Talk:Lists of exoplanets/Archive 1

Archive 1

Concerns

I'm concerned about the maintainability of this table. How is this going to be kept current? Is this just a dump and reformatting of the Open Exoplanet Catalogue? What's the copyright status of that? Is this related to Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia, which is cited frequently here? Is the intention to rebuild this page from that via some automated process on a regular basis? If so, why not just link there - as there are no links in this table, I'm not sure what this article adds to Wikipedia. At least the (apparently) abandoned List of exoplanetary host stars has links for each host star it lists (should that perhaps be merged?). Rwessel (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rwessel: Hello, Rwessel.

• I can easily make it keep current by copying the updated list from various different websites and run a script to put it in form of a wikitable.
• No. I intend to "wikify" the list in future.
• The data comes mostly from NASA. The rest might be fair use? I don't know. These exoplanets are listed in other lists as well, so there is nothing new in this one.
• ...
• Yes. Also, why the concern? Most lists on wikipedia aren't rigorously updated.
• I intend to add wikilinks for every item.
• Again, I intend to add wikilinks for the exoplanets. The list of exoplanets and the list of their stars are different thing.

Cheers, Huritisho (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is very long, is there any way to break this up? The default sort order appears to be random, something better should be the default. Also, what is the relevance of the "Number of commits" entry? I assume this the number of check-ins for the VCS keeping the database? That doesn't seem relevant. Rwessel (talk) 03:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rwessel: Stop asking so many questions. Also, if you think the number of commits entry is unnecessary, just remove it from the article. This article doesn't belong to me. Huritisho 01:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I asked about the number of commits, because I was not sure what it represented. And since you didn't answer my question, I'm still not sure, although I think my guess is likely correct. In which case it should be deleted. As to editing it... It's large enough that the diff tool often just fails, and editing the article is often painfully slow. And as to the default order, I'm complaining about the current state, but am not convinced I know the best default, although simple alphabetical has merit. And I'm not likely wanting to do that, since I've no handy tools for sorting 2K blocks of wiki-markup, and I sure as heck am not going to do it manually. You've also implied that you intend to have some sort of script to update this from the sources, clearly the default order should be established there. Rwessel (talk) 05:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rwessel: This article is just a broad view of the exoplanets. More specific exoplanets lists do exist, but if you add them together, some planets are left out. As to a default sorting, I don't think it's necessary because the reader can just sort by clicking the arrows next to the column head. The list isn't called, for example, "list of exoplanets by distance", so perhaps randomness can even be good Huritisho 05:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

No reliable source

OpenExoplanetCatalogue is crowdsourced, so it doesn't qualify as a reliable source. I've restored the re-direct. Geogene (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't use OEC. I used it to grab the statistics data in the first table Huritisho 01:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Look man, first of all, I had lots of work to make this. You can't simply remove everything like that. Also, OEC is not the only avalable source. I put links in the external links to a variety of different sources. Don't revert me again or else there will be an edit war and it's not going to be good for either of us. Huritisho 01:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks more like a copy/paste job from here [1], which is the same table except that they've added a few more to theirs since you downloaded the list. That's plagiarism, from a non-reliable source no less. Geogene (talk) 01:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

For the second time, don't remove the content again. I worked a lot on this. For the second time also, I didn't use that source. There are various different sources linked in the article. To finalize, that wouldn't be plagiarism in any way. I'm using numerical data. It is a different thing. Now don't blank the page again before some discussion. Thanks Huritisho 01:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You deny using that source? What source did you use then, there are only two in the article. The one you claimed earlier -- the one with 427 planets listed? For this list with more than 2,000? How did you manage that? With a list identical to that at the link I gave above? Amazing coincidence. You were just blocked from another WMF project for vandalism, how long will it be before that happens here? Geogene (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

If you cared enough to go actually check, there is exoplanets.org and exoplanet.eu as well. The OEC was used for the small statistic table, as I said before. And by the way, do you know what vandalism is? Vandalism is violently removing other people's work from an encyclopedia. I'm trying to contribute to something. Huritisho 01:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Geogene: perhaps you should notify WP:AST. The thing is that the removal of content can't depend entirely on you Huritisho 01:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

...Which is what you were apparently doing at Wikiversity right before they blocked you for it. Here, you seem to be trolling, because you're still denying an obvious copy-paste and being intentionally deceptive about the source for it. Geogene (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Geogene: I was just testing to see if anyone would find out, since those other wikimedia projects look so empty. But that is unrelated and you don't have to bring this up. Second, I already said I'm using data. The data is used on numerous other lists of exoplanets. It is different than a copyright infrigement or something. I'm going to alert WP:AST so they can maybe contribute to the discussion. Huritisho 02:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

What exactly are you testing that is getting you blocked? WP:POINT -- if you are testing Wikipedia, that will result in getting you blocked here as well. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

removed

since apparently no one liked my list I've just removed it. Whatever. Now let's go back to our normal editing routine. Huritisho 02:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The list is just too large WP:SIZE it breaks Wikipedia for many users. If your page is over 100kB, it's a big problem. It should be less than 30kB (thus splitting lists apart for our asteroid lists) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 03:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Stretched

The table is wider than the page. Is there a way to fix that? If there is no way to fix that issue, I might just remove some columns, no problem. Huritisho (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It fits on my screen, even when the window shrinks a bit. All the columns look worthwhile, so keep all. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps kepler 9a and b have more precision for the mass than is reality, that would save a couple of characters on the width. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

To redirect or not?

There has been a minor edit war regarding whether this page should be a redirect or not. I'd like to get some consensus on this at the request of a disgruntled party in the war. Personally, my !vote would be to keep this as a redirect - it's an unmanageable list, with way too many redlinks, and there is some potentially questionable sourcing. Primefac (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

As one of the combatants, I don't oppose a list of exoplanets. My objection is that that list should not be a copy-paste from a website that doesn't meet the reliability criteria. Geogene (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You know what? Remove the list. I don't mind. It took me just a few hours to make and I don't mind losing my work actually. I just like the list because:

• It gives the reader a broad view of the exoplanets. If you add all the smaller lists of exoplanets together, there will be some exoplanets left out
• The reader can sort the table to have a better and more relevant listing. The reader won't have to go through many smaller lists to gather info and have an overview. Again, this is a broad view article
• Come on, list of comets by type is also a long list. There are long lists even of not much useful stuff like Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States
• If you think in a simplistic way, it is just a list of exoplanets. Can you have anything more valid than it?

And Geogene, I didn't use that crowdsourced list. Huritisho 02:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I very much like the idea of having a centralized list of exoplanets and do not think that the difficulty of maintaining such a list should stop it from being created. That said, it does appear >95% of this current list is an infodump from the Open Exoplanet Catalogue. If that is the case, then the logical next question is whether the OEC keeps a list of sources anywhere. I can't navigate their GitHub repository to find out myself, but if no such list exists and OEC does not require and keep track of sources, then OEC data is unfortunately unacceptable. The next best option for this list would be a database that does keep track of sources. If no such database exists, then I would recommend deleting all the redlinked entries from this list but keeping the bluelinked entries, since there should be sources at their respective articles to confirm the data here. Then we could go through and verify all the data with the sources in the individual articles. This process would take a while, so some sort of "in progress" tag could be applied in the meantime. How does that sound for a plan of action? A2soup (talk) 03:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@A2soup: I didn't see your message, so I reverted you in the main article page. Nevermind. So, I already said I didn't use OEC. I used exoplanet.eu [2], if I remember correctly. I might have been exoplanet.org[3], I don't remember. But it definitely wasn't OEC Huritisho 03:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

