Talk:Gliese 581g

Unencyclopaedic speculation

I think this is clearly unencyclopaedic speculation and should have no place in the article. The source is not even scientific, it's simply a statement by the managing director of a jewelry company.[1] Why is his speculation credible and notable? Offliner (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, does not belong in an encyclopaedia article no matter how "interesting" it may be. However more importantly the text has been lifted direct from the source without proper citation (It's too large for that to be legitimate anyway), therefore it is copyright violation. ChiZeroOne (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Too Optimistic Wording

I don't mean to throw a damper on this awesome article (I think that the subject is really interesting), but I found the wording in some of the sections presupposed things that weren't even referenced. In the atmospheric section there was a whole bit about how the atmosphere behaves even though in the last section it clearly said that we cannot detect the atmosphere of a planet with current methods. I neutralized the context, and I hope that we do eventually get a way to find out if there is an atmosphere, but until we do, anything more is speculation, and that does not belong in Wikipedia, even from scientists. I suggest that the editors of this article don't let their hopes mess with their objectivity and critical perspective (See WP:BIAS and WP:CRYSTAL)...--Novus Orator 06:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Please stop adding the maintenance tag to this article and either remove what you personally feel is problematic or leave it alone. Viriditas (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

NO is wrong. The stuff in the atmos section is not speculative, it describes the current state of the research William M. Connolley (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

If that section reflects the current state of research, I shudder to think what planet (literally) those researchers were getting their ideas from. I might remind the UFO/ET editors of what those same scientists thought Venus was going to be like before the Space Age cleared things up. My objections still stand. Maybe someone who is not so Goo-Goo Ga-Ga over this planet could do some WP:V editing...--  Novus  Orator  09:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

A few updates on climate modelling

I made a few updates to the section on atmospheric effects and on temperature, mainly to reflect my modelling results which were just published in ApJL. These results better define the conditions under which a planet having the orbit of 581g would actually be habitable. Since they are peer-reviewed results, and I stuck to what was actually in the paper, I figure these updates should be fairly uncontroversial. I also changed the vague discussion in the Temperature section suggesting a massive planet might have a more massive atmosphere, which misses the main point of the way silicate weathering and outgassing determine the CO2 content of a planet in this orbit.

The table of temperature, and the general discussion of temperature, need big improvements. My paper fills in the "Venus Greenhouse Effect" box, but I didn't want to just stick in that number since the temperature you get depends a lot on whether you assume the planet as Venus-like clouds. Further, in the thin-atmosphere case, representing the planet by a single mean temperature is misleading, as the substellar point actually gets hot enough to support liquid water even if the atmosphere is thin. Perhaps we should discuss what to do about the temperature section before proceeding. It requires too many structural changes for me to just go in and make a few minor tweaks.

Lorax2000 (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I applaud your interest & your work in the area, but I'm afraid you're in a COI for adding your own work on the page... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Just getting the ball rolling. I confined myself to a straightforward description of what the paper says. Now that y'all are aware of it, anybody can read the paper and modify the entry, or for that matter delete if it for some bizarre reason it would be deemed irrelevant to the subject. My judgment is that the COI in a case like this was pretty minimal, but I specifically identified myself as the author in these comments in case anybody felt that needed to be addressed. Lorax2000 (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to review it just yet, but as long as your edits are neutral and significant (in other words, not an obscure self-reference) you should be ok. In the future, however, try proposing any potential COI edits on the talk page before making them. This will help smooth out the process. Feel free to contact me with any questions. Viriditas (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. This was actually my first attempt at editing a Wikipedia page, and I hadn't even noticed the function of the Discussion section until I had already done the edits. The thing that really needs major surgery, though, is the section on Temperature, but most of what needs to be done there applies pretty much to any tide-locked planet, and the best way to proceed would be to figure on something uniform to do across the whole category, rather than just doing an ad-hoc revision here. The main problem is that the categories in the table don't give sufficient scope to deal with the variety of climate characteristics or atmospheric characteristics that it should. Lorax2000 (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Lorax2000, do you have a free-access PDF copy of your paper at [2]? Tom Ruen (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I am in the middle of doing some updates on my personal web site (linked via the author reference in the citation to the paper), specifically bringing the publications page up to date. I will put a free-access version there once I'm done with the updates, and link it in the references when available. Lorax2000 (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I just did the update of my personal web site and put a free-access version of the paper there. That should help in the discussion of the points I have raised. My site is linked to the author name in the citation of the ApJL paper, but I haven't yet edited the reference to provide a direct link to the free-access version. It is best if the default link point to the official publisher's site, since that is archival, so I'll need to figure out how to put in a separate link to the free-access version. The paper is right at the top of the publication list at http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/publist.html . Lorax2000 (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I didn't believe there was anything like ill intent; just wanted to advice "not the best idea". Caesar's wife, y'know. :) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Subsequent analysis of published data / 581d vs. 581g / Question

