Talk:List of potentially habitable exoplanets

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon List of potentially habitable exoplanets is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

Venus - not habitable ? Where does this conclusion come from ?[edit]

Last I checked we did not have enough data to conclude that Venus is non-habitable. There are possible habitats (atmosphere) that could be as habitable for life as we know it as some extreme habitats on Earth. Again, it looks like another Star Wars inspired article that assumes an anthropocentric view of habitable.--EvenGreenerFish (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty speculative given that we have a sample size of one. Presumably the color codes imply some sort of likelihood, although they are unexplained. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Since there is no known form of life that could survive Venus' surface temperature it is good science to say it is non-habitable. At this time anything else would be speculation and not science. (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
In planetary science, unqualified "habitability" nearly always refers to human habitability, not to the potential for life in general. If anything, Star Wars is quite a bit less anthropocentric. Kaleja (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Discrepancy for Gliese 667 C's ESI[edit]

Quoted as 8.2 here which is different figure to the 8.5 quoted in the citation. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 05:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problems?[edit]

I think that this page have copyright problems where Habitable Zone Distance (HZD) and other methodology from [1]. --Honeplus (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Based on the source cited prior to the copyright flag, this page was not in violation. The source cited was a project supported by, among other things, an NSF grant. The NSF support places the findings/methodology of the project cleanly in the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Editing previous statement to correct a human-read error: The license given by the source page is NOT Wikipedia-compatible (CC-By-NC-SA, in this case - given at bottom of page). To continue using the quarantined text, additional permissions will need to be sought according to the instructions found at [2]. I would suggest in the meantime simply using a note of reference in the article and visible link to the original source, at least until either appropriate permission or a non-infringing variant of the data can be generated.


The "combined" statistic is not found in the cited reference, nor is it explained here. Can anyone shed light on this? --Lasunncty (talk) 06:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It's explained in the mouseover on the table. (ESI + SPH + 1-HZD + 1-HZC + 1-HZA / 5), which is a mean average. ShellfaceTheStrange (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
This seems like an absurd OR calculation. The ESI is already supposed to somewhat give a "summary" of the other data, while this "combined" value makes several planets score higher than Earth. I'd request removing this column... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it could be ORish, but I don't think that is a problem. As for some planets being better placed than earth I don't see any problems with that. ESI is the only one which by definition puts Earth on top; for the other ones, as far as we know there might even be life there, albeit not intelligent. Technically speaking they might be better suited for life than earth is at the current stage of solar evolution. Nergaal (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Of course OR is a problem (in fact, forbidden) on Wikipedia, and giving averages of unrelated values given in "different units" is meaningless (like "averaging" diameter and orbital period of a planet would be), and thus not covered by WP:CALC. You're right that there may be exoplanets even better suited to life than Earth, but I don't see this as being the case for any of the listed (or any other discovered) exoplanets, nor does any source that I know of. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

other categories[edit]

What other scientific criteria on habitability is there? The moon may play a big part in advanced life on Earth. Tides are believed to have provided small pools of water for life to get started. The Earth's large moon helps stabilize the axis from wobbling too much. This reduces big climate changes that stunt evolutionary progress beyond simple one celled organizations. The gravity of a large outer planet like Jupiter attracts objects that might impact a planet's surface. 22yearswothanks (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Gliese 163 c[edit]

The HEC website does list this object as #5 on its list of confirmed PHEs, with an ESI of 0.73. However, when I go to the database file that lists all the other parameters (SPH, HZD, HZC, and HZA), it is not so high on the list. There it has a ESI of only 0.39. This file was updated 9/22/12, but the site says it was updated 9/17/12. Since I'm not sure which data is correct, I'm leaving it out of the table for now. --Lasunncty (talk) 09:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

FWIW - Yes, I *entirely* agree - this may need more time to get sorted out - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Psychroplanet? Thermoplanet?[edit]

Both those terms redirect here, and both those terms are used here, but there is no definition here. The same is true of mesoplanet. Can someone please provide definitions of the terms used. Based on the root "psychro", I expected it to mean "cold", but everything in the table listed here is "warm", even the "psychroplanets". What the heck? (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Messy page[edit]