A2soup, I can definitely agree with that idea, and from the sound of it so does Geogene. In light of the rather large quantity of redlinks, might it just be better to nuke it and start over? Happy to help with the pruning if a full reboot isn't desired, though. Primefac (talk) 03:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Primefac: Do whatever you wish. I'm out. I'll be editing some other articles. I have a few things noted that I intend to edit in other articles Huritisho 03:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, if the Extrasolar Planet Encyclopedia ([4]) is the source, then that is actually kind of promising. That project is not crowdsourced; rather, it appears to be maintained by 2 guys at the Paris Observatory. Also, it seems that there are references listed and linked for not only every exoplanet, but also every piece of data about each exoplanet! However, to go through and cite everything will be an enormous job. Also, there are probably legitimate questions about how okay it is to literally copy the Extrasolar Planet Encyclopedia (although I can't see a problem with it, since what we are essentially doing is using them as a guide to the primary literature). Furthermore, there are questions of WP:SIZE and whether the list should be broken up, and, if so, in what way. So I think this is a list that has a lot of promise, but has a long way to go before it is ready. I would propose moving it to the draftspace for now and leaving a redirect in the mainspace to List of planets. Then I (and hopefully the creator, when they settle down) can work through the issues and questions and get it ready there? A2soup (talk) 03:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that the possibility of mining the Extrasolar Planet Encyclopedia has some promise, and also agree with moving the list into draftspace for the time being. I agree that it doesn't feel right copy-pasting all of it but I'm not able to produce a policy-based reason why right now (as long as it's sourced correctly--both to EPE and to the literature.) Citations could be automated somewhat with macros or a spreadsheet maneuver, I would plan that out some before launching into it since the finished product will be huge. Geogene (talk) 03:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Sounds like (so far) we're all in agreement. I'll give WP:AST a couple of days to make their thoughts heard, and if there is no further dissent I'll shift it to the draft space for further work. Primefac (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'm glad you reached a consensus. My hopes were so low I didn't even bother wasting energy defending my list. As the creator of the article, I can help do whatever is necessary. And yes, Geogene; I used a spreadsheet maneuver to make this entire list (add wikilinks, add color to the cells etc). I can easily do other stuff. Just let me know what is needed to do! Huritisho 04:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Of course this should stay as a list, not turn into a redirect to a related topic. It is fair enough to have content that greatly resembles other published lists, as it is a supposedly complete list. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Graeme Bartlett: Oh, nice. I see you're an administrator. Well, would it be ok to readd this to mainspace or we still need more opinions? Huritisho 05:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• I cannot see why it can't go back. No administrative action is needed, and I am just here as an editor coming from the Astronomy project page (after HIP-1 was redirected). But some others may wish to comment. The page is not on the top 100 list now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Graeme Bartlett: Nice. Well, some administrative action might be needed because I don't think I'd be able to move the page back to mainspace, since the page exists as a redirect. Huritisho 05:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Yes you are correct, its not a redirect to here. So I can delete the mainspace redirects when you are ready to move back. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Graeme Bartlett: I believe I am ready to move back. The article was already finished before it was moved to this Draft space :) Huritisho 06:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• OK space made for the move back of the draft and this talk. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! All I have to do now is just keep improving the list, especially by adding remarks of the planets. Cheers, Huritisho 07:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft of the list

@Primefac:@A2soup: So, here we are at the draft. What should we work on, exactly? I intend to keep adding remarks. Cheers, Huritisho 18:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Primefac: So... let's work? I'm not quite sure what you want to work on, to be honest. I can do pretty much anything that is needed in no time :) cheers Huritisho 19:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

So the first concern I wanted to discuss was whether this list should be broken up according to some criterion, since its current size already strains the wikimedia software, and it is sure to grow. If we want to break it up, however, it is hard to say what criterion is most appropriate. It would make sense to use a physical property, producing sub-lists like "Exoplanets by mass, 0.01 Jupiter masses - 0.1 Jupiter masses" and so on. The problem is that pretty much every physical property for most exoplanets is poorly constrained and subject to change, which would necessitate moving entries back and forth. An invariant criterion that would never change is initial detection method, but that seems rather non-defining. Nonetheless, someone has already made sub-lists for detection method (see them on List of planets). So one approach would be to distribute this monster list into the detection method sub-lists that already exist. But before we do that, we should make sure that we like the idea of detection method sub-lists in the first place. And if we don't like that sub-list criterion, we need to be very careful to avoid pointless duplication of effort with the existing sub-lists.

So that's my view of what the initial issues we need to address are. What do you guys think? A2soup (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

What about orbital periods? That's probably the term known with the most confidence, and is somewhat defining of the planets themselves. It's connected to habitability (along with the host star's brightness). Geogene (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

If the information is already found on other pages, is this page even necessary? If we can say "these planets are here, and these planets are there" then really all we should be doing is making a list-page that points a user to any particular subset.

Of course, we should probably strip all the redlinks out first just to see what we're dealing with. Primefac (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

If we were to divide this list, this current page would not be necessary, but the resulting sub-lists would be the focus of our interest and could gain significant content from this page and references from the Extrasolar Planet Encyclopedia. I'm not sure I follow you completely, however-- what do redlinks have to do with it? (I agree they should be removed.) A2soup (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The redlinks don't really have anything to do with what we're planning, I suppose, but if we say "we should split into X and Y" and it turns out all of the X's are redlinks, it's not such a good split. Just something to keep in mind. Primefac (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@A2soup:@Primefac: Why not simply... split? There doesn't need to be a criteria. Just cut the list in half and create "List of exoplanets/part 2" or something. See List of minor planets. They used an interesting splitting method. Anyway, I don't agree that the article should be divided. When it is all in one page it gives the reader a good overview. The table is sortable, so that way the reader can sort by any criteria, and if we split the article, that will no longer be of much use. This list I made is simply a list of exoplanets - it's simple as that. More especific lists do exist and are mentioned in the article Huritisho 06:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The minor planets people are lucky that the minor planets are numbered serially-- made it easy for them. Splitting arbitrarily is not an option because it makes the information inaccessible, which defeats the purpose. If the exoplanet doesn't have its own article (and many will not), you don't know where to go to find it. If you think splitting is not necessary, I will trust you on that, since you are the one who has actually edited the list. Did you find editing it to be difficult? Did the mediawiki software function properly? A2soup (talk) 08:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

We have some reasonable divisions we can use, Celestial Northern Hemisphere, Celestial Southern Hemisphere, towards galactic center, away from galactic center, will give us 4 quadrants , so the makings of four lists. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Primefac:@A2soup: The thing is that the list is called "List of exoplanets". The name doesn't give priority to any sorting method. If we split and sort by distance, for example, the article should be called "list of exoplanets by distance". That doesn't sound good. To me, the article has to be called simply "List of exoplanets". Also, yes, we can randomly split. We are not going to divide the article into a large number of pages: Just two is enough, so if an exoplanet is not in one list, then it will be in the other. Lastly, I edited the list in Microsoft Excel. It took me just an hour to make everything. Huritisho 22:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Two things. First, I'm watching this page, so I don't need a ping every time you post. Second, it's currently called "List of exoplanets." That name is not set in stone, and if we decide to go by distance then it might be "List of exoplanets by distance." What we call the page is the last step in the process, after we decide if/how/why we're splitting the page. Does anyone even know how large it is without the redlinks? We might not need to split if it's small enough. We might want some of those redlinks, of course, but I'm just throwing things out there. Primefac (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

It's currently 429 kB of wikitext. That makes it a beast for mobile and dialup connections to load, but okay for everyone else. MediaWiki software caps a page at 2048 kB, but I'm not sure if it starts to break down before then. How about we go about adding refs first, and then our experience with that will help us better judge whether the list is manageable at its present size. I don't think splitting will be made significantly more difficult by the presence of refs. A2soup (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I happen to edit Wikipedia on an older machine I use for some general web browsing and whatnot, it's a bit geriatric, but not *that* geriatric. Consider this diff: [[5]], it takes some 15 minutes before the page loads and renders (using Chrome), and the page consists of some 46MB of HTML. I do have wikEdDiff and Twinkle turned on, but nothing much special other than that. So yes, the tools are definitely starting to break down at these sizes. I'm not sure I see a good solution, but there is a problem. And it's only going to get worse. Rwessel (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rwessel: That's irrelevant. I made big edits because I was still building the article. Future edits will never be as large as that one. Huritisho 16:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@A2soup: The page loads fine for, like 90% of people. Also, what refs are you talking about? All possible references have already been added, I guess. Huritisho 16:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You shouldn't make generalizations about what other people may or may not experience. It takes a stupidly long time (comparatively) for me to load the page, and I'm sure others will find that to be an issue. It is the 17th largest page on Wikipedia at the moment.

