Talk:List of largest exoplanets/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Criteria for adding planets in the <1.7 R_J list

Some obscure or non-notable planets are being added in the list of planets smaller than 1.7 R_J. The overwhelimg reason is because some estimates would make these planets larger than 1.7 R_J. I personally think these planets just take up space on the list. This list should be short and include only noteworthy discoveries, so i am proposing three criteria for inclusion in the list:

1. The planet is larger than Jupiter.
2. The planet currently occuipes a superlative in exoplanetary discoveries (e.g. hottest albedo, longest orbit, oldest) that is mentioned in the list of exoplanet extremes
3. The planet occupies a milestone in exoplanetary discoveries (e.g. first discovered Hot Jupiter, first directly imaged exoplanet) that is mentioned in the list of exoplanet firsts.

I think that these criteria are sufficient for maintaing this list clean and discriminate, but an additional criterion might be added. For the planets that *might* be larger than this threshold and are shoehorned in the 1.7 R_J list (e.g. PDS 70c), we will need to take drastic actions: Either remove them or sort them by the highest given radius. 21 Andromedae (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

There may be some few (no more than four) exceptions to these criteria (e.g. Kepler-90h and Beta Pictoris b). 21 Andromedae (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate someone takes care the examples of the list are not getting out of hand. I assume you mean objects have to fulfill criteria 1+2 or 1+3. If four exceptions are thought of, I would recommend Kepler-90h, CoRot-3b, PDS 70 c and Beta Pictoris b. PDS 70 does not deserve drastic actions, as the object is in a recent direct imaging review among the 5 most well-known directly imaged systems (like Beta Pictoris, too). Stevinger (talk) 08:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I would reccomend PSO J138.5-22, Kepler-90h, Beta Pic b, Kappa Andromedae b and CoroT-3b. Five exceptions. 21 Andromedae (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@21.Andromedae @Stevinger i would propose adding one more criteria to the list which is the mid/high important planet that catches the scientist n astronaut attention and/or maybe reference to the Solar System lore or something. we can keep two of them to keep the list as short as possible. rn we have Kepler-90 h and HD 106906 b and we can keep them as mid/high important planets Foxy Husky (talk) 08:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

If this criterion not result in the indiscriminate addition of elements it could be applied. 21 Andromedae (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

ok Foxy Husky (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

That is fine for me. 21.Andromedae and I had both a short list of objects to keep in addition (right above), so it seems only fair if Foxy Husky can keep up to five exceptions, too. If I counted right, you still have one left. Choose the last one wisely :). Stevinger (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

eh? wuts the other 2 planets beside Kepler-90 h and HD 106906 b? Foxy Husky (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

that is difficult to count. 21.Andromedae wanted PSO J318 and Kappa Andromedae, I wanted PDS 70 c, all of them are gone for different reasons. If I counted right you wanted two more, that were already removed, too. (Kepler-90 all of us wanted, so easy, CoRot-3 and Beta Pic two of us wanted so also easy). I my view you could also have 3 more, I don't mind :), but you might have to convince 21.Andromedae in case that demands a recount. Stevinger (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't want any object in this list anymore. Add those that you or Foxy Husky find necessary, using the criteria above. Actually, i just need to clean up the notes and make the content of this list on-topic rather than off-topic, improve navigation and prevent the indiscriminate addition of non-large planets. Make the content of the list on-topic was one of the questions raised in the first multiple issues discussion, and this is true, the topic is the largest exoplanets and the most of the content need to be related to the largest exoplanets. There is a tolerance level to things like images and brief explanation of some planets, but walls of text on every single planet, or noting every single (generally too specific) characteristic on every planet is in no way useful. It can be actually bad for readers, introducing navigation issues that are highly significant in mobile screens. Also, nobody searching for this list (which is a gateway for non-experts) will read such long notes about unrelated things (like the (now removed) notes for SR 12 c). Most of these notes were unattribuited copies of content from the planet article, but fortunately simplified in further edits. 21 Andromedae (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Some good points. I am not trying to prevent a shortening of the notes. But it should not be mixed up with other issues (the newest topic in this talk page) and milestone information should not be deleted for notable objects, as it happened last time. (The milestone information was also mentioned in the multiple issues discussion original message). Stevinger (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Just keep a limit of objects in the list below 1.7 R_J (like 15 which should be enough), which already would avoid this happening. 21 Andromedae (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

