This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of potentially habitable exoplanets 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 was nominated for deletion on 1 April 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Archive 1 |
Consider this sentence:
HD 85512 b was initially estimated to be potentially habitable, but updated models for the boundaries of the habitable zone placed the planet interior to the HZ, and it is now considered non-habitable.
The word "interior" seems to mean inside the zone, instead of closer to the star than the zone, but I cannot think of a better way to say it.
Gil ( talk) 09:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
A new potentially habitable exoplanet car TOI 700 d has been recently discovered by Tess and so the list of planets inside the habitable zone needs to be updated Omnipotentunknown00 ( talk) 20:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add this exoplanet to the list.
2020 in science has this:
- NASA reports the discovery of Kepler-1649c, an exoplanet that, according to Jeff Coughlin, the director of SETI's K2 Science Office, is closer to Earth in size and likely temperature than any other world yet found in data from the Kepler Space Telescope. The planet was originally deemed a false positive by Kepler's robovetter algorithm, highlighting the value of human inspection of planet candidates even as automated techniques improve. [1] [2] [3]
-- Prototyperspective ( talk) 15:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
There are still some Kepler planets not shown in the list, like Kepler-155c, Kepler-235e and Kepler-1649c but I am unsure where to put 155c and 235e. Could one of you classify them? Kepler-1229b talk — Preceding undated comment added 18:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of potentially habitable exoplanets's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "exoplanet.eu":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Responding to @ Kepler-1229b:'s recent edit: If this list is supposed to be exactly the same as the HEC list, then all the planets not listed by HEC should be removed (which I would probably be fine with TBH). The division into conservative/optimistic samples is based on the likelihood of being rocky, which HEC determines based solely on the radius and mass (which is often a minimum mass). If there is additional information on a planet's composition or true mass that should be taken into account here; at the very least LHS 1140 b, which is confirmed to be rocky, shouldn't be listed in the optimistic sample of probably-mini-Neptunes. However, I'd be fine with removing the conservative/optimistic distinction for Wikipedia's list, which would simplify things. SevenSpheresCelestia ( talk) 22:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Kepler-737b may be potentially habitable, but I do not know yet. I need a reliable source as well. When the planet was a candidate it was potentially habitable. Could you tell me if this planet should be in this list? 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
File:PIA19827-Kepler-SmallPlanets-HabitableZone-20150723.jpg
[3] places the planet as being within the habitable zone. The planet has a radius of 0.227 Jupiter radii. Why is it not in the list? 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Terchaye: If you look at the talk page history, there seems to have been a consensus to not include ESI on this list (e.g. here). SevenSpheresCelestia ( talk) 18:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Given the recent IPCC report, should Earth be removed from the list now or should we wait until 2028 or so? 68.107.189.97 ( talk) 22:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
FYI, Template:HabPlanetScore ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Template:ESIScore ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) have been nominated for deletion. Per the template documentation, these are related to this list? -- 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 21:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
In the table the star type column is coloured with (at least) 3 different shades but there is no explanation of the meaning of these shades. Could one please be added? treesmill ( talk) 09:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Standard Primary Habitability and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 1#Standard Primary Habitability until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Beland (
talk)
10:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Standard primary habitability and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 1#Standard primary habitability until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Beland (
talk)
10:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Add this planet to the list, it was discovered in 2023 and has characteristics of a potentially habitable planet InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 17:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Can someone calculate Earth similarity index for these planets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BA:9F01:1FC7:0:0:0:1 ( talk) 17:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
This planet is missing. It is a potentially habitable planet located just 22.4 light-years away. See LTT 1445#LTT 1445 Ad for more information InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 17:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Tau Ceti e and f sit within or within a few percent of the habitable zone under optimistic scenarios and meet the requirements in terms of approximate mass. It is my view that they should be included. If they are not included, then I think the list definition should be made clearer as to what 'in the habitable zone' means.
Best wishes, ~ El D. ( talk to me) 18:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Please add this planet to the list. It is a super-Earth orbiting within the conservative habitable zone of its star. [1] Currently, there are draft articles about this planet and its host star still under construction. InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 12:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
References
Venus has been added and removed at least twice. Everybody knows that Venus isn't basically considered habitable. However, there are some good reasons to include it as a reference. Consider Teq, for instance: By comparing Venus's value to Earth's value, one might think that Venus is cooler than Earth. We all know that's the other way around. So including Venus in the list shows that there are a wide range of parameters that might make a planet "potentially" habitable, or not. So having Venus in the list might be useful to a reader. Dhrm77 ( talk) 21:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of potentially habitable exoplanets 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 was nominated for deletion on 1 April 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Archive 1 |
Consider this sentence:
HD 85512 b was initially estimated to be potentially habitable, but updated models for the boundaries of the habitable zone placed the planet interior to the HZ, and it is now considered non-habitable.
