Talk:List of Kepler exoplanet candidates in the habitable zone

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Kepler exoplanet candidates by ESI. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://phl.upr.edu/projects/habitable-exoplanets-catalog/data

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

KOI-456.04

Please include it in the list. [1]

From "Transit least-squares survey":

We also find the super-Earth-sized transiting planet candidate KOI-456.04 in the habitable zone of this system, which could be the fourth planet.

I thought about adding it to 2020 in science but did not. If you think it should be on there you could add it.

--Prototyperspective (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose merging KOI-2124.01, KOI-4878.01, KOI-7617.01, and KOI-7923.01 into this article. These are all unconfirmed planet candidates and aren't independently notable. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Reply: Hello. I agree with you that KOI-2124.01, KOI-7617.01 and KOI-7923.01 should be merged. However, I made the KOI-4878.01 article because it's already in most of the wikipedia languages: 日本語, polski, Português, Русский, Türkçe and 中文. Plus, I would say it stands out among the rest for being the one with the highest possible similarity with Earth. It's also considered a Extra-solar Planet Candidate by Simbad. This article: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.07286.pdf says An example is KOI-4878.01, a potentially exciting Earth-sized planet with a 450d period and a S/N of 8. It also appears as the one with the highest ESI here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Similarity_Index , and it also appears in a novel. For these reasons as well as the ones mentioned below, I suggest keeping the KOI-4878.01 article separately and not merging it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertheditor (talk • contribs) 23:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

"It's also considered a Extra-solar Planet Candidate by Simbad." Key word: candidate. It's not a confirmed planet. In fact an article on KOI-4878.01 was previously deleted on the English Wikipedia. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Since it's already in all the major wikipedia languages and it appears in scientific literature, I still think it's a good idea to keep it in a different page. As you might have noticed, there are other wiki articles about unconfirmed exoplanets with less relevance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CoRoT-7d, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_219134_g , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581g etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertheditor (talk • contribs) 23:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. To comment on those articles though: indeed CoRoT-7d should probably be merged into the article on its parent star.

HD 219134 g is considered a confirmed planet by the NASA Exoplanet Archive - the articles on that system are kind of a mess...

Gliese 581 g has had a good deal of media coverage, so even though it's unconfirmed, it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. This is not the case for KOI-4878.01. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. The Corot-7d seems to have been edited by many users. I think it's a good idea to keep the work they did.

Since KOI-4878.01 is already in most of the major Wiki languages, and there are already articles about unconfirmed exoplanets, my suggestion is to keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertheditor (talk • contribs) 00:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

A merge (rather than a deletion) does preserve edit history.

I don't think whether the article exists on other language Wikipedias is really relevant. As I mentioned, it's previously been deleted on enwiki. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Off-topic discussions and accusations hidden

I realized you made an article about Proxima c. As far as I'm concerned, this exoplanet hasn't been confirmed either: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2003.13106.pdf I didn't find it in the NASA exoplanet archive.

I think it's a great idea that you made the wiki page though.

From Proxima Centauri c: "In June 2020, the planet's existence was confirmed using Hubble astrometry data from c. 1995, allowing its inclination and true mass to be determined." I don't know why the Exoplanet Archive hasn't added it (this is the case for a few other planets as well), but the literature does support its status as a confirmed planet. However, Proxima d is a good example of an unconfirmed planet that shouldn't have its own article (unless it gets confirmed at some point).

Anyway, this is getting off topic; how about we wait for other people to comment? SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. Both seem to belong to G. Fritz Benedict. I haven't seen this claim supported in other papers. The article including allowing its inclination and true mass to be determined includes the word candidate in its title. The Gratton article also says we cannot confirm that our candidate is indeed Proxima c. Proxima c still seems to be unconfirmed. I'm in contact with people from the NASA archive; I can try to ask them about this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertheditor (talk • contribs) 00:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I assume you (SevenSpheresCelestia) and ConnallES are the same user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SevenSpheresCelestia (I read in your page that you created the Proxima c article) and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proxima_Centauri_c&action=history (page created by Conall) Not sure if Ardenau4 also belongs to the same person holding the ConnallES account. In any case, I suggest to wait until several old editors give their opinion about this issue.