actually u misunderstand me... :) now PDS 70 c got new radius and that leaves 3 more exceptions according to ur view(?) i only need two planets that meet the criteria of mid/high importance (that is HD 106906 b and Kepler-90 h) and thats it (we can keep the list as short as possible for those with radius of < 1.7 Rj) Foxy Husky (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I couldn't know before, that PDS 70 c secretly enters the list again :) (only HD 106906 b and Kepler-90 h makes the situation of course easier :) ). Stevinger (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Recent changes

I suggest removing all the (reported for reference) notes as redundant, removing the old mass for J0523-1403 to use the newer source, just because the old mass is based on evolutionary models for an age of 0.5 to 10 Gyr, thus could be very unconstrained, much more than the error bars. HD 206893 b and KELT-1b could be removed since there is not a most massive exoplanet, the border between a planet and a brown dwarf is still not well defined. AB Aurigae b's notes were transferred to the article itself. 21 Andromedae (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Other changes, shortening notes and giving only brief information, this is a list of largest exoplanets and most content need to be on-topic, also due to navigation issues as previously mentioned in other topics and restoring the image of WASP-12b to the last version (low-albedo hot Jupiters aren't actually dark, their blackbody colors and strong irradiation would make them very bright). 21 Andromedae (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree, that some notes can be shortened. But it was not correct, as clearly too much was cut. My example I saw was HR 8799. That the system was the first imaged multiplanet system should be there (it is a 'first' in the list of exoplanet firsts). You could change the order that the interferometry is mentioned first, but few things should stay. Cutting too much is also creating work to readd it later. Also it was mixed up with the issue of J0523-1403 without much explanation and I wasn't willing to sort that out several times in a row. You are right about WASP-12b as far as I understand. Stevinger (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Stevinger: @Foxy Husky: don't edit the page before consensus is reached, to not cause an edit war. 21 Andromedae (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

please don't demand waiting of others if you are not willing to do it. Stevinger (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Excuse me 21.Andromedae, but pushing too hard is usually not helpful to get a good solution (this is why I demanded a bit of time to react). Stevinger (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Important to note that this edit only reverted the content of the previous one because of an edit conflict, when an editor publish an edit while another is still making an edit, so i had to overwrite my edit over your previous edits, as i started editing when this edit was the current one and i could not revert it back since i would need to make all the notes cleanup again. 21 Andromedae (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

KELT-1b may not the most massive planet but because the ref about HD 206893 b is still proposed and may change dramatically, KELT-1b is confirmed heaviest planet according to the ref given and can be updated in the future when HD 206893 b's mass is confirmed. Foxy Husky (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

That was a misunderstanding. The mass is to my best knowledge for both HD 206893 b and Kelt-1 b known well. For HD 206893 we just would need another reference for its likely planetary nature than a JWST proposal for observing time, since the abstract is probably only checked for things against the terms of service of the JWST web page, if at all. This proposal is not necessarily accepted or checked. Stevinger (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I am in favor of the '(reported for reference)' for reference sources in the last column, it is helpful. I suggest Foxy Husky decides. Whatever the outcome is, keeping it or removing it I am onboard this third party decision. - For the J0523-1403 I would like to ask you to check the Dieterich reference shortly, that was twice removed. The real mass is likely inbetween the two values and is not the most important (but either both values or none to be mentioned). The Dieterich reference shows it is a star despite its low temperature based on differences with the brown dwarfs (Fig. 4). Discussing about the mass values does not help. Btw didn't Carmenes also use photometry and evolutionary models? - For HD 206893 b and Kelt-1b, do as you please, none, one or both, ... - For AB Aurigae, as contender of the very largest I would like to keep it as it is now, well at least until it is clear that the transferred parts are kept in the AB Aurigae article and not removed right away. Stevinger (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