The way this article presents the subsequent analysis of the data (the Andrae et al., Gregory and Anglada-Escudé papers) makes it seem that this is a sequence of events which ends with the current situation being that the planet is thought to exist. This is not the case. Icalanise (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused when i'm reading this article. I still don't know whether or not we have found this planet. Do we know for sure this planet exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trongphu (talk • contribs) 04:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

HuffPo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/17/first-habitable-planet-2030_n_862785.html) says 581g was found not to actually exist, and describes 581d using similar terms... What gives? Alphachimera (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

See also (http://www.space.com/10897-alien-planet-gliese-581g-great-debate.html) Alphachimera (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Guess this is the final nail in the coffin: Extended HARPS data set does not find any signs of the planets f or g [3]. — JyriL ^talk 08:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That's right, this planet is imaginary and proven to be false by Jyril's link above. The extended HARPS radial velocities are much more sensitive than the combined Harps / Hires set. Plus there was an error in the original analysis.

Having this article on Wikipedia in its current condition is misleading since it contains a large amount of information that has been proven to be false.

However, as soon as I started to make corrections indicating this, someone undid the changes.

This entire article needs to be rewritten.Martin Cash (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

If the planet has been proven not to exist, then the article is about the research and trial and error, and should be kept, but rewritten. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW - and at the moment - I agree - might be best to keep the article - but updated to current cited findings - @ Martin Cash - my mistake - I wasn't aware of your thinking til now - restored main article to your original edit - hope that helps - in any case - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Brief followup - and if interested - updated the lede sentence (and related "discovery status" in the "Planetbox") w/ the following:

Gliese 581 g ... is an extrasolar planet (which may be "unlikely" to exist according to one recent study)< ref name="Forveille">Forveille, T. (2011-09-12). "The HARPS search for southern extra-solar planets XXXII. Only 4 planets in the Gl~581 system". arXiv:1109.2505v1 [astro-ph.EP]. {{cite arXiv}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)"...Our dataset therefore has strong diagnostic power for planets with the parameters of Gl 581f and Gl 581g, and we conclude that the Gl 581 system is unlikely to contain planets with those characteristics..."</ref>...

in any case - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Is the planet confirmed or not? Reading the literature is not, but appears as confirm on the article Quantanew (talk) 07:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that all the confirmation talk is coming from the "discovery" team then I would say the question is still up in the air. The paper claiming confirmation is actually a riposte to a paper by another team which showed no evidence of the planet. The planet won't really be confirmed until Vogt's peers accept his teams analysis or at least cannot robustly challenge them. Until then the planet is still not confirmed. As usual there are plenty of editors that have a complete lack of understanding of how science works and the ability to reason, which is why the Wikipedia articles at present are bastardised. ChiZeroOne (talk) 09:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You lied, ChiZeroOne, see in Talk:Gliese 581 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.121.210.102 (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Gliese 581. ChiZeroOne (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I changed the planet status to "Unconfirmed". In agreement with your assessment. Quantanew (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Artists Impression in Infobox. POV ?