Also, I find it highly suspect that the entire 438kb of this page can be referenced by only ten sources. We cannot simply copy/paste verbatim from research papers; that's the exact reason why your comets article was deleted. I'll do some digging into those sources, and if they are copied directly, the page might have to be deleted. Primefac (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

For the last time, I'm using data. It's a different thing. Also, all the lists of exoplanets use those sources for data info. Where else can they get data from? This list I made is a list of exoplanets. It's that simple. This list is, in fact, more legit than other lists that are more specific. Huritisho 18:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Really, tell me. How is one supposed to make a list of exoplanets then? There is literally no other way. Really, tell me, how can we have a list of exoplanets on Wikipedia then? Huritisho 18:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@A2soup:@Primefac: So, I'm still waiting for someone (especially Primefac) to reply. I think you decided to bring this to the Draft page so we could discuss. Huritisho 01:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It only took me a few seconds to load and I am running with low bandwidth at the moment. It is well below 100K so I see no issue with size as it is today. On the topic of few sources that is OK as it is using tertiary sources, compilations made by others. Adding in several hundred primary sources will be bad for size and time to load. So best to use those in the articles on individual planets. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused. What's below 100KB? Certainly not Draft:List of exoplanets. And that's not on the Special:LongPages because I don't think draft space items are indexed there. Rwessel (talk) 06:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Ditto that. Graeme Bartlett, while I won't argue the move, I will argue that it is most definitely #17 on LongPages, being almost 450kb. Primefac (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the thing is that a good portion of that comes from wiki markup I added. For instance, if I remove the convert templates, it will fall to the 70th position or something. Huritisho 18:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

If the page size (by bytes) turns out to be a big issue (which I doubt it will), I can just remove some of the markup. That will sacrifice some of the quality though. Huritisho 18:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The page is now 438,947 bytes. The convert is not useful here, you may as well just have the ly value. Leading spaces for the table are not required either. Another point is that the note about Gliese 1214 b seems to be wrong, it is not the most massive or largest. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hm ok, I'll remove the convert template and leave the value in parsecs, which was the original unit. What are leading spaces, exactly? I will verify the information about Fliese. Thanks Huritisho 21:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

ly is the better unit for our readers. Perhaps subst would work on the convert templates for this. leading spaces is what indents the | from the left hand margin. Good for readability, but take space. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I can also convert the units to light years offline (using Microsoft Excel) and then just paste the result. I can do that. And sure, I will definitely delete the leading spaces. Huritisho 23:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Update: It might be more complicated than I expected. I will convert the units some other day. I will just remove the leading spaces by now. Huritisho 23:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. And Primefac, my list is now only in the 228th position now :) By the way, I don't know why you seemed to worry about the size of my list while List of comets by time is like the 5th largest. Huritisho 23:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

More explanations, please!

This list needs a bit more of explanations for the interested reader - what is a binary flag (I found out it is about the idea of double planets- took me a while), what do the different "Discovery methods" mean... Kipala (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

New Popular Names

Yesterday, the IAU approved official names for 29 of the earliest discovered exoplanets and some of their stars. As it is generally Wikipedia policy to use the common names for stars and for planets in our own system (unless the common name is obsolete or archaic), should the names on this list (and on the pages for the newly named planets and stars) be updated to reflect the changes? Astrofreak92 (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Number of commits

Perhaps someone can clarify here and in the article what a "commit" is. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

It's from the front page of http://www.openexoplanetcatalogue.com/. I *think* (as I indicated in the #Concerns section above, back in September), that it's the number of VCS commits to the database/list of exoplanets at the aforementioned site. IOW, there had been some 7917 updates to the database at reference site at the time this article was last updated. At the moment, the site reports 8082 commits, so some 165 updates have been made to the source which have not been reflected here. This is hosted on github, but the actual number displayed by github is only about half that (3369, at the moment), so I still wonder what exactly is being counted (it may be that the current github repository is not the first, and the github counts only show the edits since the data was moved there, and some 4713 edits had been made prior to that point). I have always assumed that this was intended as a tool to help track needed updates (for example, you'd today go to github and ask for a diff between the current version and the version 165 revisions back, and end up with a list of changes that need to be propagated here). Unfortunately the exact mechanism has never been documented, and according to the original author, does not solely rely on the Open Exoplanet Catalogue (but what it does rely on, and how we keep up with the steady stream of new planets, and updates to existing planets, is ill defined).

One of my major concerns at the time was that this article is essentially unmaintainable (since September, we appear to be missing some 51 planets), and given that the original author appears to have abandoned it at this point, I think my concerns were justified, and I really question whether we should keep the article at all. Rwessel (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the original author, @Huritisho:, can chime in. Rwessel (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

And I just noticed that account has been blocked as a sock, and there seems to be a new sock investigation as well. Rwessel (talk) 04:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. I took out that row since it is not defined. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Trimming this list down (again)

This list is (by rough count) ~75% redlinks, and of the bluelinks ~50% are simply redirects. Is that enough to keep the list as-is, or should it be (severely) trimmed down? As it is currently, the page is almost a direct ripoff of another site (see the above conversations), so removing the redlinks would not only remove the similarity, but also clean up the page a bit. Another possibility, of course, would simply be to remove the redlinks and leave them as plaintext (to be linked if and when the page is written). Thoughts? Primefac (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

While I have considerable concerns about the viability of this article, the redlinks are not actually one of them. Planets are pretty close to being inherently notable, so a redlink seems appropriate. Anyway, if this list is intended to be a list of all exoplanets then cutting it down would substantially change its purpose. And a list of exoplanets with articles on Wikipedia really doesn't need all the parametric data. Rwessel (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I could see an argument for removing the links, but not the entries. List of the verified oldest people did a similar thing. In the case of Perhaps the vast majority of these planets we'll never know any more about them than what's listed here, or at least very little more. Scientists are discovering new exoplanets faster than other astronomers can do detailed study of individual planets. I think it's unreasonable, despite notability, for most of them to get their own page. That said, I'm totally in agreement with Rwessel on 'trimming'. I find this to be one of the more useful pages on the topic. There is value in a comprehensive list and lists of specific groups of extrasolar planets by subject matter lose that broad view. If we have enough data to support it, perhaps it could be broken up by size as the lists of tallest buildings are, but it doesn't make sense to me to selectively weed out entries. The citation issue is a concern, but should be addressed by adding further citation, not by mass removal. There are dozens of extrasolar planet resources out there, several of which are reliable sources. I suspect the single sourcing issue is more a matter of the relative age of this page and the lengthy discussion on other facets of page development that have put fleshing out citations on the back burner. aremisasling (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes I agree with keeping the entries, but perhaps removing links. If the planet becomes notable, then the article writer can link it. Though there should be an upper limit on this list, else we will start breaking people's browser screens. Perhaps a limit of 5000 is appropriate. After all whenever some astronomical object is discovered at first the list is short and then it grows.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd vote Yes to removing red links and just leaving the text, if a vote were being taken. I'd suggest a planning and building consensus in advance for a reasonable strategy for the list as it grows. Maybe one way would be identifying planets by type--such as Hot Jupiter--and breaking it into smaller lists by type when the list has such identifications for most and has grown enough that breaking it up is required to make it manageable. --Phil (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Realistic exoplanet list

This article has the potential of being the largest in all of Wikipedia. 1900+ exoplanets are listed... yet there are 3443 exoplanets currently as of July 6, 2016.

