectivity and critical perspective (See WP:BIAS and WP:CRYSTAL)...-- Novus Orator 06:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I made a few updates to the section on atmospheric effects and on temperature, mainly to reflect my modelling results which were just published in ApJL. These results better define the conditions under which a planet having the orbit of 581g would actually be habitable. Since they are peer-reviewed results, and I stuck to what was actually in the paper, I figure these updates should be fairly uncontroversial. I also changed the vague discussion in the Temperature section suggesting a massive planet might have a more massive atmosphere, which misses the main point of the way silicate weathering and outgassing determine the CO2 content of a planet in this orbit.
The table of temperature, and the general discussion of temperature, need big improvements. My paper fills in the "Venus Greenhouse Effect" box, but I didn't want to just stick in that number since the temperature you get depends a lot on whether you assume the planet as Venus-like clouds. Further, in the thin-atmosphere case, representing the planet by a single mean temperature is misleading, as the substellar point actually gets hot enough to support liquid water even if the atmosphere is thin. Perhaps we should discuss what to do about the temperature section before proceeding. It requires too many structural changes for me to just go in and make a few minor tweaks.
Lorax2000 ( talk) 18:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
The way this article presents the subsequent analysis of the data (the Andrae et al., Gregory and Anglada-Escudé papers) makes it seem that this is a sequence of events which ends with the current situation being that the planet is thought to exist. This is not the case. Icalanise ( talk) 23:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused when i'm reading this article. I still don't know whether or not we have found this planet. Do we know for sure this planet exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trongphu ( talk • contribs) 04:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
HuffPo ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/17/first-habitable-planet-2030_n_862785.html) says 581g was found not to actually exist, and describes 581d using similar terms... What gives? Alphachimera ( talk) 14:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Guess this is the final nail in the coffin: Extended HARPS data set does not find any signs of the planets f or g [3]. — JyriL talk 08:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
That's right, this planet is imaginary and proven to be false by Jyril's link above. The extended HARPS radial velocities are much more sensitive than the combined Harps / Hires set. Plus there was an error in the original analysis.
Having this article on Wikipedia in its current condition is misleading since it contains a large amount of information that has been proven to be false.
However, as soon as I started to make corrections indicating this, someone undid the changes.
This entire article needs to be rewritten. Martin Cash ( talk) 17:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Brief followup - and if interested - updated the lede sentence (and related "discovery status" in the "Planetbox") w/ the following:
Gliese 581 g ... is an extrasolar planet (which may be "unlikely" to exist according to one recent study)< ref name="Forveille">Forveille, T. (2011-09-12). "The HARPS search for southern extra-solar planets XXXII. Only 4 planets in the Gl~581 system". arXiv: 1109.2505v1 [ astro-ph.EP].
{{ cite arXiv}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) ( help) "...Our dataset therefore has strong diagnostic power for planets with the parameters of Gl 581f and Gl 581g, and we conclude that the Gl 581 system is unlikely to contain planets with those characteristics..."</ref>...
in any case - enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 03:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Is the planet confirmed or not? Reading the literature is not, but appears as confirm on the article Quantanew ( talk) 07:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I changed the planet status to "Unconfirmed". In agreement with your assessment. Quantanew ( talk) 23:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The biggest issue with the artists impression is that it depicts seas and areas of land as being green. This makes the assumption not only that oceans must exits (this certainly cannot be assumed just by being in the habitable zone), but also of Earth based life as the only reason that the Earth appears partly green is due to the abundance of photosynthetic organisms with chlorophyll. Not only might it be less likely for such organisms to evolve around a red dwarf where the terminator gets much less direct and intense light, but it may not even have a green pigment. The infobox should not contain an artists impression as it is thoroughly misleading and really presents a strong POV of the habitability of this planet. -- EvenGreenerFish ( talk) 02:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
In a new paper, Vogt has revised g's minimum mass downward to 2.2 M_E. I think the article should be updated to reflect this. -- Roentgenium111 ( talk) 16:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
glise 581g is also called Zarmina [4] [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrykjancesarz ( talk • contribs) 19:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
This article mentions the planet is tidal locked and one side is forever day the other night, it later says the day side would be a scorching desert and the other icy cold, this is very similar to Bryyo from Metroid!-- Lerdthenerd wiki defender 13:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Another nail in the Gliese 581 g coffin... [6] 46.126.77.137 ( talk) 14:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The planet's radius is listed in the infobox as 0.29 R☉, with R☉ linking the to the page Solar radius. This defines a solar radius to be 695,500 kilometres! How does this reconcile with the text which states that the planet is not much bigger then Earth? I assume I'm missing something. 212.9.31.12 ( talk) 11:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed that this article keeps contradicting itself. Says one thing, than says the opposite about something.
Example: First it says it's -37 C, then later on in the article it says Gliese 581g has an average of -64 C !
Can someone help me out here? -Zoower
They could be all just a "cosmic masquerade" - a magnetic outbursts from the local star. Our Solar system could be alone in the whole universe with planets.
