Talk:List of potentially habitable exoplanets

Word Choice Suggestion

Consider this sentence:

HD 85512 b was initially estimated to be potentially habitable, but updated models for the boundaries of the habitable zone placed the planet interior to the HZ, and it is now considered non-habitable.

The word "interior" seems to mean inside the zone, instead of closer to the star than the zone, but I cannot think of a better way to say it.

Gil (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Be exoplanet

A new potentially habitable exoplanet car TOI 700 d has been recently discovered by Tess and so the list of planets inside the habitable zone needs to be updated Omnipotentunknown00 (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Kepler-1649c

Please add this exoplanet to the list.

2020 in science has this:

• NASA reports the discovery of Kepler-1649c, an exoplanet that, according to Jeff Coughlin, the director of SETI's K2 Science Office, is closer to Earth in size and likely temperature than any other world yet found in data from the Kepler Space Telescope. The planet was originally deemed a false positive by Kepler's robovetter algorithm, highlighting the value of human inspection of planet candidates even as automated techniques improve.

--Prototyperspective (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Kepler-155c and 235e

There are still some Kepler planets not shown in the list, like Kepler-155c, Kepler-235e and Kepler-1649c but I am unsure where to put 155c and 235e. Could one of you classify them? Kepler-1229b talk — Preceding undated comment added 18:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

(This was continued in the below section Talk:List of potentially habitable exoplanets § Kepler-737b.) SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of potentially habitable exoplanets

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of potentially habitable exoplanets's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "exoplanet.eu":

• From List of exoplanets discovered using the Kepler space telescope: Exoplanet.eu, "Kepler-41"
• From Kepler-1649: "The Extrasolar Planet Encyclopaedia — Kepler-1649 c". exoplanet.eu. Retrieved 2020-12-12.
• From Kepler-1625: exoplanet.eu: Planet Kepler-1625 b
• From 51 Eridani b: "Planet 51 Eri b". The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia. Retrieved 25 December 2020.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Conservative/optimistic division

Responding to @Kepler-1229b:'s recent edit: If this list is supposed to be exactly the same as the HEC list, then all the planets not listed by HEC should be removed (which I would probably be fine with TBH). The division into conservative/optimistic samples is based on the likelihood of being rocky, which HEC determines based solely on the radius and mass (which is often a minimum mass). If there is additional information on a planet's composition or true mass that should be taken into account here; at the very least LHS 1140 b, which is confirmed to be rocky, shouldn't be listed in the optimistic sample of probably-mini-Neptunes. However, I'd be fine with removing the conservative/optimistic distinction for Wikipedia's list, which would simplify things. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Then I will be merging the conservative and optimistic tables. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

And if this were the exact same as the HEC list, then it should be called "List of potentially habitable exoplanets from the HEC". I would oppose renaming the list to that. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

So I will be removing the part that says "from the Habitable Exoplanets Catalog". 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Kepler-737b

Kepler-737b may be potentially habitable, but I do not know yet. I need a reliable source as well. When the planet was a candidate it was potentially habitable. Could you tell me if this planet should be in this list? 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't add a planet to the list just because it was considered potentially habitable before it was confirmed; parameters often change significantly when a Kepler candidate is confirmed, an example being KOI-3138.01/Kepler-1649b. In this case HEC doesn't list the planet, and hzgallery.org places it interior to the habitable zone. (Same goes for the planets you mentioned above: [1], [2]) SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the following image lists them both as being potentially habitable. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

File:PIA19827-Kepler-SmallPlanets-HabitableZone-20150723.jpg

I suspect that's based on the KOI data. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Then again, many of the potentially habitable planets recognized by HEC are in the image. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking into it, that image seems to have been released with the discovery of Kepler-452b. The discovery paper lists the other 9 planets in the image as small habitable zone planets, but it doesn't mention Kepler-155c or Kepler-235e. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. According to Open Exoplanet Catalogue, it is well within the habitable zone. It is less than 2x the radius of earth and has a higher density than 2 g/cm³. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtadesse (talk • contribs) 19:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

That's a possible HZ estimate, so we don't know for sure.🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Kepler-991b

[3] places the planet as being within the habitable zone. The planet has a radius of 0.227 Jupiter radii. Why is it not in the list? 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

That's slightly larger than 2.5 Earth radii, which is the upper limit for the list. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Then why not change the upper limit for the list? 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Because 2.5 Earth radii is the upper limit HEC uses and is already quite generous; any planet larger than that is virtually certain to be gaseous. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, this list should not be entirely based on the HEC. See above for more info. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

IMO it should be mostly based on the HEC (unless you know of another similar catalog?), and in any case it shouldn't list gaseous planets, since it's "List of potentially habitable exoplanets", not "List of exoplanets in the habitable zone". (In which case K2-3d and K2-18b should probably be moved to the "Previous candidates" section.) SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

There could be other sources like https://www.hzgallery.org to help determine whether a planet is within the habitable zone. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but that's not a pre-compiled list of potentially habitable planets like HEC is. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Remember that a rocky planet can be as large as 3x the radius of earth, depending on it's mass. We saw this with K2-18b, which is 2.7x the radius of earth, but has a density of 4.01 g/cm³ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtadesse (talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Yep.🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 14:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Recent re-addition of ESI

@Terchaye: If you look at the talk page history, there seems to have been a consensus to not include ESI on this list (e.g. here). SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Kepler-1229b: as well. ESI should not be in the article unless a new consensus is established. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Earth

Given the recent IPCC report, should Earth be removed from the list now or should we wait until 2028 or so? 68.107.189.97 (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

{{HabPlanetScore}} and {{ESIScore}}

FYI, Template:HabPlanetScore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Template:ESIScore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) have been nominated for deletion. Per the template documentation, these are related to this list? -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Star type colour coding

In the table the star type column is coloured with (at least) 3 different shades but there is no explanation of the meaning of these shades. Could one please be added? treesmill (talk) 09:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)