It will be into the millions, what will happen? Just list 5 million objects on a Wikipedia page? Even if they are reclassified and grouped each smaller group will have hundreds of thousands of listings. Is this realistic? Trilliant (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Trilliant, we have lists of every minor planet up to #470 000. I think a few thousand exoplanets are well within the acceptable limits. However, I don't think it's necessary to include quite as much information as is currently on this page. There have been plenty of discussions (see above) but we never really reach a consensus... Primefac (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm now familiar with how the exoplanet lists are going to look.Trilliant (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Updating the list

I'm thinking about updating this list of exoplanets, no major change has happened to it in the last year or something. Should I just keep the style the same? I want to change some things about the list:

• Removing inclination
• Calculating period from semi-major axis and mass using Kepler's third law
• Calculating semi-major axis from period and mass using Kepler's third law
• Calculating planetary equilibrium temperature
• Converting parsecs to light-years

If I do calculate parameters, I'll put a footnote next to it saying that I did. Finally, should I use NASA's Exoplanet Archive instead of exoplanet.eu? exoplanet.eu seems to put planets in as "confirmed" until they're not, which is why planets like HU Aquarii b, c, and d got added. Loooke (talk) 17:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I would not bother updating this list. It has been discovered that exoplanets are evolved stars (stellar evolution is planet formation), so astronomy, astrophysics and geophysics will be entirely rewritten to account for 21st century observational science. You can list all the stars in the galaxy if you want. That is what this page will become.Trilliant (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Trilliant: Can you clarify what you mean when you say "exoplanets are evolved stars" - do you mean that exoplanets form from the remnants of star formation?
Also, currently there are only a few thousand exoplanets known, so it should be possible to document them all into a list. Once that number becomes much higher (e.g. in the 10,000s) I'm not sure what to do. Loooke (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Loooke: An (exo)-planet is a dead/evolving star. TESS and others are going to find billions of them. This list is going to be impossible to update unless a bot does it. Modern academia knows about this already, though they refuse to publish the ideas because it is a career ender, it is too controversial to touch. I suggest someone program a bot to do the updating.Trilliant (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

What are you going to do if the result of your calculations contradict the current information? Holy Goo (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Holy Goo: I've made the list so it prefers the current information, and then the calculations. If new information does come out, then I'll have to update the list to incorporate the new information. However, the things that I'm calculating are mostly orbital information (I've given up on equilibrium temperature; it's kind of a pain), and because Kepler's law is a mathematical law instead of an empirical formula, the calculations are fairly accurate anyways. Loooke (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Loooke: Okay. Feel free to do the changes you want to make. Holy Goo (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Table sorts

I made a good faith effort to fix the sorting of the columns. It was sorting number columns as though they were text, e.g. 1 11 15 19 2 25 29 3 33... I am not a TableExpert. I think I fixed it, but I also think there must be a simpler way to fix it than the way I used. I put

 data-sort-type="number" | 

at the declaration of each column which contains numbers.

Nick Beeson (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

yo what about TRAPPIST

Hello fellow Wikipedians!

I was wondering if this page should eventually be updated to include the recent February 2017 discoveries of exoplanets of Trappist-1? Not sure if there's a reason for this page not being updated. Paintspot (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Paintspot: Those planets can and should be added. People don't keep the list updated because it is a difficult task. Holy Goo (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Holy Goo:: Yeah, it seems like it's a pretty hard list to keep constantly updated. Paintspot (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Paintspot: and @Holy Goo: - I've just added TRAPPIST-1b. All the figures, also discovery date and method will be the same for the host star for the other ones and I've added the maths in a comment to convert to Jupiter masses and radii if anyone wants to do the others just a case of a few numbers different for each one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertinventor (talk • contribs) 15:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll say. The other day I foolishly thought I would perform an update, and quickly decided to abandon the effort. Too much lifting for me. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Radial measurements should nearly all have masses set to > ...

Only a few of the ones done with radial measurements show the mass as > ...

Since the figure is always m sin i then it's going to be a minimum mass. Even if it shows a mass range, it is a minimum mass range. So - I suggest we go through and wherever it says radial discovery method put a > before the mass of the planet. Unless the planet's mass has been determined since then by another method, but most are only known by the radial method. Any comments / suggestions? Robert Walker (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems a bit OR to me, although I don't understand the physics well enough to really understand how obvious the > is. I am pretty sure that before Kepler came on the scene, I saw plenty of exoplanet masses determined by radial velocity reported in the popular science press (a bit better than mainstream press) without any mention of "minimum" or "at least".

In any case, I think the larger issue that is apparent with this list, and which I have been putting off starting a discussion on, is that Wikipedia is not up to the task of maintaining it, nor is it really our responsibility per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Case in point, the TRAPPIST planets are still not listed weeks after the media event, the creation of appropriate articles, and a talk page post about them. There are astronomers who spend much of their time curating databases with the same information we are trying to correlate here - a simple external link to one or two of those databases on relevant pages (mainly Exoplanet) would serve the purpose of this list far better. This article is mostly a long-outdated data dump from a not-quite-top-notch database anyways. I move that we delete or at least userfy it. Thoughts? A2soup (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

A2soup, I'm sure you know from our previous discussions above that I think this would be better as a link to a site that can actually maintain the information. Every time I've tried to trim/split the page to make it more manageable has been met with opposition (or at worst, a lack of enthusiasm). I would support an AFD. Primefac (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I argued for keeping this list in earlier discussions, and I admit to grossly underestimating the task of maintaining such a thing. It didn't help, of course, that its primary proponent was blocked as a sock shortly after the decision to give it a shot. Feel free to AfD (I would support) although perhaps it could be prudent to break off an actual section here to discuss it first? A2soup (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

We could turn the split proposal above into a formal RFC, but the more pressing question is "keep or delete" (i.e. there's no point in discussing how to split the article if no one wants to keep it anyway). I'm willing to nominate it for deletion, with the intention of filing a "what do we do now?" RFC if the page is kept. Primefac (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree. I think most people will see the title and think "speedy keep" right off the bat (I know I did), so a good nom discussing the past keep and subsequent failure will be important. A2soup (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay for the background, first, yes the radial method only gives a lower bound, except in the rare case where you know the inclination i. See [[Doppler_spectroscopy#Limitations]

"The major limitation with Doppler spectroscopy is that it can only measure movement along the line-of-sight, and so depends on a measurement (or estimate) of the inclination of the planet's orbit to determine the planet's mass. If the orbital plane of the planet happens to line up with the line-of-sight of the observer, then the measured variation in the star's radial velocity is the true value. However, if the orbital plane is tilted away from the line-of-sight, then the true effect of the planet on the motion of the star will be greater than the measured variation in the star's radial velocity, which is only the component along the line-of-sight. As a result, the planet's true mass will be greater than measured."

See also Radial Velocity at Planetary.org.

I expect nearly all the ones that give it as an exact mass in wikipedia actually have a minimum mass if you chase up the original paper. Have just fixed Wolf 1061c which got this wrong though Wolf 1061b got it right. But a simpler thing is just to click through to the planet's web page here if it exists, and if it says "m sin i" or it says ≥ then you know it is a ≥ - just need to do that for the radial velocity ones. For ones that don't say you could leave it "as is" for now. Robert Walker (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

On the wider question I agree that wikipedia is not a directory. That makes sense for stars as there are so many of them. But so far we only have a few thousand planets. I don't see how that's a problem yet. It's also a very useful list as is, even if incomplete. BTW I added in one of the TRAPPIST planets - people talking here about how it doesn't have them - why doesn't anyone else add them? I added TRAPPIST-1b. It would be easy to add in the other six following that example. I added comments to my entry to make it easier to add the other ones following the same pattern.

Isn't the solution to keep adding planets as they are found, especially the most notable ones? We do have lists of cities, countries, etc here on wikipedia, many pages that are just a list of entities of one type or another so that it's a list is not enough to say we shouldn't have it. And we have many individual planet pages too. I'd vote against deleting this in an AfD discussion myself.