On/in the last paragraphs of this page the last sentence is incomplete. How can we change this or rectify the meaning of said sentence? Thanks Labtek00 ( talk) 08:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC) Labtek00 ( talk) 08:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Gliese 581 g. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Gliese 581 g. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Gliese 581g. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gliese 581g article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Gliese 581g was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " In the news" column on October 1, 2010. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
I think this is clearly unencyclopaedic speculation and should have no place in the article. The source is not even scientific, it's simply a statement by the managing director of a jewelry company. [1] Why is his speculation credible and notable? Offliner ( talk) 23:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't mean to throw a damper on this awesome article (I think that the subject is really interesting), but I found the wording in some of the sections presupposed things that weren't even referenced. In the atmospheric section there was a whole bit about how the atmosphere behaves even though in the last section it clearly said that we cannot detect the atmosphere of a planet with current methods. I neutralized the context, and I hope that we do eventually get a way to find out if there is an atmosphere, but until we do, anything more is speculation, and that does not belong in Wikipedia, even from scientists. I suggest that the editors of this article don't let their hopes mess with their objectivity and critical perspective (See WP:BIAS and WP:CRYSTAL)...-- Novus Orator 06:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I made a few updates to the section on atmospheric effects and on temperature, mainly to reflect my modelling results which were just published in ApJL. These results better define the conditions under which a planet having the orbit of 581g would actually be habitable. Since they are peer-reviewed results, and I stuck to what was actually in the paper, I figure these updates should be fairly uncontroversial. I also changed the vague discussion in the Temperature section suggesting a massive planet might have a more massive atmosphere, which misses the main point of the way silicate weathering and outgassing determine the CO2 content of a planet in this orbit.
The table of temperature, and the general discussion of temperature, need big improvements. My paper fills in the "Venus Greenhouse Effect" box, but I didn't want to just stick in that number since the temperature you get depends a lot on whether you assume the planet as Venus-like clouds. Further, in the thin-atmosphere case, representing the planet by a single mean temperature is misleading, as the substellar point actually gets hot enough to support liquid water even if the atmosphere is thin. Perhaps we should discuss what to do about the temperature section before proceeding. It requires too many structural changes for me to just go in and make a few minor tweaks.
Lorax2000 ( talk) 18:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
The way this article presents the subsequent analysis of the data (the Andrae et al., Gregory and Anglada-Escudé papers) makes it seem that this is a sequence of events which ends with the current situation being that the planet is thought to exist. This is not the case. Icalanise ( talk) 23:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused when i'm reading this article. I still don't know whether or not we have found this planet. Do we know for sure this planet exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trongphu ( talk • contribs) 04:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
HuffPo ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/17/first-habitable-planet-2030_n_862785.html) says 581g was found not to actually exist, and describes 581d using similar terms... What gives? Alphachimera ( talk) 14:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Guess this is the final nail in the coffin: Extended HARPS data set does not find any signs of the planets f or g [3]. — JyriL talk 08:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
That's right, this planet is imaginary and proven to be false by Jyril's link above. The extended HARPS radial velocities are much more sensitive than the combined Harps / Hires set. Plus there was an error in the original analysis.
Having this article on Wikipedia in its current condition is misleading since it contains a large amount of information that has been proven to be false.
However, as soon as I started to make corrections indicating this, someone undid the changes.
This entire article needs to be rewritten. Martin Cash ( talk) 17:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Brief followup - and if interested - updated the lede sentence (and related "discovery status" in the "Planetbox") w/ the following:
Gliese 581 g ... is an extrasolar planet (which may be "unlikely" to exist according to one recent study)< ref name="Forveille">Forveille, T. (2011-09-12). "The HARPS search for southern extra-solar planets XXXII. Only 4 planets in the Gl~581 system". arXiv: 1109.2505v1 [ astro-ph.EP].
{{ cite arXiv}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) ( help) "...Our dataset therefore has strong diagnostic power for planets with the parameters of Gl 581f and Gl 581g, and we conclude that the Gl 581 system is unlikely to contain planets with those characteristics..."</ref>...
in any case - enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 03:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Is the planet confirmed or not? Reading the literature is not, but appears as confirm on the article Quantanew ( talk) 07:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I changed the planet status to "Unconfirmed". In agreement with your assessment. Quantanew ( talk) 23:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The biggest issue with the artists impression is that it depicts seas and areas of land as being green. This makes the assumption not only that oceans must exits (this certainly cannot be assumed just by being in the habitable zone), but also of Earth based life as the only reason that the Earth appears partly green is due to the abundance of photosynthetic organisms with chlorophyll. Not only might it be less likely for such organisms to evolve around a red dwarf where the terminator gets much less direct and intense light, but it may not even have a green pigment. The infobox should not contain an artists impression as it is thoroughly misleading and really presents a strong POV of the habitability of this planet. -- EvenGreenerFish ( talk) 02:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
In a new paper, Vogt has revised g's minimum mass downward to 2.2 M_E. I think the article should be updated to reflect this. -- Roentgenium111 ( talk) 16:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
glise 581g is also called Zarmina [4] [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrykjancesarz ( talk • contribs) 19:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
This article mentions the planet is tidal locked and one side is forever day the other night, it later says the day side would be a scorching desert and the other icy cold, this is very similar to Bryyo from Metroid!-- Lerdthenerd wiki defender 13:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Another nail in the Gliese 581 g coffin... [6] 46.126.77.137 ( talk) 14:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The planet's radius is listed in the infobox as 0.29 R☉, with R☉ linking the to the page Solar radius. This defines a solar radius to be 695,500 kilometres! How does this reconcile with the text which states that the planet is not much bigger then Earth? I assume I'm missing something. 212.9.31.12 ( talk) 11:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed that this article keeps contradicting itself. Says one thing, than says the opposite about something.
Example: First it says it's -37 C, then later on in the article it says Gliese 581g has an average of -64 C !
Can someone help me out here? -Zoower
They could be all just a "cosmic masquerade" - a magnetic outbursts from the local star. Our Solar system could be alone in the whole universe with planets.
On/in the last paragraphs of this page the last sentence is incomplete. How can we change this or rectify the meaning of said sentence? Thanks Labtek00 ( talk) 08:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC) Labtek00 ( talk) 08:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Gliese 581 g. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Gliese 581 g. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Gliese 581g. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)