The biggest issue with the artists impression is that it depicts seas and areas of land as being green. This makes the assumption not only that oceans must exits (this certainly cannot be assumed just by being in the habitable zone), but also of Earth based life as the only reason that the Earth appears partly green is due to the abundance of photosynthetic organisms with chlorophyll. Not only might it be less likely for such organisms to evolve around a red dwarf where the terminator gets much less direct and intense light, but it may not even have a green pigment. The infobox should not contain an artists impression as it is thoroughly misleading and really presents a strong POV of the habitability of this planet. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, an artist's impression of this object is far more likely to mislead than provide accurate information. However more to the point the current image is copyright violation as the the image is copyright, not PD-USGov-NASA as claimed. This was already discussed by myself on the talkpage and removed but it appears someone has re-uploaded it to wiki and added it here. Here's the commons deletion discussion where it was deleted first time round. ChiZeroOne (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Update needed

In a new paper, Vogt has revised g's minimum mass downward to 2.2 M_E. I think the article should be updated to reflect this. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

While another paper claims that "the recently announced putative planets f and g are likely just illusions of the red noise", putting even d's existence in doubt. No consensus in sight... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is these "detections" are right at the limit of what is possible to pull out of the data, increased datasets can only help to a point, that slight changes in assumptions radically alter the interpretation. We'll likely have to wait for technological developments, e.g. a permanent laser comb spectrograph on HARPS, before the issue is resolved. Until then we can only report the to and fro. ChiZeroOne (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Zarmina

glise 581g is also called Zarmina [4] [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrykjancesarz (talk • contribs) 19:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Similarity to Bryyo from Metroid Prime 3?

This article mentions the planet is tidal locked and one side is forever day the other night, it later says the day side would be a scorching desert and the other icy cold, this is very similar to Bryyo from Metroid!--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 13:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Is it dead yet?

Another nail in the Gliese 581 g coffin... [6] 46.126.77.137 (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Article needs updating now. --Artman40 (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Radius?

The planet's radius is listed in the infobox as 0.29 R☉, with R☉ linking the to the page Solar radius. This defines a solar radius to be 695,500 kilometres! How does this reconcile with the text which states that the planet is not much bigger then Earth? I assume I'm missing something. 212.9.31.12 (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

That's under Parent star. — Reatlas (talk) 11:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hah! What a maroon (I am). 212.9.31.12 (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Self-Contridictions

I've noticed that this article keeps contradicting itself. Says one thing, than says the opposite about something.

Example: First it says it's -37 C, then later on in the article it says Gliese 581g has an average of -64 C !

Can someone help me out here? -Zoower

It's not a contradiction, you are just taking the values out of context. For a start nowhere does it say Gliese 581 g has a temperature of exactly -37 °C or -64 °C, it gives ranges of estimated temperatures. But the main point is that these values relate to different models of temperature. I've highlighted the crucial points in bold;

"It is estimated that the average global equilibrium temperature (the temperature in the absence of atmospheric effects) of Gliese 581 g ranges from 209 to 228 K (−64 to −45 °C, or −84 to −49 °F) for Bond albedos (reflectivities) from 0.5 to 0.3 (with the latter being more characteristic of the inner Solar System)."

Then;

"Adding an Earth-like greenhouse effect yields an average surface temperature in the range of 236 to 261 K (−37 to −12 °C, or −35 to 10 °F)."

So if it was assumed Gliese 581 g had no atmosphere (because this is a simple calculation that relies on the fewest unknowns) then the average temperature would be −64 to −45 °C. However that is unrealistic as given its mass range it probably retains at least a modest atmosphere, so the second range represents a more realistic estimate. Hope that helps. ChiZeroOne (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no proof of any Extraterrestrial planets at all

They could be all just a "cosmic masquerade" - a magnetic outbursts from the local star. Our Solar system could be alone in the whole universe with planets.

