Talk:Exoplanet

I don't understand why it's so difficult to improve an article

It seems that you need to reach a certain account age and edit count for experienced reverters to stop paying attention to you. It also appears that people primarily look at the edit summary and the byte count change before deciding to revert my edits. Compared to the old version, the new version is easier to read and avoids misinformation such as:

• About 1 in 5 Sun-like stars have an "Earth-sized" planet in the habitable zone (information from 2013, when less sensitive methods were available).
• 5,759 confirmed exoplanets (the NASA Exoplanet Archive is frequently criticized for also including sub-brown dwarf objects).
• There is special interest in planets that orbit in a star's habitable zone (sometimes called "goldilocks zone"), where it is possible for liquid water, a prerequisite for life as we know it, to exist on the surface. However, the study of planetary habitability also considers a wide range of other factors in determining the suitability of a planet for hosting life. (Planets in the habitable zone represent just one small factor in overall habitability, and much more clarification is needed regarding what "habitable" means. Currently, no exoplanets are close to being as habitable as Earth.)
• Rogue planets are those that do not orbit any star. Such objects are considered a separate category of planets, especially if they are gas giants, often counted as sub-brown dwarfs. (No, an object is counted as a sub-brown dwarf only if there is sufficient evidence, not the other way around.)
• It is hypothesized that there are 11 billion potentially habitable Earth-sized planets in the Milky Way, rising to 40 billion if planets orbiting the numerous red dwarfs are included. (This claim is cited to a news source that lacks authority in estimating exoplanets. Also, in the same paragraph, it is acknowledged that there is a "clear observational bias favoring the detection of planets near the star," so this estimate is skewed anyway.)

Monkelogus (talk) 04:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources to back-up any of your claims. Fdfexoex (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, you're cranky about old or mediocre sources, but not so keen about adding new ones - your rev. has 16 refs less, removing almost all of them from lead. Mithoron (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

What? Something is true does not mean we just add them to the first overview. Isn't it obvious that this should be a summary of the article? Why is talking about an extragalactic planet relevant when we haven't discovered one yet? Why we are talking about the habitable zone so much without factoring about other elements of habitability? Why are we talking about the JWST when there's so many other telescopes that have done the bulk of the exoplanet discovery work? Monkelogus (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Monkelogus I had a similar experience when I started. As another editor explained to me, your edits in wikipedia have two audiences: readers and editors. To "improve the article" for other editors involves more than words. To us, you are just a random new user id and most random new users wreck havoc on articles with vandalism and stupidity. How can we judge your contributions? With many years of experience, editors have developed an approach that works once you get the hang of it.

Here are my suggestions

• Make much smaller changes, a paragraph at most. This is sometimes challenging but it allows editors to check each change without worrying that you are destroying the article.
• Change the body of the article first, the intro last. The intro should be a summary of the body. Nothing, zero, zippo, should be in the intro that is not in the body with supporting sources.
• Always add sources for changes. Always refer to sources in Talk pages. Nobody knows you so anything you claim is just hot air unless it is backed up by sources.
• Realize that sources may be challenged as too new or too niche or conflicting. It takes time to learn about reliable sources.
• Explain any edit that deletes a source. Unless you have a case that a source is not correct, editors will automatically revert such edits.
• Communicate. The text is read by readers, but editors read edit summaries and Talk pages. Before a major change, open a topic in the Talk page and explain your plan.
• Finally, please read WP:Bold, revert, discuss. When you are reverted, take a break and a deep breath. Don't edit war.

Johnjbarton (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and in general, any addition or deletion should be explained in an edit summary, even if it's obvious to you, because if may not be obvious to every editor. Without an explanation, anything that is non-obvious can be considered vandalism, and be reverted. Then you may have to put it back with an explanation, and that's double work. Dhrm77 (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, this is something that I need to pay attention to. I think I'm going to edit on my local language wikipedia before going to the english wikipedia first. Monkelogus (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

It certainly is a challenge we all face from time to time. The recent edits to Space colonization by Monkelogus are good examples of "We don't like this point of view." It takes time to develop the editing techniques that work to be sure articles follow the WP:NPOV policy. But it is policy so we need to learn those skills. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 05:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