I am not ConnallES or Ardenau4 (my user page says I created the Proxima c article because I created it as an article, not as a redirect). Please don't make baseless accusations about people being sockpuppets. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

"I suggest to wait until several old editors give their opinion about this issue." Yes of course, that's how a merge proposal works. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe you can have multiple accounts, yes. Anyone who uses multiple accounts in good faith is not violating any policies, shall face no action

I still don't have multiple accounts though SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 02:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

"Please don't make baseless accusations about people being sockpuppets" I can confirm I am not SevenSpheresCelestia. These accusations are baseless, please don't try to make similar accusations again. Ardenau4 (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I never used the word sockpuppets. Multiple accounts are possible and allowed. And your confirmation doesn't solve my doubt I'm afraid. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertheditor (talk • contribs) 02:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

In any case I would not consider KOI-4878.01 to be well known enough to deserve its own article. ESI isn't everything in terms of planetary habitability (Proxima b and Kepler-438 b being prime examples) and many of the parameters for KOI planets are largely unconstrained - for now we should merge it here under WP:NASTRO. Ardenau4 (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Candidate? And a blogger thinks it is the most earth-like planet found so far? Hardly seems like notability. Send the article to userspace pending confirmation of its existence, then make this a redirect to the list. Lithopsian (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I would also be cautious with this and all candidates. I would merge all of them expect KOI-4878.01 and KOI-7923.01. I think it's a good idea that they have their own page. Astronomyeditionwiki (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that makes sense, although it's important to note that many of these candidates aren't even in many catalogs, like the Open Exoplanet catalog (KOI-4878 does actually have an entry, but as of writing that page was literally created hours ago, so not really). There are many exoplanet candidates with more media coverage (like KOI-494) that don't get their own articles, so my opinion is that KOI-4878.01 should be merged. Ardenau4 (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

KOI's seem to be getting less relevant every day as more and more Earth-sized exoplanets are being confirmed, making these candidates not as exciting as they used to be. I believe there were a few conversations (probably mostly blogs?) around KOI-2124.01 as early data showed a radius of ~1 R_E for the candidate. KOI-4878.01 was likely created since it is just ever-so-slightly larger than Earth orbiting a slightly warmer F-type star with a similar orbit to Earth. KOI-7617.01 had a few discussions since it was second after KOI-3138.01 (present-day Kepler-1649b, very different compared to early KOI data) to be a Martian/Subterrainian sized exoplanet (Kepler-1649b is NOT Subterrainian sized and more similar in size to the Earth). Are these candidates still relevant enough to warrant a full-blown article? Probably not, unless they get confirmed. Redirecting to List of Kepler exoplanet candidates in the habitable zone is probably the best option, of course, that means if they ever get confirmed the redirect can point to the new article of the confirmed exoplanet (if notable enough). Davidbuddy9💬 02:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Are these candidates still relevant enough to warrant a full-blown article? I understand your point, but I agree with Astronomyeditionwiki. I would say that at least KOI-4878.01 and KOI-7923.01 have coverage. Actually KOI-4878.01 extensively appears in a novel. And, as pointed out above, there are already several articles about unconfirmed planets such as CoRoT-7d: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CoRoT-7d Albertheditor (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