Not true. There are at least 12 confirmed planets that have been directly imaged.[7] and probably more at this point since that link is from 2012. Viriditas (talk) 07:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gliese 581 g/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Spinningspark (talk · contribs) 19:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

You may reply to each item individually with an indented comment if you wish, but please do not strike items, or add tick marks or other graphic symbols.

infobox second opinion needed

• I don't like the link in the image caption going to the image description of Commons. A Wikipedia article should stand on its own, especially the referencing. It wouldn't be so bad if the link was to another Wikipedia article, but Commons does not forbid WP:OR. This information should be in the body of the article (with the image repeated if necessary, but see below) along with its references.
• I'm not convinced this is the best image for the lead because so much explanation is required to understand it. It would be better off in the article body, if it didn't have another problem:-

  What should we us as lead image instead? —MartinZ02 (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The least problematic would be the image of the observatory. I like the artist's impression better, at least it is directly an image of the planet, but I'm not sure that artist's impressions should be used in the lead. I've asked that question at the astronomy wikiproject. The comparison of the planetary orbits is a possibility, but I have questions over accuracy on that image as well. SpinningSpark 17:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• The image description and filename (edit: in the "modeled compositions" link) claim that it is Gleise 581 e, not Gleise 581 g.
• The second ref of the image description on the Commons page does not go anywhere with information on Gleise 581 g as far as I can tell.
• The diameter is given as one very definite figure, which stands in stark contradiction to the image which implies a large range of possible diameters depending on composition.

I've corrected the link, which should make things clearer. Where are you finding a "definite future" for the planet's radius? This would surprise me since the detection method does not measure radius (and the planet probably doesn't exist anyway). — Aldaron • T/C 13:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, but it doesn't solve the problems of using this image as the lead image. Some explanation is needed to understand it making it more suitable for the body of the article, and the references need pulling into this article. There is also still the same problem with the Open Exoplanet Catalogue source on the new link target. The radius I am referring to is in the infobox field, given as 0.29 earth. SpinningSpark 14:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

A bit of work to understand is what an encyclopedia is about. That problem is not solved with a pretty photo of an observatory. And in any case, the essence of what the image is conveying is easily understood: the planet is somewhere in size between Earth and Neptune. The links are merely provided (in fact they were requested in an earlier review of all planet boxes) for those who wish too delve deeper. That radius is for the star the planet orbits, not the planet! — Aldaron • T/C 14:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't pass an article for GA that is conveying information through an image that is not explained in the text, does not have references in-article, and the refs, in any case, have verification problems. My mistake on the radius field, I've ticked that one off. I am also concerned that the image may be the result of synthesis between the two sources, and not be a true representation of what the sources are saying, but until I see what the original information, I can't be sure. SpinningSpark 16:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow the logic. The article should clearly convey the information summarized in the figure. It's pretty basic stuff, and is basically all we can really say about this possible planet: the rough mass we have from the — now questionable — RV observations, and the correspondence between that estimate and possible radii based on possible compositions. If the article isn't doing that, then it's hardly a good article. It seems like this article is being edited by people with very little understanding of the subject, with predicable results. — Aldaron • T/C 16:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

He's complaining about the fact that the image looks like the result of original research (WP:SYNTH in particluar). —MartinZ02 (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

(after ec) Criticising other editors is not very helpful. This is a matter of verifiability, not of understanding the technicalities of the subject. Claiming the information is "basic" actually makes the situation worse, since basic information should be more easily sourced. The size of the planet is not discussed in the text. No reference is made to this image. No sources are referenced in this article. Of the two sources in the image description, one has no useful information, at least not at the linked url. The other does not discuss Gliese 581 anywhere. There is thus nothing in the sources that indicate that any of these possible compositions might apply to Gliese 581 g. It is WP:SYNTH to take a source discussing generalities and apply it to a specific case making assumptions on composition that are not found in any source. This is especially not good in the article lead. I think it is especially worrying to talk about a possible H/He envelope (as the image description does) for such a small body without a source saying this is actually a possibility for this planet. Frankly, if the referencing can't be improved, I don't think the image should be anywhere in the article, let alone the lead, and it certainly can't be passed for GA. SpinningSpark 17:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if that's how the policy is intended to be applied. That's like asking for an additional reference when a radius is reported as a diameter or a cited Fahrenheit temperature is reported in here Kelvin; or worse (as here) forbidding such conversions as OR or SYNTH. In this case the planet has some radius (I assume citing a reference to support that is not required, nor is asserting it forbidden) but it is entirely unknown. Nonetheless there are standard ways of estimating the radius. One is cited, and while the field has advanced a bit since it was published, the difference would be unnoticeable in the figure, which thus, simply represents the observed mass (such as it is) covered to a range of possible radii. Pretty standard stuff. — Aldaron • T/C 20:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I might accept a routine calculation argument if you could quote RS saying the planet might have one of these phyiscal compositions. But you haven't, and if RS are not discussing any such thing, then Wikipedia should not be speculating. We could just as easily be calculating what the surface temperature would be under various conditions, or possible atmospheres, or inclination of the poles. But we should not, if RS do not go there first. SpinningSpark 22:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Since these are pretty standard ranges of planetary compositions, none of which there are any good reasons to rule out, you might better argue for references supporting your assertion that any of these phyiscal compositions should not be entertained. — Aldaron • T/C 23:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to ask a for another reviewer to give a second opinion on this. SpinningSpark 20:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Lead