We have some very long lists here. Here is the List_of_minor_planets by number, which has tables each of which has 100,000 minor planets, with each entry linking to a list of 1,000 minor planets. It has 488,000 minor planets in the list so far.

It had a deletion discussion Talk:List_of_minor_planets#Delete.3F and it got a strong oppose from most who voted. So based on that I expect any suggestion to delete this list would also get a strong oppose being of greater astronomical significance, arguably, than minor planets, and also far fewer objects discovered to date.

For a shorter list, List of trans-Neptunian objects.

This one is between the two. I don't think it is long enough yet to need to be split up like the lists of minor planets, but is best handled as a single list especially because of the huge advantage that it lets you sort all the planets by distance from the sun, mass, mass of host star etc.

The ideal solution would be to split it into separate lists, if they can somehow be transcluded into one larger list which can still be sorted in this way. Does anyone know if that is possible? If so, the main question then would be how to subdivide it into smaller lists. I don't think the idea of sorting by constellation is a good one, perhaps distance from our Sun?

I'm not sure what the solution is to the problem of keeping up with the flood of new planet discoveries. What would be perfect would be some kind of way to convert a database of exoplanets into this wikipedia format. Like, if somehow we could transclude a NASA list into this page or something like that, it would be perfect. Just a thought. Robert Walker (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess I just don't understand why going through all the technical difficulty of somehow transcluding and updating an database to Wikipedia is a better option than simply providing an external link to such a database on high-traffic exoplanet-related pages. Whatever we have here will necessarily be at least somewhat worse than the source - why not send readers to the best place for the info? A2soup (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Well it's just the way it's done. For instance why have a List_of_minor_planets? Or indeed a List of countries by population (United Nations)? Just reproduces lists that are found elsewhere in a format convenient for wikipedia users. In the early days of wikipedia perhaps there were discussions about whether to include lists here. I don't know. But it's generally accepted now that we do. And I for one do find the lists useful. Often the wikipedia format is easier to read than the documents elsewhere, and has various other advantages. But the aim is not to reproduce a database, particularly in astronomy then we don't list all known stars in wikipedia so that's one example where we have a restriction. But so far there are far far fewer exoplanets than stars. Nearly all stars have exoplanets, they think. So if the time comes when our lists of exoplanets are as extensive as our current list of stars they will have to say "this is a database and we can't do that in wikipedia" and then they will have lists of the most notable exoplanets as for stars, e.g. all the exoplanets within 1000 light years or whatever the decision is. But at the moment the list is within what in the astronomy topic area seems to be acceptable as a manageable list, by examples such as the list of minor planets. Robert Walker (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

New updated version

Hello, everyone. I've said this before, but this list hasn't been updated in a while, and I figured it was about time to fix that. My new version is at User:Loooke/Exoplanet, and has several major changes:

• Contains all (or most) confirmed exoplanets discovered up to today: that's over a thousand new exoplanets, including important ones like TRAPPIST-1e
• Edits made to the previous version, such as piped links, and remarks, have been added back in
• New source: NASA's Exoplanet Archive. Data from the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia as well as the Open Exoplanet Catalogue is also supplemented, where the Exoplanet Archive lacks data.
• As suggested by Primefac over here, I've removed the inclination column. It's not useful to characterize the exoplanet, and besides, no one's going to sort it. Other data columns have been kept, and the distance column is in light years.

(My original plan was to calculate some parameters, like mass, but that's original research and it was too annoying anyways.)

This took quite a lot of time and effort. I hope this version will fix some of the current problems with this article. Thank you. Loooke (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to say it looks great! I agree distance is better in light years as the more common way of expressing it. I was particularly interested to sort it by the semimajor axis (I'm interested in whether any exoplanets have Margot's PI < 1 which is how I first came here) and it's a striking change to see all the new ones found by the imaging method with semi major axis up to 2500 since the current one. None yet with Margot's PI < 1 leaving Fomalhaut b (if it is as small as Mars sized) the only candidate to date (probably). Anyway that's an example of how it is useful to be able to sort the columns.

I agree few people will use the inclination, and I remember finding that column a bit confusing too, just to do with finding my place in the columns when reading the data after scrolling down. After all, all the transits are going to be around 90 degrees, details only really of relevant to specialists, and beyond that, it's main interest I would guess is for the ones found by the radial method, because if the inclination is known, then the mass is going to be more accurate. E.g. HD 154345 b (just a random selection of one found by the radial method with an inclination).

So, if one did want to do anything about that, extra information from the inclination column, then some way to distinguish the ones found by the radial method that are just a lower bound on the mass (most of them) from ones where it is an estimate of the mass, e.g. to put a > in front of the mass for ones that are only known by the radial method. That would pretty much be the sum total of useful information from inclination for most users I think. But I expect that would be a lot of work unless it can be automated, and is a very minor point.

Congratulations! Robert Walker (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks great to me. Perhaps it'd help if I could see a diff between the current and the new list, so I can more easily see what's changed, but I trust you and believe you've done a good job. Imo, you're free to save your changes. Holy Goo (talk) 01:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Just another suggestion, thinking over my own comment above - could instead just have an * in the mass column for the radial method exoplanets, if the inclination is known and explain in footnote that * = exoplanet found by radial method with known inclination. Just an idea. there are very few with the inclination known so it would be much less work that way around, and as time goes on as more inclinations get calculated, editors can just add extra *s to the table. Robert Walker (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, providing footnotes for the radial velocity planets may have been a good idea, but I don't think I'm going to go an fix it this time. Loooke (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Fine with me, was just an idea :). How about saying it is a "wish for the future". I'm a software developer and at any time I have a long list of "wishes" in my wish list. Some don't get implemented for many years, just depends, some probably never. But once it's in the wish list, you never know, some day it might be implemented. I'd see it as like that :). Robert Walker (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've went ahead and saved my changes to the article. Loooke (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Excellent work! Trilliant (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I know I'm late, but great job. Holy Goo (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect discovery dates for the updated version of this article?

I noticed that exoplanets (both confirmed and disputed) within the Gliese 667 C system had the wrong discovery dates. I cannot tell if there are any other exoplanets with wrong discovery dates in this list but I'm just suggesting that the discovery dates should be double checked. This is what I mean. - Davidbuddy9Talk 00:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Loooke might answer your question. Holy Goo (talk) 06:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Davidbuddy9: The errors with the discovery dates were a big screw-up on my part :( I rearranged a whole bunch of exoplanets so they would be listed in order (as in 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. instead of 1, 10, 100, 101, etc.) but I think I didn't properly rearrange the discovery dates. While the Kepler planets seem to be fine (thank goodness), a lot of the other ones, like the WASP, Gliese, HD, HIP, and K2 planets, seem to be messed up. Sorry, I'll try to fix this if I can. Loooke (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, you better do. Holy Goo (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

This kind of error might not be fixable by hand and would mean that I'd have to remake the table (and for the third or fourth time now, since I've messed up previous times before). Since it would be a major revision, are there any major stylistic changes that I should make? Loooke (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

On a slightly irrelevant note, this is kind of the reason why some editors want to either delete this list entirely or split it into easier-to-manage chunks - having to remake the entire table from scratch is a waste of people's time. Don't get me wrong, I'm appreciative of Loooke's work, I'm just saying we should be doing this differently. Primefac (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

That's true. I made this list as a temporary update because we were discussing about a potential split. Meanwhile, Mike Peel's work on an exoplanet list (discussed here using Wikidata will hopefully solve a lot of problems. Loooke (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Loooke: The incorrect dates of discovery problem is a big issue, and should be fixed as soon as possible. Holy Goo (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Holy Goo: The incorrect discovery dates have now been fixed. Loooke (talk)

Please add new OGLE-2016-BLG-1195Lb data to table.