"Are these candidates still relevant enough to warrant a full-blown article?" I would say no. Again, there are many KOI candidate systems that have gotten more media coverage (KOI-494.01, KOI-456.04, KOI-1686.01, KOI-4427.01) that didn't get their own articles. With the fact that KOI-4878.01 appears in a novel, that's not unique to it - KOI-494.01 appears in a video game. In addition, given the remote location of the system, it's highly unlikely KOI-4878.01 will get any followup - it's very much out of the range of most telescopes, meaning it's highly unlikely we'll get any new information to add to the article soon, meaning that most likely the article will sit, collecting dust. It's no use to have a separate article for KOI-4878.01 - at least CoRoT-7d is in a notable system, containing one of the first super-Earths discovered. KOI-4878 is not a notable system. It may not exist for all we know, and it's not likely it will be confirmed in the near future. From this I do not think that KOI-4878 meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines Ardenau4 (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Just had another look to the NASA archive and KOI-4878.01 still is the one with the highest ESI. I'm in contact will colleagues who are conducting observations on this star. And media appears to continue talking about the star. Also, KOI-4878.01 also has its own article in most of the biggest Wikipedia languages, which indicates that there is a general consensus on notability within Wikipedia. However, I agree with you that all the other candidates that you suggested to merge could be merged. ExoEditor (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but a planet needs more than a high ESI to be considered notable. Several planets with high ESIs (KOI-494.01, Kepler-438 b) were later found to be nonhabitable. Are there research papers on the candidate? Other than the discovery paper, which was just presenting results from the Kepler science pipeline, there are no papers on this planet. The article is self-contradicting on spectral type of the star, all but one of the citations are from online exoplanet catalogs and/or news articles, and half of those are in Spanish - which is totally fine, but considering that Kepler is a NASA project, and this is English Wikipedia, this just makes me more concerned that there are very little sources on this unconfirmed planet candidate. The source from CSIC is from an organization that deals in geology, not astronomy, and contains outdated information about the Gliese 581 system, whose habitable zone planets are currently disproven and/or dubious. Had we tried to cite that diagram in the Gliese 581 article it would have been removed almost immediately. Even if the unconfirmed candidate planet is considered notable, the article contains so little information and is so poorly written that it might as well be deleted. In no way would I consider KOI-4878.01 notable enough to get its own article. If there are no other objections from people other than Alberttheeditor/ExoEditor (same person) I'm going to merge the two. Ardenau4 (talk) 02:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

It's Kepler-577b, not KOI-494.01.Kepler-1229b talk 18:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I think there's now consensus to merge most if not all of these; should the discussion be closed? SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I've merged (really just redirected) KOI-2124.01 and KOI-7617.01. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I would propose merging the others but not KOI-4878.01 because the object is notable for being the most earthlike planet known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kepler-1229b (talk • contribs) 00:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I agree with Astronomyeditionwiki and Kepler-1229b: All should be merged except KOI-4878.01, especially after all the time several editors including me have spent working on it. Cheers.ExoEditor 15:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@ExoEditor: I don't really know why I've been sent an email regarding this article and this discussion, but normally when you want to solicit further opinions, you post on-wiki notices to related WikiProjects like WT:ASTRO, in compliance with WP:CANVASS. As for merging, I agree that it makes more sense than having distinct articles. These exoplanets aren't notable, and do not meet WP:NASTRO. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. We have been asked by the adminitrators to seek further consensus, for which the involvement of more editors is needed. I respect your opinion, but KOI-4878.01 has been cited by multiple reliable secondary sources including science fiction literature. KOI-4878.01 has been protected against vandalism, and no merging should take place until many more editors get involved here and consensus is reached. As a recap:

The candidate KOI-4878.01 has been regarded as a 'a potentially exciting Earth-sized planet' here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.07286.pdf (here published: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0067-0049/217/1/16)

Also in this book as the one with the highest ESI: https://books.google.es/books?id=UNA1DwAAQBAJ&q=KOI4878&pg=PT76&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=KOI4878&f=false

An the exoplanet is the main scenario of this sci-fi book (which means it has been widely and deeply talked about it in the book): https://www.unoeditorial.com/portfolio/tras-el-cielo-de-urano/

It has also been cited by several reliable secondary sources sucha as the Huffingtonpost.

It's an independent page in most Wikipedia languages, which shows there is consensus accross Wikipedia about keeping it as separate page.

Cheers. ExoEditor 15:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ExoEditor: The discussion has already been closed; I've added back the archive template you removed. If you disagree you can post to WT:NASTRO as User:Headbomb said. I'll note that the only reason the article has been protected is because of your persistent removal of the merge template before the discussion had been closed, and that the only (non-fictional) source providing significant coverage is a blog. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid consensus has not been reached, the debate exists here too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:KOI-4878.01 I have asked the administrators to open this debate again. Cheers. ExoEditor 16:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose merging KOI-4427.01 into this article for the same reason as above - this is an unconfirmed planet candidate and isn't independently notable. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Merge. When it is confirmed to exist, we can perhaps worry about whether it is notable. Note that the previous discussion likely already established a consensus to merge, but see also multiple AfDs. Lithopsian (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ESI calculations

Can someone calculate Earth similarity index for these planets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BA:9F01:1FC7:0:0:0:1 (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)