Talk:Superhabitable world

Rotation speed

If it comes to "optimal rotation speed" (length of the day), isn't another argument against too slow rotation (too long day), that it would lead to large and unwelcomed differences between maximal and minimal temperature, like more than 100 degrees and subzero? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.185.95.15 (talk) 09:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Needs to be rewritten!

Hi, I was trying to read this article but it doesn't really make sense and I couldn't share it (as I was intending to) because there are two many sentences that contain incorrect grammar or just read as nonsense in English at present. In spite of the "in progress" warning at the top, I don't personally think articles should be published until they are edited well enough to serve a useful purpose. My opinion. By the way I happen to know Spanish very well, and I work professionally as a translator and proofreader, and even that doesn't help me to understand the English version - it just reads really badly. Sorry not to be more constructive, I am too busy to rework the translation myself so all I can offer is this alert, hopefully somebody out there can lend a hand to clean up what promises to be an interesting article some day! --A R King (talk) 07:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@A R King: Does it need to be rewritten? Maybe, from scratch? No, We just need to fine tune (reword some sentences in) the article to make more sense. Also what do you mean by I couldn't share it (as I was intending to)? Just curious. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 05:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Grammar aside, it contains massive WP:synthesis. I am fluent in Spanish and for all the goats in Kerry, I can't imagine how it could be a "good article" there —although I know for a fact their quality standards are much lower than at English Wikipedia, and they hardly care to verify the sources and context. For starters, the concept was coined and used by only one team, but it is presented as if this is the prevailing scientific consensus. Next, it hinges almost entirely on one article behind a paywall, making it difficult to verify many key claims. I will be working on this article as time allows, focusing on the science (tone, synthesis) and any original research/POV I might come across. In fact I might WP:Blow it up and start over if it gets to that. I will be open for feedback and constructive editing of course. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I just finished a general edit. It turns out that the issue of synthesis was quite minor. Most of the additions (text and references) are supporting information from peer-reviewed scientific journals. I mostly toned down the introduction and specified it is a [good] hypothesis by a pair of researchers, not mainstream astrobiology. I did an effort to translate and decipher the garbled sentences -likely forced through an automated translator. However, it may still require a proof-read by a native English speaker to improve the grammar and structure. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

24 exoplanets list?

Is there a list that contains the 24 superhabitable exoplanets recently found? I've looked everywhere I can and I can't seem to find it. EdgePatrol (talk) 09:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Star

Why is the graphic in Spanish on an English language page? Pretty amateurish. Not to mention that I can't understand it. 2601:41:200:5260:C98B:1C6F:3AE3:850B (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Virtually everyone here is an "amateur" volunteer. Instead of ragging on the article and spamming it with tags, maybe consider actually working to improve it more? Sulfurboy (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Kepler-1126b

I have removed Kepler-1126b from the confirmed superhabitable planets list as it's insolation flux is roughly 4 times higher than Earths, which places it interior to the habitable zone.

Source: https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/overview/Kepler-1126 Femboii (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

This looks like synthesis of published materials, which goes against the Wikipedia guidelines for "no original research." If you can find a published source that backs up your conclusion, then it would be acceptable to remove Kepler-1126 b from the confirmed list. Otherwise, it should stay on the list. UlfgarLongbeard (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Schulze-Makuch paper

The paper that mentions a list of 24 potentially super-habitable planets contains a graph (fig 1) where lots of planets are plotted according to their mass, solar mass, and Semi-Major Axis, and a range shows the habitable zone. Actually it is unclear to me if the X axis is the Planetary radius or the Semi-major axis. But either way, did anyone notice that where Earth would be located on that graph, (at x=1.0, y=1.0) isn't even included in their "habitable zone" area? That seems puzzling to me. Dhrm77 (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Section "Profile summary"

Under the "Profile summary" section there is this line: "Abundance: The amount could exceed Earth analogs.". I am puzzled by that statement, I believe it needs to be clarified. Is that supposed to mean that the abundance of super-habitable planets exceeds the abundance of Earth analogs? If that's the case, it's not an intrinsic characteristic of super-habitable planets, but a characteristic of our galaxy or the universe, and therefore doesn't belong in this list but should be a separate comment. If not, what would be more abundant on these planets than on earth analogs? Dhrm77 (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I added this statement in the profile summary because I removed the "Abundance" section in the article, which was largely redundant and had a lot of synthesis, but I didn't want to remove this idea entirely from the article. It is saying that the number of superhabitable worlds could exceed the number of Earth analogs, presumably within a certain area like our galaxy. I just read over the section in the Heller and Armstrong paper that discusses this, and they mention that the "cardinality of S may be greater than that of E," but their main point seems to be that there could be a greater fraction of superhabitable worlds that are also inhabited compared to Earth analogs. I can update this statement to reflect that, and move it to a different place in the article as it isn't an intrinsic characteristic of superhabitable planets like you mentioned. UlfgarLongbeard (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. Where it current it is confusing. I also saw a graph somewhere where the zone around the super-habitable are was larger than the earth-like area. I guess that makes sense. the major reason why this doesn't belong in that list is because: how abundant these planets actually are, has nothing to do with how habitable they are. However, I would suspect that as telescopes get better at detecting planets, we may find that earth-like planets aren't as uncommon as we thought. Currently it is much easier to find a big planet around a small sun than a small planet around a big sun. Hence the fact that the habitable worlds that we found so far, have a typical mass greater than earth's. But that is likely to change. Dhrm77 (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)