NOTE: Please add my newly created "OGLE-2016-BLG-1195Lb" article/data to the "List of exoplanets" Table - Table's too large to edit with my current pc - TIA - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Y Done :) Loooke (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Trimming out unnecessary information

Okay, we had this discussion a while back when we were still wondering if we should even have this draft, but it got lost in that back-and-forth. I personally think this table is too detailed and has too many columns (it goes off my screen and I have a pretty wide one). For reference, the columns are listed below:

1. Name
2. bf
3. Mass (Jupiter mass)
4. Radius (Jupiter radii)
5. Period (days)
6. Semi-major axis (AU)
7. Ecc.
8. Inc. (deg)
9. Temp. (K)
10. Discovery method
11. Disc. Year
12. Distance (pc)
13. Host star mass (solar masses)
14. Host star radius (solar radii)
15. Host star temp. (K)
16. Remarks

I've italicized the columns that (for now) I feel are more-or-less vital to this page. As for the rest...

• I think we need either #3 or #4, but not both. It's not a perfect 1:1 relationship, but radius and mass tend to be somewhat related. Never mind. Plus, it looks like there are a large number that only have one of the two.
• Same goes for 5, 6, and 7. I think we could keep maybe one of the three.
• Inclination is useless information.
• I don't think we need the host star information, but I'm willing to be convinced. At the very least, we should probably only have one column for the host star info.

So anyway, that's my opening bid for trimming this article down a bit. Thoughts? Primefac (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

One thought I just had is that since the detection method is colour-coded, we could just code the planet name and it would convey all the relevant information without using a column. Primefac (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

We should never only use colours to convey information as that creates accessibility issues (for badly calibrated monitors, the colourblind, the blind, the black and white printers). Colour with text should be fine however. Discovery method is important. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Good point. Primefac (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• I think 13, 14, and 15 can simply be replaced with a single column "Star type" that would be colourized as well and only contain the Morgan-Keenan classification for the star. Although I would like to suggest changing parsecs to light-years and Jupiter units to Earth units but of course that is simply a matter of opinion. However I would be more concerned about the fact that the list has not been updated since September 2015!!! Davidbuddy9Talk 02:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the creator was the only one updating this page and they're a blocked sock. Primefac (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• I agree fully with Primefac's recommendations. The table should definitely be trimmed. A2soup (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
• As an update to this, I'm going to cut out columns 2, 7, and 14. 8 has already been removed (see #Updating the list), and everything else I can see as being a reasonable value. Primefac (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Split apart [2017]

This list article is very large (it noticeably takes time to load, so on basic devices, it should have a hard time doing so) It should be split up into multiple lists, similarly to how our list of asteroids is split into multiple sublists.

I suggest three sets of sublists:

• Lists of exoplanets by constellation
• Lists of exoplanets by distance from Earth
• Lists of exoplanets by discovery date

These three sets would be comprehensive lists of all exoplanets, as the only characteristics that can be comprehensively compiled. (others cannot be done comprehensively, like mass, diameter, etc)

-- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support I am the nominator -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I am also fine with any other lesser implementation that only takes a single criterion for splitting for a single new list set out of this list -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 04:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I could agree with splitting by distance OR discovery date, but not by both and certainly not by all three. The first option is a silly way to split (it isn't a rationale way to navigate between related subjects). I can approve of splitting by year only because it means that there will only be one page that needs constant updating (i.e. the "exoplanets discovered in 2009" does not change after 2010). Splitting by distance is certainly the most reasonable option, as it's the main way we split our lists of stars, but comes into issues with the page ranges (the farthest exoplanet is 27,000 ly away). To that effect, I think I'll make some alternate proposals. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose the point was to have all the entries in one place. If you don't like the size, don't open it or cancel the download. Other smaller lists can exist too and you are welcome to make them. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Weak support for 'list by constellation' primarily since that would allow linking directly from the individual constellation articles. The other options would be too asymmetrical. Praemonitus (talk)
• Support for a split in general - it is just a matter of time. We have 3500 now, in 3-4 years we will probably more than double that thanks to TESS and CHEOPS, by 2022 we could have tens of thousands from Gaia. --mfb (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose The great advantage of this list is that you have all the planets in one place. Just today I was looking to see if there is a dwarf exoplanet according to Margot's PI calculation. I came to this page and sorted it by the distance from the star and Fomalhaut b was top of the list. Being able to sort all the planets by distance, by mass, by mass of the host star etc is an invaluable feature and I see as the main advantage of this list. It's not a problem loading the page at all on a modern computer. Could have other pages with smaller lists but please retain this one! Robert Walker (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose As per Primefac, Graeme Bartlett, Robert Walker. A single tabular source has clear advantages for data mining. As pointed out by GB, shorter thematic/characteristic/whatever lists can always be generated if necessary. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 11:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Alternate proposal 1 (discovery date)

Proposal to have this page be the "master list", which would transclude pages that are split by discovery date (similar to List of minor planets).

• Support This offers the most amount of information for the least amount of upkeep. Only a certain number of stars are discovered in a given year, meaning that it will reach an equilibrium point. This means it will not require constant updating, and there will not be multiple pages needing to be updated (e.g. updating pages depending on distance/constellation/etc). Primefac (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Preview of what this split could look like is at User:Primefac/RandName. As a note, I've implemented some of the trimming discussed last year. Primefac (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Agree: It is the most viable way to split the list. Splitting by constellation is absurd and splitting by distance is not very useful. It should be split in a way that every new list will be roughly the same size, so the first one could be List of exoplanets discovered in 1988–2010, while the year 2014 should have its own article due to the fact lots and lots of planets were discovered that year. Holy Goo (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support I kind of agreeing with Holy Goo about listing exoplanets discovered between the 1980s and 2000s and the other discovered in the 2010s, though there were nearly 800 planets found in 2014 alone. Or another option is to have list of exoplanets by individual years of this decade, like list of exoplanets discovered in 2014, while attaining the former proposal for years prior. PlanetStar 02:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

By the numbers, it's 400 planets in the "aughts", then about 150 per year (with the exception of the 927 found in 2014). I'd be fine tacking on the 29 pre-2000 discoveries into that grouping as well. Primefac (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: the number of discoveries are likely to increase geometrically, so finer and finer splits will be needed. Likewise, the list of minor planets are is a big, unsupportable mess of non-notable data. Praemonitus (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: I kind of like this idea, as the discovery date never needs to be updated. However, how would you sort the exoplanets within these articles? Exoplanets aren't discovered in a day: the observations take many months or even years. Thus, most exoplanet catalogues don't give the exact date, just the year the discovery paper was published. Loooke (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • There wouldn't be a finer sort, just by year. It would essentially take the current list able and split it up by year, since we can't get more fine grained than that. (I suppose it could be Lists of exoplanets by discovery year instead of "Date". List of exoplanets (2010) or List of exoplanets discovered in 2010 could be the sublist name format); this would allow it to be directly sorted into Wikipedia's by year category trees. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The upcoming telescopes can find thousands of exoplanets per year. And many of them will probably be released in big chunks at the same time. Splitting by year will just shift the issue by 2-3 years. We could say "one list per X star systems, by order of discovery" - making the splitting quite arbitrary, similar to asteroids. --mfb (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Can it be transcluded in such a way that the separate lists on other pages get merged into a single list on this page? The big advantage of this page is that you can sort all the exoplanets by distance, mass, mass of host star etc. Even with tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of exoplanets, it's just text, I can't see any modern computer having problems with it unless the code behind the display of the table is very inefficient. Case of megabytes of data not gigabytes, on a single page. At present the page is 131 Kb of characters. It will be a while before it even reaches a megabyte. Robert Walker (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes it should be possible. SLICEs or ONLYINCLUDE tags could be used to join multiple Wiki pages into a single presentation list on another Wiki page (in this case, it should use a different name, like List of exoplanets (full)... while List of exoplanets would be an index into the various lists).
    Keep in mind not everyone lives in North America or Europe or East Asia, the type of computer, or type of internet connection they have, and the kind of devices they use to access the internet can be deficient, from being stuck on dial-up lines, reading webpages on feature phones, using hand-me-down Pentiums, or cut-rate Android 2.1 tablets or netbooks or Android 1.3 phones.
    -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• If this has to be split, this would be the way to do it. Then work is focused on the newer one, and the effort of working out which table to edit is cut. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• I've created a proof-of-concept here. I figure if there's no serious complaints in a galactic standard week (or maybe just an Earth week) I'll put everything live. Primefac (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: The proof-of-concept looks good. Have you checked that the discovery dates are correct? Loooke (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Loooke, given that I copied them directly from the article as it currently stands.... yes? Primefac (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes, then the discovery dates should be correct. Thanks. Loooke (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Alternate proposal 2 (distance)

Proposal to have this page be the "master list", which would transclude pages that are split by distance (similar to how the lists of stars is split).