well.... for the '(reported for reference)', i think we can safely remove it since we alr hv key classification above the list. for the reference sources in the last column, i think its helpful as we can use the reference for the planet existence and stuffs (idk) without hving to click individual reference
Edited: i removed "reported for reference", now we hv one last step: add reference sources in the last column but the problem is how? Foxy Husky (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

ok, perfect. So both of you think the '(reported for reference)' are redundant. I thought they might make it easier to identify without scrolling, but we allow that for all other identifications, too, ... Unfortunately, I am not sure if I misunderstand the second part or you misunderstood. I meant these (reported for reference) marks in the last column of only the reference sources like Jupiter. Do you suggest to add any reference sources? Or references for planet existences? I am not sure. Stevinger (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@21.Andromedae @Stevinger wait hold on.... i just realise that those with colourbind have difficultly differentiate the non-exoplanets with exoplanets as they may mistake non-exoplanets as actual exoplanets. so yall ok with adding back "(reported for reference)"? Foxy Husky (talk) 03:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

That was a reason why I regarded it helpful. Of course, anybody could check the key column showing a '#' and the key above the table tells these objects are reported for reference, making any additional text redundant. So please decide whether redundant or helpful for colourblind, ... Stevinger (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

ya but the problem is... some people dont wanna scroll up too much and then scroll down back to where they last come from Foxy Husky (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

In principle the mass of the object would tell you too, what type of object it is. But I find the '(reported for reference)' helpful, too. But you will have to convince 21.Andromedae who removed it originally, if I saw it right. Stevinger (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Stevinger @Foxy Husky I still suggest removing them, they are pretty redundant and of little value. The color and the key already make this function. They are useless to the average reader, would be a bit helpful only for some lazy and colorblind pepople. As said before I think avoiding redundancy is essential, at removing overload of details. Anyone should read the notes 21 Andromedae (talk) 12:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, i removed these notes without being aware of the discussion, but unfortunately can't revert it back. 21 Andromedae (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

If a person is too lazy to scroll up and then search with Ctrl+F for the name of the object that was looking for before, the problem is with the person, not the list. 21 Andromedae (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@21.Andromedae i see ur point but i doubt most people actually know about Easter Keyboard Shortcut

even i myself dunno it exists until just now

so its probably better to add "(Reported for reference)" (if u dont mind.....) Foxy Husky (talk) 12:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Since i don't have any new arguments to debate and repeating the old ones won't change consensus, these notes will be kept, at least from now. They are still problematic and absolutely unecessary for 99% readers anyway, worse, they clutter the page. 21 Andromedae (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Removed both planets (HD 206893 b and KELT-1b) per the reasons above, 2MASS J0523-1403 now use both mass estimates, but is no longer claimed as the least massive star (due to the divergence of measurements), the notes of AB Aur b were transferred to the article itself. 21 Andromedae (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The least massive is not based on the mass values. Please see the Dieterich reference. Well, the AB Aurigae b notes were the only ones I asked to be kept (in addition to milestone notes) in the message you answered to. Stevinger (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

2MASS J0523-1403 was once believed to be the lightest hydrogen-burning star known, as its radius was found to be extremely small, similar to Jupiter's, but follow-up catalogs retrieved larger radii and masses than previously thought, with the most recent CARMENES giving a mass nearly 30% higher than the hydrogen burning limit, which is based on a larger radius of 1.1 R_J and mass-radius relationships. Multiple stars, like VZ Piscium B, vB 10 or DENIS J1048-3956 are even less massive. Also see the Table 6 in I would like to know why you think the notes of AB Aurigae b should be kept. 21 Andromedae (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Mainly because people often come here to find the largest one. If there is one right above it with a '?' one should be informed right away why it is unclear and not need to search within the AB Aurigae b page. The largest current contenders should not be limited in notes space regarding age, size, mass and existence issues, if needed. Of course the history of the system or the color of the star, ... unrelated issues should not be included. Stevinger (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The long note for AB Aurigae b is still problematic from a navigation point of view. I would suggest as an intermediate solution, just adding some text like this: "The mass of AB Aurigae b remain poorly constrained, spanning over the planet and brown dwarf mass regimes, see its page for more information." like what was done for Kappa Andromedae b. 21 Andromedae (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