The big copyright notice looks terrible. If such a notice is to be used then any such investigation should be swift and either the content removed or the notice removed within a few days. It appears to have been there for over 2 months which is far too long for such an investigation. Just give the benefit of the doubt unless the copyright holder has complained and unless Wikipedia feels they would pursue a law suit or succeed in one. Stop messing about.--ЗAНИA talk WB talk] 16:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. —Darkwind (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

As a copyright clerk, I determined the entire Methodology section had to be removed, but I don't have the expertise to rewrite it. I'm going to tag the article with {{expert}} for WikiProject Astronomical Objects to see if someone can take a look at writing it up. —Darkwind (talk) 08:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I guess the List of habitable planet candidates is about the same exoplanets as this one. --4th-otaku (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I support a merge, these two articles are redundant. Hekerui (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Keep this list, and merge the other one with this one; there is no need for two lists about the exact same subject.Yiosie 2356 08:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, and make sure no information is lost (e.g. the "see also" entries) --Waldir talk 16:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I support a merge as well. These articles are about the same thing, and this one is definitely better.Carbon6 talk 00:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Green tickY Merged to List of potential habitable exoplanets. Need to update this list. NickSt (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Second Merger proposal[edit]

There's another list at List of nearest terrestrial exoplanet candidates that should also be merged here. --thechuck (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

  • Sounds sensible, but that list makes no attempt to filter by habitability. Perhaps they should simply be linked to each other in the corresponding "See also" sections. --Waldir talk 20:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Mismatched entries with stated source[edit]

The HEC entries seem to differ from those on this article's list. I found the following unmatched entries:

Only on HEC:

  1. KOI-3010.01
  2. KOI-2762.01
  3. KOI-1298.02
  4. KOI-2834.01
  5. KOI-2931.01
  6. KOI-518.03
  7. KOI-3036.01
  8. KOI-2882.01
  9. KOI-581.02

Only on Wikipedia:

  1. KOI-1876.01
  2. KOI-1938.01
  3. KOI-2124.01
  4. KOI-2290.01
  5. KOI-2410.01
  6. KOI-2553.01
  7. KOI-2650.01
  8. KOI-438.02

What gives? --Waldir talk 20:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

  • I have updated all of the entries, should be fine now. Yiosie 2356 23:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I personally think deleting pages was a terrible idea, should be more info on wikipedia about this and not less Armchairphysicist (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Should be updated by a bot[edit]

We can use User:DrTrigonBot/Subster to automatically extract latest data from the catalog * files. Python programmer is needed (see formatedlist_frommatrix postproc). --4th-otaku (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

  • I have taken it upon myself to completely update the list manually from the catalog * files. It has taken the better part of two hours, but there you go! Updated data of non-KOI objects was not included, so if anyone knows where to find information regarding these, it would be much appreciated. Yiosie 2356 23:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: I think it would be better i...[edit]

CDH31211811 posted this comment on 18 May 2013 (view all feedback).

I think it would be better if there is a picture of the planet next to the list.

Should we add some more images, as in the List of nearest terrestrial exoplanet candidates? --4th-otaku (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

There are no pictures of extrasolar planets, just art. --JorisvS (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be better if this article recieved a higher importance rating and attention by an expert!Armchairphysicist (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

ESI for Gliese 667 Cc[edit]

The source given says 0.82. Please explain where 0.79 comes from ... --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 05:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


Can somebody explain what do the colors really mean? Nergaal (talk) 04:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

No informations about Kepler-69c[edit]

No informations about Kepler-69c

Incorrect and inconsistent planet classifications[edit]

The article states Earth as a so called "mesoplanet". According to the definition of the term "mesoplanet" it's an object smaller than Mercury but larger than Ceres. The term "psycroplanet" is not a scientific term. It however refers to a cold planet but is here used in combination with "warm subterranean", which is very inconsistent. Mercury's classification on the list is "non-habitable" which is not only inconsistent to the rest of the list, but its very presence on the list could and should be questions as it's supposed to be a list over potentially habitable exoplanets. Also is Mercury not an exoplanet and neither is Venus, Earth or Mars. There have only been found eight possibly habitable exoplanets of which one is HD 85512b but that is not featured on the list.