• Weak support I prefer AP#1 over this, but if it gets shot down I'll take this over the original proposal. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: as our technology improves, the discovery distance will increase and the list lengths will continually expand at the far end. I don't think this is an optimal approach. Praemonitus (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • As technology improves, it's more likely we get more filled in in the closer lists, not just the more distant cases. This can be seen with stars, since we've had more and more low viz stars appear close by (M dwarfs, brown dwarfs) with improved technology, and not just resolving extragalactic stars.) -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: Distances to many of these systems are unknown, or have high error. Such a list wouldn't really be practical. Loooke (talk)
• Support, In my opinion this is probably the best approach to have exoplanets sorted similarly to how we sort stars (by distance). I think the issue of "continually expand at the far end" with this method is less concerning than "finer and finer splits will be needed" with sorting by discovery date, both concerns originally mentioned by Praemonitus. Additionally, sorting exoplanets by distance will allow exoplanets from the same system to be next to each other in the list, while the discovery date approach can cause exoplanets in the same system to be on completely different pages. For example, TRAPPIST-1b, 1c, and 1d would be in the list for exoplanets discovered in 2016 while 1e, 1f, 1g would be in the 2017 list, this isn't the best example as the Gliese 667 C system or the Gliese 581 system would be better examples but you get the point. Davidbuddy9Talk 20:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Alternate proposal 3 (discovery order)

One list per X systems, where X has to be decided (500? 1000?), in order of discovery of the first planet in this system. The master list (this page) gives the range of discovery dates for the lists and can list the systems listed in the subpages. Advantages: Very consistent list lengths, only one list where new systems have to be added. Older lists only need updates if new planets in known planetary systems are discovered or if measurements get improved. Recent discoveries are easy to find. Similar to the asteroid pages (which go by minor planet number - not completely by order of discovery, but closely related). Disadvantage: The criterion is arbitrary, for a given planet it is not clear in which list to find it without checking the master list here. --mfb (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• WP:SPLIT recommends page sizes less than 50kB (WP:SIZESPLIT) and it would improve WP:ACCESSIBILITY of the lists by letting people access portions with screen readers. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• WP:SIZESPLIT is for text you read consecutively - it says "A page of about 30 to 50 kilobytes (kB) of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes". But nobody is going to read this list consecutively from start to end. As for screen readers - it's a point but so long as they can sort the columns, then it is a major advantage to them too, to be able to read it sorted in various ways, and they can search the page for text. I think best to see if anyone who uses a screen reader comes here and says they have problems with it and then respond to whatever their issues are.
• On technical issues, the page is 131 Kb of characters. It will be a while before it even reaches a megabyte. That is nothing on a modern computer, unless the table is very inefficiently coded but it is working just fine, I'm using quite an old computer to read it right now, no problems at all. Robert Walker (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, at 131 kilobytes, it's still well above the threshold at which an article should "almost certainly should be divided", according to WP:SIZESPLIT. Even if this article loads find for you, keep in mind that there may be other users with technical limitations (again, see WP:SIZESPLIT). Loooke (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment: In the revision history, I see that many people worked on this list, so any decision must be taken with great caution. All the hard work can't be damaged or lost. Also, splitting the list will be a quite a difficult task, and we need to know who would be willing to do the job, and do it properly. Technical difficulties aside, I think there are already too many lists of exoplanets on Wikipedia (the See also section only contains a few, relatively speaking) and I'm not sure if it is necessary to have more. I personally like the idea of having one big list, so it can be sorted more easily (two of the three lists you proposed can be simply created by sorting the table) and a simple Ctrl + F search can get you to the planet you might be looking for. I can change my mind in the future though Holy Goo (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • It's not two or three lists, actually, the lists of constellations would result in 88 sublists, since there are 88 IAU constellations. The numbers for the other listsets would depend on the discussion here. I don't see a good reason to have such a massive list as a single article. And the contribution history of the contributors will remain ensconed here as the master list navigation page. This is not a reason to not split, since other articles that are split also have contributors, whose work is documented where it is, and we have contribution history templates to indicate locations for contribution histories. (otherwise nothing would ever be split or merged ever) Dividing by distances or discovery dates shouldn't be too onerous, since they already exist on the list, and extracting them to sublist sets should be fairly simple. Dividing by constellation will need some work, since the data isn't already compiled into the table. As for too many lists, the master list (this article) can be divided into sublists and it would still be one list, simply split into list ranges (like pages in an encyclopedia); ofcourse dividing it with three list criteria do result in three new lists, but I believe division by constellation, date, distance would be the most useful divisions. As for too many lists WP:NOTPAPER we are not restricted in our number of articles and the lists at Category:Lists of exoplanets seem fairly well defined, and seem to have potential audiences for each of those other non-comprehensive lists of exoplanets (ie. they don't list every single exoplanet, unlike this one) -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Possibly it could be split into lists by Right Ascension ranges? E.g. List of exoplanets at 11h RA. Praemonitus (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Uhhh no... Holy Goo (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Explain. Praemonitus (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

No eccentricity in reworked lists

Why no eccentricity column in re-engineered lists as seen in list of exoplanets by year? Eccentricity is a common data in exoplanets, seen in almost every exoplanet tables. Also it doesn't need discovery year column in individual list of exoplanets discovered from 2010-2017 as every planet in these list were discovered in the same year as said in the titles. PlanetStar 04:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I made a list of columns (back when this table was entirely too large) and posed a list of possible changes, the removal of eccentricity being one of them. No one objected, so I removed it. As for the year column - every page is transcluded onto List of exoplanets (full), and in order to be able to sort by year there needs to be a year column. Primefac (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

What does it mean by "Jupiter radii"

What radius are we talking here? Polar? Equatorial? Mean? I think it's a footnote worthy clarification, but I'm not sure which measure is being used here. aremisasling (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I've never seen a radius other than mean used for these types of comparisons (solar, Jupiter, Earth, etc), and I'm not convinced we need to add a footnote. I appreciate you thinking outside the box, though. Primefac (talk) 04:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

From Jupiter radius article - In 2015, the International Astronomical Union defined the nominal equatorial Jovian radius to remain constant regardless of subsequent improvements in measurement precision of R_J. This constant is defined as exactly:

${\mathcal {R}}_{\mathrm {eJ} }^{\mathrm {N} }$ = 7.1492×10⁷ m.