what do you mean by navigation pov? For the moment the text on the AB Aurigae b page anyway contains not all the information from here. Stevinger (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Difficuly in navigation, navigate throughout entries, and the page AB Aurigae b does contain all the information here, just splitted in their respective sections. 21 Andromedae (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I see your point. I tried it on another device. As there are other notes, almost as long, as AB Aurigae b might be the largest, but there are multiple issues with mass, age, formation delay, ... , and as the order of the information is changed on the AB Aurigae b page and a bit of it is missing, I still see this differently. Stevinger (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Just shortened the section. Less is more, the new text preserves 90% of the information but is more concise, and that is what matters. 21 Andromedae (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

You just changed the section and wrote 'I've already discussed this and I don't want to waste time discussing it again. The consensus was apparently to keep the information, but shortenen the notes, which i already did.' This is not how finding a consensus works after the other person wrote 'I still see this differently' (right above). You barely considered any of the arguments raised, instead tell me your version is more concise. At least you now admit that not all of the information is preserved. Still you insist your version is the only valid, until you take it back yourself ... 'I don't even know if it's worth reverting as a new version of this list, which destroys this one in quality, is coming, and may replace it someday.' It might. If it is better and has less inconsistencies. Stevinger (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I read your response and considered your argument. I think it's important to keep these notes based on the reasons above, but rewriting them won't take away any important information. On the contrary, I'm getting straight to the point by starting the sentence with "Either a planet or a brown dwarf", while it started with "Assuming [...]". 21 Andromedae (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

It takes away some important information. I still don't get it. I write the new page transfer to the AB Aurigae b page is not the same as the information here (in order and completeness) and that I see it differently and you decide to change it to a version here being very close to the version of the AB Aurigae b page, saying only 10% are missing and conclude that it was a consensus to do that? Well, ... no! You claim to have discussed it, but did not respond to what I wrote days before you changed it again. Also planet or brown dwarf is not the full point. Assume is correct as it refers to the reference given. Stevinger (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I just say three things:

• This discussion was to remove the list entirely, not to propose modifications. Therefore, it is valid to change the notes without asking for consensus.
• What is the missing information? The point is the classification of AB Aurigae b as a planet or brown dwarf. All the important information is present, only some minor details have been ignored.
• I didn't respond, but I read your response and assumed the consensus is to keep the notes based on the reasons you gave.

21 Andromedae (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

just update the compromised version of Ab Aur b note.... i hope you two reach an agreement of the compromised version i updated (i dont wanna be part of the AB Aur b Note drama) Foxy Husky (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

thank you for your contribution. Unfortunately some information was not correct (regarding the evolution models explained in the edit summary). Stevinger (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The last you wrote was that it is too long for navigation. In the beginning you removed the recent text completely after the transfer and after I wrote I want to keep it. This is not finding a compromise or consensus.

I try again with a shorter version. I also removed the SED mass of 9 MJup as it was done before Zhou showed that the optical/UV part is stellar reflected light. I suggest to keep it removed as it is not consistent with the new analysis. Stevinger (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

We could remove the last paragraph about the non-existence, since it is not an immediate issue at the moment (possibly only until the other groups answer). Would improve the navigation. But just a sentence is under the points raised right above not adequate. Stevinger (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Regarding 2MASS J0523-1403: The luminosity is within errors still consistent with the one in Dieterich. They argue the object is at the end of the main-sequence. You still argue based on the mass from Carmenes alone, that the other three are lower in mass. If you can explain why 2MASS J0523-1403 is lower in temperature and should still be higher in mass than the other three (end of sequence) that would help. The masses have errors. If you have one < 70 MJup and one > 100 MJup the real mass is likely inbetween. Still the object is closer to the end of the sequence. Stevinger (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

See Table 6 of the page. The radius and mass start to increase for L0 and beyond, while temperature decreases. 21 Andromedae (talk) 11:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. In your previous comment (above) it was cut which Table 6 you meant. I am still sceptical as their Figure 25 (lower left part of it) shows that in the lowest mass region their values are up to a factor of 2 higher than in the literature. And Dieterich showed that brown dwarfs can be hotter than the lowest-mass stars, but time will tell which one is the lightest. I changed the notes back to the most recent version you suggested. Stevinger (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Artistical illustrationon two objects