The word "interior" seems to mean inside the zone, instead of closer to the star than the zone, but I cannot think of a better way to say it.
Gil ( talk) 09:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
A new potentially habitable exoplanet car TOI 700 d has been recently discovered by Tess and so the list of planets inside the habitable zone needs to be updated Omnipotentunknown00 ( talk) 20:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add this exoplanet to the list.
2020 in science has this:
- NASA reports the discovery of Kepler-1649c, an exoplanet that, according to Jeff Coughlin, the director of SETI's K2 Science Office, is closer to Earth in size and likely temperature than any other world yet found in data from the Kepler Space Telescope. The planet was originally deemed a false positive by Kepler's robovetter algorithm, highlighting the value of human inspection of planet candidates even as automated techniques improve. [1] [2] [3]
-- Prototyperspective ( talk) 15:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
There are still some Kepler planets not shown in the list, like Kepler-155c, Kepler-235e and Kepler-1649c but I am unsure where to put 155c and 235e. Could one of you classify them? Kepler-1229b talk — Preceding undated comment added 18:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of potentially habitable exoplanets's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "exoplanet.eu":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Responding to @ Kepler-1229b:'s recent edit: If this list is supposed to be exactly the same as the HEC list, then all the planets not listed by HEC should be removed (which I would probably be fine with TBH). The division into conservative/optimistic samples is based on the likelihood of being rocky, which HEC determines based solely on the radius and mass (which is often a minimum mass). If there is additional information on a planet's composition or true mass that should be taken into account here; at the very least LHS 1140 b, which is confirmed to be rocky, shouldn't be listed in the optimistic sample of probably-mini-Neptunes. However, I'd be fine with removing the conservative/optimistic distinction for Wikipedia's list, which would simplify things. SevenSpheresCelestia ( talk) 22:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Kepler-737b may be potentially habitable, but I do not know yet. I need a reliable source as well. When the planet was a candidate it was potentially habitable. Could you tell me if this planet should be in this list? 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
File:PIA19827-Kepler-SmallPlanets-HabitableZone-20150723.jpg
[3] places the planet as being within the habitable zone. The planet has a radius of 0.227 Jupiter radii. Why is it not in the list? 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Terchaye: If you look at the talk page history, there seems to have been a consensus to not include ESI on this list (e.g. here). SevenSpheresCelestia ( talk) 18:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Given the recent IPCC report, should Earth be removed from the list now or should we wait until 2028 or so? 68.107.189.97 ( talk) 22:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
FYI, Template:HabPlanetScore ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Template:ESIScore ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) have been nominated for deletion. Per the template documentation, these are related to this list? -- 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 21:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
In the table the star type column is coloured with (at least) 3 different shades but there is no explanation of the meaning of these shades. Could one please be added? treesmill ( talk) 09:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Standard Primary Habitability and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 1#Standard Primary Habitability until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Beland (
talk)
10:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Standard primary habitability and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 1#Standard primary habitability until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Beland (
talk)
10:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Add this planet to the list, it was discovered in 2023 and has characteristics of a potentially habitable planet InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 17:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Can someone calculate Earth similarity index for these planets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BA:9F01:1FC7:0:0:0:1 ( talk) 17:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
This planet is missing. It is a potentially habitable planet located just 22.4 light-years away. See LTT 1445#LTT 1445 Ad for more information InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 17:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Tau Ceti e and f sit within or within a few percent of the habitable zone under optimistic scenarios and meet the requirements in terms of approximate mass. It is my view that they should be included. If they are not included, then I think the list definition should be made clearer as to what 'in the habitable zone' means.
Best wishes, ~ El D. ( talk to me) 18:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Please add this planet to the list. It is a super-Earth orbiting within the conservative habitable zone of its star. [1] Currently, there are draft articles about this planet and its host star still under construction. InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 12:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
References
Venus has been added and removed at least twice. Everybody knows that Venus isn't basically considered habitable. However, there are some good reasons to include it as a reference. Consider Teq, for instance: By comparing Venus's value to Earth's value, one might think that Venus is cooler than Earth. We all know that's the other way around. So including Venus in the list shows that there are a wide range of parameters that might make a planet "potentially" habitable, or not. So having Venus in the list might be useful to a reader. Dhrm77 ( talk) 21:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)