Talk:List of exoplanets discovered by the Kepler space telescope

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy: Astronomical objects Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

Kepler-64

Kepler-64b is both a planet orbiting one star in a multi-star system and a community planet (PH1). How should we denote it, and any future planets like it? (On a somewhat-related note, the article on that planet has numerous inaccuracies which need to be corrected.) Wer900 • talk 18:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, PH1 is a circumbinary; it orbits two stars. ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wer900 • talk 20:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So...these 715 new planets

It is going to be really hard to add these into the list manually. Should a bot be made for this occasion? --Artman40 (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but the article might surpass the upper size limit if they are all added. Unless you reduce the data for each individual planet, e.g. remove the superfluous "Star" column, and maybe most of the other stellar data... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Constellation and star can be removed imo. Apparent magnitude could also. Nergaal (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; could someone write a bot to remove these categories? I wouldn't mind removing distance either; none of the stars listed is remotely close to the Sun. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove distances. I care less about spectral type or inclination than distance. Nergaal (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that inclination could (should, IMO) also be removed, it has no intrinsical or practical relevance (as long as there's a transit at all). But spectral type is relevant for potential habitability (especially since we don't list Kepler's surface temperature estimates, unfortunately) and also for tidal locking probability, and finding habitable-zone (Earth-like) planets was the main motivation for doing this mission. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I was looking at the talk page for list of multiplanetary systems, why not just list down planetary systems & when even that list is too long, we can split it up like the list of minor planets? 202.185.32.3 (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because what's interesting is the planets, not so much the stellar properties (which is all that could be listed for systems in such a table, except for the number of planets). There's no need to duplicate part of that list, either. And splitting up would remove the ability to compare all planets easily by sorting the table, so it should be avoided if at all possible. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We should maintain everything in one article to the extent possible; however, properties intrinsic to the star (spectral type, surface temperature, et cetera) that are relevant to habitability should remain. A bot needs to be made for the occasion, as well as to encompass other stars that may later be discovered. Wer900 • talk 20:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been able to remove the Inclination, Star and Constellation columns without a bot using wikEd. (For future reference, I used the regular expression search string [0-9.?<> ]*\s\| \[\[Kepler-[0-9] ]] \|\| [A-Za-z ()\|\u005B\u005D] ). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure leaving the star column is wise while the apparent magnitude and spectral type is still. Nergaal (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean; I did remove the star column. Or do you mean I should have left the Star column? It's completely redundant IMO; but probably it should be clarified that magnitude and spectral type refer to the parent star, not the planet. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. How about a round 2? I think surface gravity while neat is on the TMI side. And can one of you guys explain to me in laymen terms, what is the spectral type supposed to accomplish? Nergaal (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try: Together with the semimajor axis of the planet, the spectral type gives a rough estimate of whether the planet lies in the habitable zone (HZ): e.g. an M-star's habitable zone lies closer to the star than a G-star's (like our Sun) does, while an F-star's HZ lies even further out. (Though in this regard, estimated surface temperature would be a better datum to have.) Also, the HZ of smaller stars (like M-dwarfs) lies so close to the star that planets in the HZ become tidally locked, always showing the same side to their star, thus making them quite different from Earth (or other rotating planets) even if they should have the same temperature. OTOH, for F-stars and hotter, no planet stays in the HZ for several billion years due to the star's shorter life, making long-term biological evolution impossible. (What's TMI? "Too much information"? I tend to agree that surface gravity is not needed...) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re:table

Wow, I couldn't even undo the massive edit. Either put that in a subpage, or please trim the completely useless info from that table. I am assuming you are using excel, and you can easily delete unnecessary columns from there. Nergaal (talk) 09:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I apologize for the excessively long table. I will trim the unnecessary portions and include only that which is valuable to us. Wer900 • talk 17:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There should be totals at the bottom of the table (and maybe in a paragraph immediately above it too)

The number of confirmed planets is so large that there is no counting them by eye. The totals may already be buried somewhere in the article, but the point of a table is to provide easy, quick and direct access to the data (rather than having to read through several paragraphs to find it).

Even if not added to the table, important totals should be immediately adjacent to it, for easy access.

Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 09:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic totals?

Can Wikipedia tables have math functions added to them, like an Excel spreadsheet? I think they can, but am not 100% sure. Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 09:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nasa announcement

I updated the confirmed total. I'm not familiar with the format of the refs in this article. My source is http://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/kepler/briefingmaterials160510 --Adam in MO Talk 17:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me, I was about to say this xD --MarioProtIV (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K2 planets

Since that is a shorter list, I think a separate list can be created for it. Nergaal (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on List of exoplanets discovered using the Kepler spacecraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on List of exoplanets discovered using the Kepler spacecraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of exoplanets discovered using the Kepler spacecraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120505092411/http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=Kepler-34(AB) to http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=Kepler-34(AB)

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler-503b

Looks like it may not be a planet. Need to wait for this to get through peer review mind:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.08820

Wolf 503b

Another one by Keppler mission has been confirmed: Wolf 503b, an exoplanet twice the size of Earth, but very close to its star. [1]. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Properties of nearest star

Since this is a list of planets and not stars, we shouldn't be detailing the properties of stars here. At most we should just name the star that each planet is nearest to. The table is simply far too large to encompass all this information, especially if blank cells are filled. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW - I'm flexible with this proposed edit at the moment - but think such a substantial edit should first be presented for discussion with other editors who may wish to comment whether the edit should (or should not) be performed - seems the edit would benefit from some agreement (one way or another) from other editors - Comments Welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome discussion but there is generally little interest in this article overall. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChiZeroOne, Cliffswallow-vaulting, MarioProtIV, Nergaal, Roentgenium111, Rowan Forest, and Wer900: Perhaps a few relevant pings may bring some comments re the proposed edit - hope this helps - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, Onetwothreeip is right. This is a list of exoplanets. Adding their host starts makes the list harder to update and maintain. In my biased mind (as in many astrobiologists) only the potentially habitable planets are notable, and showing the basic properties of their host star may be useful. However, I doubt astrobiologists use Wikipedia to narrow their search. I am OK either way. Rowan Forest (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely always want to know the classification of the star around any planet - I don't care what orbits an M dwarf, but I'm always interested in anything orbitting a F, G, or K, right down to its full label, ie K1V, G2V, etc. I consider the list pretty much useless without this information. 2001:56A:F0E9:9B00:5872:AC15:B923:F23B (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Just SomeWikiReader[reply]

Don't Edit the List

A quick request -- I am a researcher using your list to quickly narrow down my search for exponents within my search criteria please do not truncate the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.70.120.30 (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too long

The article is so long, it is very hard for me to edit it. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3 or 4 more who's status as a planet is questioned

https://news.mit.edu/2022/planet-star-classification-0315

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/ac4f64

 Did you mean "whose"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F0E9:9B00:5872:AC15:B923:F23B (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Split

Due to extreme length, I have split all the entries by star number, in blocks of 500. The sublists are still rather large, but they should be easier to load and edit. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]