Talk:Exoplanet

Doesn’t meet the definitions.

These bodies cannot be “planets outside the solar system”. We can call them exoplanets, but to refer to them as “planets outside the solar system” makes as much sense as referring to cats as “quadrupedal carnivorous humans that meow and purr”.

It’s just a lain fact that there are no planets outside of the solar system. There cannot be by definition.

Taking this in reverse order:

• We do not know if any of these bodies have “cleared their neighbourhoods”. We just don’t. We can’t even begin to see their neighbourhoods. In some cases, though, it’s actually unlikely. Regardless, if we can’t show they have, then they haven’t.

• We don’t actually know what shape they are. I mean sure, it’s very likely that they’re within the boundaries of the IAU’s oh so scientific definition of “pretty round, eh”. But we don’t KNOW. We cannot prove it. One of these exoplanets might be a big cube like Htrae, the Bizarro World. Is it likely? Certainly not. Is it physically possible? We don’t know. So yeah, they probably mostly fit this description, but we don’t know. But even guessing, some of them orbit so close to their stars that they’re probably more egg-shaped.

• Finally, the stopper that covers all other exceptions: Nothing outside the solar system orbits the sun. Else it would be IN the solar system.

Therefore not a one of these things is a planet. 71.236.206.225 (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The IAU itself defines exoplanets as planets beyond the solar system, see here. The definition you saw is only for objects within the solar system. It is meant to distinguish planets from smaller things, not things in and out the solar system. Cambalachero (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

External links

There are eleven entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.

• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• WP:ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. Trim per above. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Life prefers CHZ exoplanets around low metallicity stars?

Life prefers CHZ exoplanets around low metallicity stars?

Added cited Text - Reverted by ip.

QUESTION: - Is the following cited Text a worthy addition to the Exoplanet article - or Not? - Comments Welcome.

In April 2023, astronomers reported studies which concluded that, "... planets in the habitable zones of stars with low metallicity are the best targets to search for complex life on land."

References

in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I've readded it to the article but I've edited it, moved it to the HZ section and added an explanation about UV rays as to why low metallicity stars are better.Fdfexoex (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Templates lag far behind actual progress.

Now have a 7026 confirmed exoplanets in 4949 systems and 1007 of them is multiplanetary. Suggestind to remove template and manually set new numbers. Or set template for weekly renewing. The month cycle is too long. ГеоргиУики (talk) 05:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The editor who usually updates the template has been banned from wikipedia. I've updated it at Template:Extrasolar planet counts/numbers/EPE. As far as I know the template has to be updated manually every time. So feel free to do this if you wish to see it updated weekly. Fdfexoex (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, DrB only updated it monthly because the numbers don't change that much from month-to-month, and spamming the updates didn't make much sense. That being said, I dropped it off my watchlist a while ago so I'm not particularly fussed if someone wants to update more frequently. Primefac (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The template "Extrasolar planet counts" should be removed. Wikipedia is not a database and not a news service. This content is not encyclopedic exactly because it is data, not knowledge. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. We aren't putting a database worth of information on the site, we are providing (relatively) up-to-date information about the number of exoplanets that have been discovered. This information is useful in multiple articles across Wikipedia, which is why a template is a good idea for it; updating one template means the information is updated everywhere. Primefac (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

And not updating it means it's wrong everywhere. The very concept of "up to date" is the flaw. We should be focusing on the concepts of exoplanets and their discovery, not counting 4948, 4949, 4950, ... That's not what we are good at, as evidenced by this topic. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a date coded in to indicate how recent the data is. Again, this information is used in over 40 places on Wikipedia; updating once a month is not a burden, nor is it counting hyperbolically. Even if the information is a month or two out of date, that's better than having 20 places across the project with 20 different dates and values, half of which will likely be wrong because of vandalism anyway. Primefac (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_planets

Example that you is wrong. Here the date of changing is 15th of month and number of exoplanets is different than main article of exoplanets. ГеоргиУики (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

