Talk:List of exoplanets discovered by the Kepler space telescope: 1–500

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy: Astronomical objects Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

Data discrepancies

There seem to be discrepancies between this table and the data listed on wiki pages for individual planets. For example, the masses for Kepler-47b and c are 8.427 M_E and 23.17 M_E, respectively, but their masses were listed as 2 M_J and 28 M_J in the table. I've changed those two to match the individual wiki pages, which agrees with the research I found online. There's so much data in this table, I don't know how one would go about checking their validity. Trevori (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Trevori: I'd recommend first checking against the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopedia (http://exoplanet.eu). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ref column offset

It appears the ref column is offset, for example refs for Kepler 16b are in the row for Kepler 15b etc.. -- GreenC 06:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenC: It's far worse than that... There is even worse offset in the reference column further down, with Kepler-85b's row listing a reference for Kepler-91b. This may also explain some of the errors in the other columns. I'd suggest redoing these tables from scratch using a computer program to load in data. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]