Its make more sense to use artist's impressions on Beta Pictoris b as the direct images are poor in quality, while the illustration remains scientifically accurate and illustrate details in high precision. 21 Andromedae (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It makes more sense to keep a direct image for one of the first three systems with directly imaged planets Beta Pictoris. Please give few of the details that make the artist's impression WAY more informative, as stated. The previous image, which we had for weeks was a compromise. I now changed back to a direct image with even more information. I am not sure what poor in quality means. The composition? Because the image itself is from one of the world leading telescopes of a rather closely separated directly imaged exoplanet. Yes, newer images are available, but it is a well known image, one of the first ones ever. What is expected? You were right about only using the higher quality TESS result of XO-6 b, please explain this, too. Stevinger (talk) 05:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Using the artist's impression makes more sense given it beats the direct images in quality and because the article Beta Pictoris b already uses a direct image, hence avoiding duplication. Expect this image which is alrerady used at Beta Pictoris b and also doesn't show the planet in parts of the gif, there is this other image, very poor in quality, might be confusing for readers and only show the planet (and the labels) if the image is zoomed out. It could be interesting in another context, but is very bad for this list. While this, the artist's impression illustrate the planet, disk and star in high detail, good for showing readers "what Beta Pictoris b is". If we compare direct image versus illustration the illustration wins, has multiple vantages and no disvantages. In short, it is more detailed and doesn't duplicate the image already in the planet's article. 21 Andromedae (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. There are two main disadvantages of this artist's impression. While very good, it misses that in the meantime Beta Pictoris b was identified to be potentially the reason for the secondary warped disk of the system, which would likely be visible with a clear view on the inner disk, so there are at least doubts about its (current) scientific accurateness. However, this other image being possibly confusing and not very readable zoomed out is a good argument. I am still puzzled though you regard it as being of 'very poor in quality'. There is another illustration suggested, that does not have the disk problem. Both are, however, illustrations. The previous compromise image, which we had for weeks, shows the planet, the disk, the orientation towards disk and Earth, ... Stevinger (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The last image still need to be zoomed out for the planet to be seen. I also note that all directly imaged planets except HR 8799 use their direct images, there should be some diversity here. The images here are used to inform readers about the planet, how they are, and the best image to do it show the planet's envoirment and host star's color, hence being pretty useful for readers. While it doesn't show some minor details, i think this can be safely ignored, as no reader will take such complex conclusions about the disk using only this image, and the misaligment of the disks is just 3 to 4 degrees according to Beta Pictoris b itself, not that significant. The previously used image was far worse, as well as using false colors, it looked like a relativistic jet, all "details", including the planet, could only be read if the image was zoomed out. 21 Andromedae (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, 8 1/2 of 21 objects have a direct image, and surprisingly these are all directly imaged planets. There is a lot of diversity if you take the full sample. Your best image is still making assumptions on the amount of disk surrounding the immediate area of Beta Pic b. Also I was not talking about the misalignment of Beta Pic b towards the disk. The disk itself has a secondary warped disk that is not part of the artist's illustration. Compare yourself. Not an up to date image, bad quality, but still you hopefully see what I mean. Let's agree all the images you just mentioned might have imperfections and stick to the compromise image suggested and originally used. Stevinger (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Making assumptions on the amount of disk is a pretty minor aspect, remember this image was made by professional astronomers that know what are they doing. I would trust illustrations made by reliable sources. I checked the disk misplacment and it is still not that significant, if beta Pictoris b is within the red stripe of the linked image the misplacement would still be not visible. 21 Andromedae (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, technically the artist's impression you regard the best was made by a data and science visualization artist and music producer (an expert, too). However, the 'The previously used image was far worse' that you regard worse and the one I suggested as compromise were both created by a professional astronomer (who discovered Beta Pictoris b). All three of them were published by ESO. The latter two give the opportunity to show readers what is/was doable at the time of the discovery of the planet, both regarding a real image of the disk and the planet. Stevinger (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• UPDATE: I now accept the direct image can stay as the principal image, hence discussion ended. 21 Andromedae (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Exoplanets with known mass of >1 MJ but unknown radius - Unconfirmed exoplanets

