Talk:List of nearest terrestrial exoplanet candidates

Article/List is Baad !

This list is fundamentally flawed.

Firstly the article is PURELY SPECULATIVE in nature and appears to contain a lot of own research.

Secondly, the density of almost all of these planets is not known, so therefore they cannot truly be classed as "terrestrial". Most are Super-Earths with unknown properties. None of the planets list are confirmed "terrestrial". So the title is wrong. The closest confirmed terrestrials are hundreds of light years away rather than tens, so again the title and the list are wrong.

Finally the article actually purports to be about "habitable" planets ??? Although not stated in the title. Many of the examples are not even confirmed to be in the habitable zone or have the criteria required for planetary habitability.

ALl things considered this is a flawed article that really shouldn't exist in an encyclopedia. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

As yet, no mention of the 82 G. Eridani three at 19.7 light years away, neither. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.86.65 (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggested Rename: List of super-Earths within 50 light-years

I was about to add a comment about this to the AfD, but I will add it here instead since the AfD was just closed. I'm a bit concerned about two words in the title: "nearest" (which is subjective) and "terrestrial" (which can have many different meanings). The list is already effectively my suggested alternate title, but the title change would establish a more objective title. Thoughts? Sailsbystars (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. "Nearest" doesn't mean anything to me. However I do not like the word "Super-Earth" ever since I heard it. How about something like: "List of exoplanets with in 50 light-year radius of the Sun" -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with "nearest". We have a lot of similar articles, for example: List of nearest stars, List of nearest bright stars, List of nearest galaxies.

And "Terrestrial planet" have precise meaning (if you give credence to corresponding article): "Terrestrial planet is a planet that is composed primarily of silicate rocks or metals."

I also oppose to "List of exoplanets...". Its too broad. --Ewigekrieg (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I boldly moved the article to make clear that these planets are candidates and we have no sufficient confirmation to say, with any degree of certainty, that these are in fact planets mostly made out of rock/metal. Hekerui (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. --Ewigekrieg (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Terrestrial-as-rocky is still a problematic scope for the article, as we have no evidence they are rocky other than their size. Most such planets don't and won't have RV data so their mass/density will remain unknown. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

They can remain unknown (for some time). But, certainly, in some point of the future, we will know the exact composition of all of this planets.

Also, we have a reliable sources about the planets as terrestrial candidates. Is it not enough? --Ewigekrieg (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, the slightly less ambitious article title of 'List of the nearest terrestrial exoplanet candidates within 20 light-years' would be more a realistic proposal. Super-earth candidates within 50 light-years could be numbering ten thousand, or more, in a few years hence! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.30.195 (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Dubious radius given for Gliese 667C c

I visited the citations for the claim of Gliese 667C c's measured at 1.99 Earth radii but it failed verification.

The closest thing I could find in the citation given was:

http://phl.upr.edu/press-releases/apotentialhabitableexoplanetinanearbytriplestarsystem

"Only rocky or ocean planets could be habitable, therefore it needs to have a radius between about 1.7 and 2.2 Earth radii to be either."

Looks like someone decided to calculate the mid point between these two figures and self publish it here. Only problem is that it begs the question - ie it assumes the planet is terrestrial and habitable, whereas the source was putting forward a hypothetical as the author also disclaims the conjecture saying that "no measurements of the planet's size". --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

ESO Copyright

Added "HD 40307 and its planets.jpg" from wikicommons as an artists impression for HD 40307 d before I realised that an identical looking image "Planets of HD 40307.jpg" had previously been removed from this article supposedly because of copyright infringement, on the 19th July 2012. However, I then discovered "HD 40307 and its planets.jpg" is currently being held in wikicommons as a copy of an ESO image[1], because ESO images and videos, along with the texts of press releases, announcements, pictures of the week and captions, are released under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license and may on a non-exclusive basis be reproduced without fee provided they are clearly and visibly credited. For further details see here[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.154.175 (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Alternative

For those interested in a similar but less controversial list, see the new List of nearest exoplanets. Nergaal (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Removing some original research and some numbers sourced only to websites

This edit removes a lot of original research (including classifications of planets which are not only non-standard but are solely the provenance of science fiction writers such as Asimov and ESI numbers which are only sourced to a single website and aren't published by independent evaluators. Also the "habitability class" table appears to be solely original research.

jps (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

This edit removes a claim that the ESIs can be reliably calculated for these planets. Since almost none have both a mass and radius measure, this claim strikes me as being bald original research. jps (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

To all page watchers: there is a (unfortunately slow) discussion at WT:AST#Is Citing PHL/HEC in violation of WP:SELFPUB? regarding these ESI numbers & whether or not their source (the Planetary Habitability Laboratory) adheres to or violates WP:PRIMARY. Your input in requested.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Star type

I'd like to suggest that a column identifying star type (or, essentially equivalently, simply stellar mass, as provided in the "List of nearest exoplanets") be included, as if the list is about potentially terrestrial planets, then this is a very pertinent bit of auxiliary data - a 1 M(e), 1 R(e) planet isn't very interesting if it's orbiting an M9 star, or an O1 star, even if it appears in the "habitable" zone. The former are dodgy due to dark red light and flare instabilities, while the latter have such short lifetimes that "habitability" is theoretical at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.103.138.179 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

If you can provide a set of references with the data, I'd be happy to add the column. Do note that mass and stellar class are not freely interchangeable. Age and metallicity interfere. Tarl N. (discuss) 17:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

L98-59

35 ly away: [3] 205.175.106.196 (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Chart of planets needs no art

The chart of planets is a list of data that is disrupted by the art.
I will remove the column, anyone undoing the edit will be edit warring,
if they haven't made a discussion comment here. 24.78.228.96 (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Someone has started returning fantasy art to the data table without discussion,
as though they can have it their way without a discussion. 24.78.228.96 (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
User:Sakura emad has decided he needs to edit war instead of discussing the issue to have his way. I will be reporting the edit warring after starting the RFC.

RFC: Does a data table need the clutter of fantasy images?

Should the data table of scientific information be cluttered by fantasy images? 24.78.228.96 (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Take in mind they're not called fantasy images but artistic depictions, which are used throughout Wikipedia. In this case, I don't think the table needs it as its inclusion makes the table cluttered and unnecessarily big, but I'd include a few in other sections with captions on why the planet is notable to have an image. Btw the question in the RfC is kinda loaded and the wording is a little confusing. --Loganmac (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• Opposed (to inclusion) The images used to represent exoplanets are not anywhere in the same league as scientific data. The table is used to display scientific data of those planets. In articles "throughout Wikipedia" it is for an individual planet in an out of the way corner, not blended in with data tables. An image gallery is more appropriate. 24.78.228.96 (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Artistic Depictions of Near Terrestrial Exoplanets.

• 
  Centauri b art.
• 
  Ross 128 b art
• 
  Gliese 876 d art
• 
  Gliese 832 c art

• Oppose This is a data table. Why should we interrupt the reader on each row with "Oh, by the way, here's a random artist's vague and almost completely imaginary conception of what this planet, if it exists, might look like?" The version of the table with the depictions essentially has one column that's information-free. I don't even think this fantasy art exhibition belongs here in a gallery. Largoplazo (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The table doesn't need an imaginary images, it probably should be included in the image gallery. Sea Ane (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Color coding in chart?

I can't find a key to explain what the red and green backgrounds for some of the cells of the chart indicate. Can someone please clarify? Thanks! -- Avocado (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)