There's so much incorrect and inconsistent information in this article that it's surprising that it hasn't been flagged or edited yet.Cesium137 (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The terms mesoplanet, psychroplanet etc. are defined in the article, based on the Habitable Exoplanets Catalog on which this list is based (see the article's references); your definition of mesoplanet as "an object smaller than Mercury but larger than Ceres" is just a term invented by Asimov, not at all accepted scientifically AFAIK. Mercury, Venus etc. are obviously only given for comparison purposes; and what do you think is inconsistent about Mercury being "non-habitable"? It's clearly outside the habitable zone, while e.g. Venus is on the border according to some definitions of habitable zone. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The expressions "mesoplanet" and "psycroplanet" are not scientific terms to begin with, but that's relatively unimportant. Concerning that the article is based on the HEC, who lists only 20 potential habitable exoplanets (plus 49 unverified Kepler candidates), it should be questioned why the list of this article also contains unverified planets (shouldn't it be more proper to wait till they're verified?) I admit to have missed that the non-exo planets are stated as examples of comparison but concerning the inconsistence of Mercury being "non-habitable" is that then also Mars should be listed as "non-habitable" as its clearly outside the habitable zone. Concerning whether Venus is on the verge of, or outside the habitable zone is not really relevant as a significant part of the definition of habitable zone is the possibility for liquid water to exist on the surface, which is not the case with Venus or Mars (or Mercury, obviously). There are theories that the dense atmosphere of Venus in fact comes from vaporized ocean and if that would be true, that would mean that Venus was once within the habitable zone, but at the same time the oceans would not have vaporized if the planet remained within the habitable zone. Cesium137 (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

AFAICS, all data of the table and definitions are taken from the HEC, see [3]. Wikipedia only reports what they (scientists...) write.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The information may be taken from the HEC but that does unfortunately not prevent this article from being inconsistent, poorly structured and contain errors. I definitely don't mean to be rude, I merely want to suggest that the page would become better it it was completed with more details and information and "cleaned up" from inconsistent information (as mentioned above. Cesium137 (talk) 12:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand your point, but it is not Wikipedia's job to correct purported errors in the sources, unless they are pointed out by other reliable sources. And the HEC does not actually claim that all psychro- or thermoplanets (like Mars and Venus) are habitable. The definition of psychro- and thermoplanets only means that they are in a (loosely defined) habitable zone, which Mars and Venus are (see Habitable_zone#Solar_System_estimates). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Gliese 667 Cf[edit]

On the table it says "confirmed", wich I take it means it's confirmed that it exist. At the planet page, however, it says it has been confirmed that it doesn't exist. And the same goes for Gliese 667 Ce.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for noting this. The planet pages say "unconfirmed" currently (with existence seriously inn doubt). I've fixed the article accordingly, making them "dubious". --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Seriously incorrect data in list of planets[edit]

The data in the list of planets looks incorrect, especially for Kepler-186f. According to, its ESI is 0.64 and is a psychroplanet yet in the list here, it has an ESI of 0.96 and is a mesoplanet...--Omega13a (talk) 05:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

An IP editor seems to have randomly switched planet names in order to boost 186f: [4] I reverted. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

"Potential" or "Potentially"[edit]

This is in response to the recent move from "List of potential habitable exoplanets" to "List of potentially habitable exoplanets". I wondered about this myself, but it could be rationalized either way. Is the word in question modifying habitable or exoplanets? I.e., are we talking about potential exoplanets that are habitable, or exoplanets that are potentially habitable? Maybe this is splitting hairs, but I thought it could use some discussion. --Lasunncty (talk) 10:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Most exoplanets are kinda confirmed. So the only potential part is the habitable one. Nergaal (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
If it's only a potential exoplanet that's certainly habitable, then how do we know there's enough water if we don't know there's a planet? Google Scholar prefers "potentially", 91 hits to 9. Art LaPella (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

About those HZAs[edit]

So I've just updated the table, and the new data leaves many of the previously listed Kepler candidates (and also two confirmed planets) with HZAs of more than 1. The mouseover states "Values above +1 represent bodies likely with thick hydrogen atmospheres (e.g gas giants)", which makes these of… questionable value for this list. What do you think of having an upper limit for HZAs for planets included in this table? Is 1 a meaningful limit? ShellfaceTheStrange (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, the list on the Planetary Habitability Laboratory has planets that have a HZA greater than 2 however, those are exoplanets in which only the radius is known. Given that for all the potentially habitable planets we know either the radius or the mass but not both, I think they aren't using the HZA and HZC as an important factor for determining habitability as that they are derived from physical properties we aren't very certain of. Also, I started to make an updated list you can see here.Omega13a (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)