While not wrong to add them, I wanted to ask whether it is useful? The reason is,that some of the objects are a similar case to the commented out Gliese 876b. If the planet candidates BD+20 2457 b & BD+20 2457 c are not transiting, it is very unlikely to find a radius any time soon. As given for PA-99-N2 b a similar alignment to measure the object will probably never happen again, so no near future radius. And Thestias needs confirmation, but even if confirmed the same applies, that without transit a radius is rather unlikely to be found.

Should these objects be kept or removed? Stevinger (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I would simply remove them. The list is supposed to be mostly about ranking exoplanets and possible brown dwarfs by reliable radius estimates. So zero reason to keep them at all. Regards—ZaperaWiki44^{(✉/Contribs)} 13:38, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

if removed, then i think we need to create new article/page about the list of most massive planet or something idk.... Foxy Husky (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

or if kept, then we can remodify to maybe keep few noticeable planets with mass known but radius unknown like "Methuselah" and maybe Sirius Bb (i stop modify in unknown radius of unconfirmed exoplanets until we reach a conclusion) Foxy Husky (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I thought about it and think we should remove the objects. The reason is, that there are hundreds of objects that do not have radius estimates, while they are confirmed exoplanets and are not included in the list. The objects discussed here are unconfirmed and have no radius estimates. Stevinger (talk) 02:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

ic.... then confirm we gonna remove these objects eh? @Stevinger Foxy Husky (talk) 03:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I would recommend to at least remove the radial velocity method planet candidates. If not transiting, then a radius is hard to get. (We still commented out Gliese 876b, which is confirmed). And also the one from microlensing, which is not repeatable in the near future. Not sure, if a radius could be estimated for Sirius Bb. We could add few young imaging planets, for which no radius is available, but could be determined in the future. E.g. CHXR 73 b, YSES 2b, YSES 1c or HD 95086 b. Or we just wait for all objects till radii are available. Stevinger (talk) 05:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Adding planets that has lower size than Jupiter but limit to giant gas planets

Is it ok to add Saturn and PH1b and some few more planets for reference and notable comparation? if so, then we can limit to the gas planets as we can't add those when smaller than the gas planets Foxy Husky (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@Stevinger Foxy Husky (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I would not recommend that. We already have lots of candidates with unknown radius, that might be large. Is adding objects below the size of Jupiter true to the name 'List of largest exoplanets'? Any object > 1.5 Jupiter radii seems to earn a mention more than objects below the size of Jupiter. Seems better suited for a separate list. Stevinger (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

separate list eh? what do u propose about that list? add new page for that list or wut? (no offense though :v) Foxy Husky (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. If you want to add them, I won't delete it (if not getting fully out of hand :v). The workpage even has a terrestrial planet section. So it is worthy to discuss (maybe people are interested). I was just wondering if it doesn't fit a list like List of transiting exoplanets better, since it naturally has planets below 1 Jupiter radius. (Also be aware, that if you scroll all the way up, someone suggested that all objects should be larger than Jupiter, so people will have different opinions on whether Saturn and PH1b should be added or not. Also Saturn was once in the list and got deleted, if I remember correctly). Stevinger (talk) 04:04, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• HD 135344 System.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Eta Telescopii b