That page uses a different form of the template. It uses numbers from NASA exoplanet archive which are different. This makes me think the use of this template should be scrapped and replaced with simple text such as: "Several thousand exoplanets have been discovered" as the exact number is not important. Fdfexoex (talk) 06:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Then nominate it for deletion. Primefac (talk) 12:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

We now have the opposite problem to the one I mentioned before - instead of being too small, EPE's count is too large! This is due to EPE's much broader inclusion criteria that I mentioned; it includes basically every substellar object with a mass up to 60 Jupiter masses. The recent large increase in its planet count, passing 6,000 and then 7,000, is mainly due to the addition of large numbers of brown dwarfs, mostly discovered years ago. NEA still provides a more reasonable count of actual exoplanets. SevenSpheres (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why it's so difficult to improve an article

It seems that you need to reach a certain account age and edit count for experienced reverters to stop paying attention to you. It also appears that people primarily look at the edit summary and the byte count change before deciding to revert my edits. Compared to the old version, the new version is easier to read and avoids misinformation such as:

• About 1 in 5 Sun-like stars have an "Earth-sized" planet in the habitable zone (information from 2013, when less sensitive methods were available).
• 5,759 confirmed exoplanets (the NASA Exoplanet Archive is frequently criticized for also including sub-brown dwarf objects).
• There is special interest in planets that orbit in a star's habitable zone (sometimes called "goldilocks zone"), where it is possible for liquid water, a prerequisite for life as we know it, to exist on the surface. However, the study of planetary habitability also considers a wide range of other factors in determining the suitability of a planet for hosting life. (Planets in the habitable zone represent just one small factor in overall habitability, and much more clarification is needed regarding what "habitable" means. Currently, no exoplanets are close to being as habitable as Earth.)
• Rogue planets are those that do not orbit any star. Such objects are considered a separate category of planets, especially if they are gas giants, often counted as sub-brown dwarfs. (No, an object is counted as a sub-brown dwarf only if there is sufficient evidence, not the other way around.)
• It is hypothesized that there are 11 billion potentially habitable Earth-sized planets in the Milky Way, rising to 40 billion if planets orbiting the numerous red dwarfs are included. (This claim is cited to a news source that lacks authority in estimating exoplanets. Also, in the same paragraph, it is acknowledged that there is a "clear observational bias favoring the detection of planets near the star," so this estimate is skewed anyway.)

Monkelogus (talk) 04:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources to back-up any of your claims. Fdfexoex (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, you're cranky about old or mediocre sources, but not so keen about adding new ones - your rev. has 16 refs less, removing almost all of them from lead. Mithoron (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Monkelogus I had a similar experience when I started. As another editor explained to me, your edits in wikipedia have two audiences: readers and editors. To "improve the article" for other editors involves more than words. To us, you are just a random new user id and most random new users wreck havoc on articles with vandalism and stupidity. How can we judge your contributions? With many years of experience, editors have developed an approach that works once you get the hang of it.

Here are my suggestions

• Make much smaller changes, a paragraph at most. This is sometimes challenging but it allows editors to check each change without worrying that you are destroying the article.
• Change the body of the article first, the intro last. The intro should be a summary of the body. Nothing, zero, zippo, should be in the intro that is not in the body with supporting sources.
• Always add sources for changes. Always refer to sources in Talk pages. Nobody knows you so anything you claim is just hot air unless it is backed up by sources.
• Realize that sources may be challenged as too new or too niche or conflicting. It takes time to learn about reliable sources.
• Explain any edit that deletes a source. Unless you have a case that a source is not correct, editors will automatically revert such edits.
• Communicate. The text is read by readers, but editors read edit summaries and Talk pages. Before a major change, open a topic in the Talk page and explain your plan.
• Finally, please read WP:Bold, revert, discuss. When you are reverted, take a break and a deep breath. Don't edit war.

Johnjbarton (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and in general, any addition or deletion should be explained in an edit summary, even if it's obvious to you, because if may not be obvious to every editor. Without an explanation, anything that is non-obvious can be considered vandalism, and be reverted. Then you may have to put it back with an explanation, and that's double work. Dhrm77 (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)