I added links to the column headers. Hadron137 (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Pie Chart

   The list below the pie chart lists how many exoplanets were discovered using each method and the percentage. The list says 1 exoplanet was discovered using astronomy but the says 0.0%. Could anyone explain how    this is possible? Wiki74o (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC) Wiki 47o

Because there are over 3000 exoplanets known, a single planet equates to 0.03%, which when rounded to the nearest tenth, it would read 0.0%. Got that? Btw, it's astrometry, not astronomy. PlanetStar 21:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

91 Aquarii b

Moved from Special:PermaLink/897853432

Why is 91 Aquarii b is in the 2013 list? The planet was actually discovered in 2003, therefore it should belong in the 2000-2009 list. PlanetStar 04:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Typo? If it's wrong, it should be moved. I'll look into it. Primefac (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

HATS-36b

Moved from Special:PermaLink/897853415

HATS-36b was discovered in or before 2017, see https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03858 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Good catch. I'll shift it over. Primefac (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Also the exoplanet encyclopedia was retrieved in 2015, not likely to tell us much about 2018! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Updated. Of course, that makes me wonder if all of the pages are like that and similarly un-updated (and when was the last time someone actually visited it for verification purposes?). Primefac (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Did the information actually come from the exoplanet encyclopedia? As the 2018 entries seem to differ from this list. (or are they aliases?) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I used it to verify HATS-36b, but I don't know where/how they're getting their info. I just happened to make sure it was still up-and-running. Primefac (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I use the NASA Exoplanet Archive. Every week or so they update it with new discoveries, so I go to the individual pages and copy out the data. (In the case of HATS-36b it said it was discovered in 2018, so I put in in this list.) As for the citation to the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia, I used it to get extra temperature values when I originally made the list. Ever since updating the list, though, I haven't checked it. So I guess we should remove that and instead cite the Exoplanet Archive. Loooke (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Dates

Moved from Special:PermaLink/897853461

Dates of discovery in the table would be useful. --2A00:23C4:581:A700:5597:75E2:2525:33EA (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The 8th column is "Disc. Year" which is the year of discovery. Primefac (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Changes to List of exoplanets discovered in 2018

Exoplanetaryscience has added error bars to all of the values, as well as added a new column for the star's spectral type. Personally I'm not sure what to think of these changes, but I feel like we should discuss this here, since these changes are... large, to put it one way. (Also, as it stands, the full list of exoplanets is a bit broken because of these changes.) Loooke (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear, well I didn't know it copied over to the full list, but if you ask me that seems like generally lazy planning overall. But what do I know. Anyway, to reflect on those changes, I think something like spectral type would be useful, as the Russian version seems to have decided. I was partially motivated to update it because of some extreme incompleteness from fields which should otherwise be obvious (if you have semimajor axis & mass, you can calculate orbital period, and any of those switched around; no stars listed have any business not having a known distance with Gaia DR2 being here now) exoplanetaryscience (talk) 02:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted for know. I know there's a lot of useful information regarding the values, but I think if we're going to include the spectral type we should probably drop one of the other "host star" columns (surface temp would be my choice) - the table just gets too big with all of that in it, which was part of the reason it was trimmed a couple years back. Primefac (talk) 02:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Could you at least restore some of the new data that I had put there? Some of it didn't actually break the table. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Rename to "Lists of exoplanets"?

Most of the other lists of lists are named that way so shouldn't this page be renamed? 50.250.195.97 (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Mass/radius units

Moved from Special:PermaLink/897853612

Wouldn't it be better to use Earth mass and radius as units in this table? It would allow ordinary people to quickly find exoplanets with Earth-like gravity. As it stands now, you have to look for 0.00314 Jupiter masses to do that.

Also, for masses that were estimated by radial velocity method only, the entry in the table should always begin with ">". Ordinary people don't realize that the actual mass can be an order of magnitude higher, depending on orbit inclination, so we should hammer in the point that these are lower estimates, not "central" estimates.

--46.242.12.169 (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk page redirects

I'm thinking about redirecting all of the talk pages of the individual year-lists to this page, if only to keep the discussion centralized. Some of the threads I've seen don't necessarily deal with one year in particular, and I'm guessing this page is more heavily-watched than the others. If there's no major opposition I'll probably do it next weekend (just to give folks a chance to see this). Primefac (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Too big

Wbm1058, I know (and appreciate) that you've been trying to get the "full" page size down a little, but it's only going to get bigger. I'm wondering if the full list just needs to go away... we have the individual pages and I don't know if we need to have a full listing. Primefac (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Primefac, right, I think we're on the same page. With the pace that new exoplanets are still being discovered, and the already huge size of this, I don't think List of exoplanets (full) can remain viable for much longer. My stopgap substitution edit just bought a bit more time. I think, if you want to tag it with {{Db-author}} we can just speeedy-delete it, as there isn't really any independent content here – virtually the whole page is transcluded. and with List of exoplanets discovered in 2019 not able to transclude, it's not a "full" list anymore. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

"Remarks only" is not useful?

Moved from Special:PermaLink/941202454

In jawiki, last column of "List of exoplanets discovered in 2020" is "Reference" instead of "Remarks". I suggest the references are more helpful for readers, therefore in enwiki the last column of corresponding lists should be "Remarks and references". It is important because of falling wiki pages coverage on individual exoplanets and even planetary systems. Too many new planets, too few editors.Trurle (talk) 04:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

(reply added after moving) @Trurle: that doesn't seem necessary to me, since the data in most of the lists is taken from the NASA Exoplanet Archive, which is also the first reference in each article. However, for the 2020 list this doesn't seem to be the case, and the "Remarks" column does also have references.

I'm currently in the process of updating the exoplanet lists, starting with List of exoplanets discovered before 2000; I'm taking all data from the Exoplanet Archive and also adding the planets' proper names. This means that references won't be needed except for the few planets that the Exoplanet Archive is missing. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not think the reliance on solely NASA exoplanet archive is a good idea. Please see A bot will complete this citation soon. Click here to jump the queue arXiv:2002.01834. for current state of exoplanet catalogs data fusion.Trurle (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, it remains to be seen whether that catalog will be used. AFAIK the Open Exoplanet Catalogue was created with similar intentions, and look where it is now. For now I'm using the Exoplanet Archive data. If someone wants to do the additional work of adding data from other sources, that would be great! SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I am far from recommending exo-merCat. Actual problems is what NASA catalog is arbitrarily trimming planets definition to below 30 Jupiter masses, and providing least details on planetary and stellar data. Pros and cons among four major databases are well summarized in reference above. I.m.h.o., relying only on NASA exoplanet catalog will result in omission of hundreds of interesting planets, and in later painful and protracted wikipedia list fixes. May be you will be better to be more flexible in data sourcing.Trurle (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

"Providing least details on planetary and stellar data." Actually the Exoplanet Archive provides the most data of the four databases, which is why I'm using it. "Being more flexible in data sourcing" would be even more time-consuming than what I'm already doing. If you want to update the lists using data from other sources, go ahead! SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

"I'm currently in the process of updating the exoplanet lists [...] taking all data from the Exoplanet Archive" - well that was never finished... Thanks, Trurle for actually continuing to update the lists. I just added the two additional proper names that were missed before. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 03:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Which is it?

The entry for HD 168443 c says it was discovered in 2000. But the pop-up for HD 168443 c says:

"HD 168443 is a yellow dwarf star of (spectral type G5) about the mass of the Sun. It is in the constellation of Serpens Cauda, 129 light years from the Solar System. It is known to be orbited by one large planet, discovered in 1999..."

Which is it? 1999, or 2000? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Kepler-1662b

The entry for Kepler-1662b on List of exoplanets discovered in 2020 is missing. Can somebody add it in? 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

You can add it in yourself; see these sources: [6] [7] SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Kepler-1700b

This object's entry in List of exoplanets discovered in 2020 could not be verified from the given source. There are zero hits in Google Scholar, so I'm not sure if this object even exists. Article has been PROD'd. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this object even exists. It does exist, it is in the NASA Exoplanet Archive and Extrasolar Planets Encyclopedia. The PDF of the referenced arXiv paper does not include the full table this planet is in; it can be found by clicking on "Other formats", then "Download source", which will download an archive including Table7.csv, which has data for this planet. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Masses...

Considering how often we're talking about 0.01 or less Jupiter masses in case of Ice giants & terrestrial planets, shouldn't the individual exoplanet masses in all articles about Exoplanet discoveries by years be allowed to be given in either Earth or Jupiter masses , instead of every planet being given in Jupiters relatively large mass ? Sir Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it depends on the publication; how much OR are we doing to convert to M_J or R_J? If the sources are using those values, then we should do the same. If we're converting purely to keep the table consistent, then I do agree it might be worth adjusting (though part of me knows a simple calculation like converting to M_J purely for consistency is not really that much of OR). Primefac (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Kepler-129d

Add a link to Kepler 129-d. JJ09012011 (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)