What are you on to? The old version of that article spent half the first section talking about the far future of space colonization and handwaving it as something that's theoretical. This makes sense when this article was first made, but now that we're in 2024, many countries have explicitly said that their lunar exploration program is more than just merely scientific:

• The Artemis program:
  • We’re going back to the Moon for scientific discovery, economic benefits, and inspiration... (https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/artemis/)
  • NASA's subpage about the lunar economy (https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/growing-the-lunar-economy/)
• International Lunar Research Station
  • China has a strategic plan to build a space economy... (https://asiatimes.com/2024/07/chinas-space-economy-plan-coming-into-celestial-view/)

Fuck it. I know that I'm not welcome on Wikipedia and I should have known that fact. The English Wikipedia is now riddled with bureaucracy and is not actively looking for new members and I think I will make a lot more impact if I go to my native language Wikipedia instead. Adios. Monkelogus (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this information true?

I want to know if this information is true 172.59.106.92 (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia seeks to summarize reliable sources. If you have doubts, check the source. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

It should all be true. We do our very best to summarise the best sources correctly. It is possible that some small mistakes might have crept in, which is why it is important to check with the sources, but the basic idea here is definitely true. Exoplanets are real and astronomers really can detect them using the techniques explained in the article. DanielRigal (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Formula used to calculate number of exoplanets is wrong

The section in the introduction of the article "986 systems having more than one planet." is incorrect. I have checked NASA exoplanet archive, and if you filter the results by star systems which have more than one confirmed exoplanet, it gives 2480 entries, not 986. I have no idea how to change that formula so I can't make the correction myself. 145.40.148.12 (talk) 02:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@SevenSpheres Please update the template documentation with the exact entry in the two databases which go in to the template. I found nothing on the NEA site about the more than one planet data. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I meant to link the template {{Extrasolar planet counts}} like this. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

The Exoplanet Archive shows 2480 planets in multi-planet systems, not 2480 multi-planet systems. The number of systems needs to be calculated by adding (number of planets in n-planet systems)/n for n up to 8. That's how the numbers in the template are derived. SevenSpheres (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

If the source does not do this kind of analysis, why is do we? I mean: the source thinks 2480 planets in multi-planet systems is notable, but not the number of such systems. Sometimes data is reported in a specific fashion due to interactions in sources of error. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

It's a trivial calculation (from data in the planetary systems table), not original research. The number of planetary systems and multi-planetary systems was already in the template (with a different data source - both are now included as options). As mentioned above, if you think the template shouldn't be there then nominate it for deletion. SevenSpheres (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

The calculation itself may be trivial for you, but it cannot be reproduced by other editors. Thus it is original research. I'm not ask for anything drastic such as delete the template. I am just asking for specific, reproducible procedure to create the content shown to readers. Your link from

• data in the planetary systems table

is a very long (over 5000 entries) table. Not trivial.

Now I discovered by accident that this site has almost exactly the same content we show:

• https://exoplanet.eu/catalog/#catalog-table-section

Johnjbarton (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

EPE is the other data source used by the template, yes. Right now both sources show similar counts but that hasn't been the case in the past, which is why both are available as options. I can try to write up a tutorial on how the NEA numbers are calculated, it's just querying the table + simple arithmetic. SevenSpheres (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Selection effects

All of the detection methods have selection bias. The effect should be discussed. Sources include

• Winn, J. N., & Fabrycky, D. C. (2015). The occurrence and architecture of exoplanetary systems. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 53(1), 409-447.
• Batalha, N. E., Wolfgang, A., Teske, J., Alam, M. K., Alderson, L., Batalha, N. M., ... & Wakeford, H. R. (2023). Importance of sample selection in exoplanet-atmosphere population studies. The Astronomical Journal, 165(1), 14.
• Cassan, A., Kubas, D., Beaulieu, J. P., Dominik, M., Horne, K., Greenhill, J., ... & Wyrzykowski, Ł. (2012). One or more bound planets per Milky Way star from microlensing observations. Nature, 481(7380), 167-169.

Johnjbarton (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2026 (UTC)