Talk:List of extrasolar candidates for liquid water

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Removal of Alpha Centauri B paragraph

Evidence for a planet around Alpha Centauri B as presented in October 2012 has been retracted in October 2015. Thus, the existence of exoplanet Alpha Centauri Bb is therefore at best highly speculative and at worst plainly wrong. Inferences on the existence of liquid water on planets whose existence is not evidence-based should not be part of Wikipedia. Martijn Oei (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TRAPPIST-1 System

Is anyone going to add articles/information regarding the planets in the habitable zone of the TRAPPIST-1 system? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srfleckenstein (talk • contribs) 20:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TRAPPIST-1g too cold?

I just updated the article with some data about the TRAPPIST-1 system planets, which I took from the (referenced) information on the List of potentially habitable exoplanets. I don't have access to the full reference, but TRAPPIST-1g's equilibrium temperature is listed as 199K there. Since this list is specifically about liquid water, should TRAPPIST-1g be removed? Commissaress (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

55 Cancri e

Really not sure why this planet is in the list, except that it was originally speculated to be a water world. 2016 observations failed to detect any water vapour in the atmosphere, and that its temperature would be way too high for liquid water on the surface unless the atmosphere was super-thick. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 02:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Pretty good indicator of a dry planet.[reply]

Review of this list

Reviewing this list, it is obvious that many of these either were never candidates or are no longer candidates. I have created some criteria for the list and will weed out some that don't meet this criteria. Stars obviously don't, gas giants probably don't belong here either. 55 Cancri e and COROT-7b were very questionable if any reason at all to be candidates. As a list of candidates, this list needs a much stronger validation than a list such as List of potentially habitable exoplanets which is based purely on a CHZ orbit. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

K2-18b

The Wikipedia page for K2-18b claims water was observed on the planet's atmosphere, which is in the habitable zone. Should it be included in this list? 176.88.47.41 (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

juvenile?

This entire article doesn't really fit Wikipedia standards imo. It's written in a very juvenile way, as though it's a middle school report vs a proper article with scientific backing. Highly recommend revisiting, reworking, and potential deletion if this is found to not be worth having. 2601:CA:8280:880:EDE0:7A74:A71A:5928 (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Major issues with list

Looking at this list, several supposed candidates are highly unlikely to have liquid water, and the page even says as much. Most of these candidates inclusion on this list is not cited, but in several cases, the evidence that it is not a candidate for liquid water is. It looks to me like this is a case of WP:SYNTH by someone with limited knowledge of exoplanets. Nameomcnameface (talk) 07:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]