• red dwarf Gliese 581 is two contiguous links. This is deprecated because it seems like only one link to a reader and they may not realise they need to follow to two places. In this case it is easily fixed by inserting a word like "... red dwarf star Gliese 581."

  Done. —MartinZ02 (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• ESO should be linked on first mention. HARPS has been llinked twice

  Done. —MartinZ02 (talk) 08:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• "... both data sets (the HIRES and the HARPS) were needed to sense the planet." The phrasing implies that both these terms have already been introduced, but this is the first mention of HIRES and there has been no previous mention of data sets. A better construction is "…data sets from both HIRES and HARPS were needed to sense the planet..."
• As a general point, the full name of abbreviations should be given on first use. While they are given in the article body, they have not been given in the lead. Remember, the lead should stand on its own as a mini-article, and still make sense even if that is all that is read. It is best to avoid using abbreviations and jargon in the lead altogether whenever this is at all possible.

You now have some repeated links. In cases where the abbreviation is going to be used later in the article, you should also give the abbreviation in brackets after the first mention in full. SpinningSpark 17:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. —MartinZ02 (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• "another study later supported the planet's existence" and "a reanalysis by Vogt supported its existence". Are those two different studies or the same one? It isn't clear.

  Those are different studies. —MartinZ02 (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

So can you please make that clear - perhaps by naming the lead investigator in each case, or the institution involved. SpinningSpark 17:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. —MartinZ02 (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

...more to come. SpinningSpark 23:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Martin, I asked you explicitly at the beginning not to use tick marks. I'd prefer you not to bold your responses either. You should leave it to me as the reviewer to mark items as complete. I do not intend to proceed with reviewing the rest of the article until you have addressed the more substantive issues. I am expecting that to involve some substantial changes to the article body, so I am leaving a full review until the article stabilises. SpinningSpark 13:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

OK —MartinZ02 (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

As I said, it's ok to write that you have done the item with an indented comment. SpinningSpark 16:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Now that you have redlinked Guillem Anglada‐Escudé you will need to mention him in the article body. Either that, or a reference will be needed in the lead (but article body and reference there is preferable).

  He's already mentioned in the third paragraph of "Further analyses of HIRES/HARPS data". —MartinZ02 (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh right, I missed that, my search didn't work because you omitted the accent on the "e". As you have linked the name in the lead, I suggest that you repeat the link in the body per WP:REPEATLINK. SpinningSpark 16:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Done, I also added the accent on the e. —MartinZ02 (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I feel I now have to fail this article. The issue over the verifiability of the "diameters" image used in the lead is a showstopper for me. I have held the review open for a long time in the hope that it will be resolved, either by removal, or provision of suitable sources, but we seem to have reached an impasse with no prospect of a solution.

For the benefit of any future reviewer, I have only reviewed the lead of this article. I have looked at the body of the article only so far as to confirm that there is no information or sources there concerning the diameter of the planet. I have also not confirmed that the lead is a true summary of the article body. Addressing my review comments should not, therefore, be taken as sufficient for this article to pass. SpinningSpark 10:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.