@Stevinger "No claims of note" mean not complying with the discussion made in the last year, as well as previous discussions about exactly this. Eta Telescopii is low-importance for astronomy, per its own Wiki page, and make no claim of note, no a superlative, no a milestone, let alone should be included in this list as another extra brown dwarf in an article about planets. 21 Andromedae (talk) 10:29, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Not sure, if we are talking about the same object. The unconfirmed Eta Telescopii b with no radius is not meant, but the other object, often given as Eta Telescopii B. Thank you for the link. I assume you mean the 'Criteria for adding planets in the <1.7 R_J list'. I am not trying to push away from these. But this candidate for being largest exoplanet Eta Telescopii B has >2.2 R_J. Have we ever used these Criteria for such a case? Hat-P-67b and DH Tauri b, both have low-importance, too. Do I miss the point here? Stevinger (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I guess the confusion arises because i assumed Eta Telescopii B to be a reference object, instead of an exoplanet, since its mass does not overlap with the limit used for defining planets and brown dwarfs in this page. 21 Andromedae (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I can understand that. I had the same difficulty with Luhman 16 B, first assuming it is meant as a reference object. However, it was included because the NASA Exoplanet archive allows planet candidates up to 30 MJup, at least the notes that were added tell me so. With 29.4 ± 0.2 MJup Luhman 16 B is basically excluded to have a mass below the deuterium limit, for Eta Tel B the propability is at least few to several percent with the mass given. Several object's masses do not overlap with the limit, of course we can discuss whether this is wanted. Stevinger (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

@Stevinger My bad, i was taking Eta Telescopii b as a reference object, but it isn't. 21 Andromedae (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

No problem. Stevinger (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Image - ChatGPT

@Stevinger @21 Andromedae image is cool but i wonder whether the AI image is allowed in Wiki and maybe Wiki Commons, cause I wanna add illustration for TOI-6894 or TOI-6894 b if it were added in the main list and i try to google for the pic for that one and found one of websites using AI image.
Gas giant around tiny star challenges space theories? Latest discovery defies science - Asianetnews English Foxy Husky (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@Foxy Husky I never thought about that. The only thing I found is the following: Wikipedia:AI image use. But your link also just shows a '404 - page not found' for me. Stevinger (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AI guidelines Stevinger (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

V2376 Ori

@Stevinger We can choose to use either a precise range of values or a somewhat vague/imprecise average value as the only mention of the mass of this object. Your arguments are based on the principle of adding data given in a source, but there is a difference between "every information must have a reference" (which is correct) and "every information from a reference must be added" (which isn't). 21 Andromedae (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

You argue based on a lot of assumptions. A) Not every range is precise, B) you assume it is an average, C) not every average is vague/imprecise, D) we can only choose the range or the value. I am still in favor of both, as done in the reference. If you have more reasoning than 'most likely on astethical grounds.' removing one of them is of course possible. Stevinger (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

My argue is based o zero assumptions. A) It is not an absolute precision, but improved precision relative to 20 M_J. 2) They give 20 M_J in the appendix, citing the table which shows 10 – 30 Mjup, so it is legitimate to take this as an average. C) Answered on A) D) We should choose the best value. Plus: If the reference instead gave 20 or 100 mass values, all of them should be added? 21 Andromedae (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

It is fine to choose the best value. But this can also be 20 M_J . A best estimate and a full range do not exclude each other in other cases. Estimating a best value or giving a full range is both not connected to giving 20 or 100 mass values, this comment seems out of place. Stevinger (talk) 05:21, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I do see your arguments. But I am still not sure, why you assume it is just an average and not a proper best estimate from combining temperature and luminosity and their corresponding errors. Best estimates with assymetrical errors in both directions are not uncommon (in this list), right? Stevinger (talk) 02:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I do not see evidence for this, and it seems more likely to be the average. 21 Andromedae (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I do not see evidence that this is an average. It seems more likely this is not an average. The average of 10 -- 30 would be exactly 20 M_J, and not ~ 20 given in abstract and conclusions. Stevinger (talk) 05:23, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I do not see evidence that this is an average, but that the paper does not say anything about it being the best estimate. I would not jump to weak conclusions based on the existence of a ~ before 20, but anyway, it also means that this is not a precise value. There are reasons to think that it is an average. Averaging values is pretty common, everyone like to do that, especially for aesthetical reasons, as a single value is better to read than two. After all, the average value isn't going to be wrong. Also, in the appendix, it is pretty evident that they merely took the average value from the range: "Considering a radius Rp = 0.8 R⊙ and a mass Mp = 20 MJup (Table D.1)" (the table give 10 – 30). 21 Andromedae (talk) 12:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

As you write below the average value can be wrong. So in favor of it being 'merely ... the average' is that the table only gives the range and your sentence given, against it is that ~20 MJup is given twice in the main body, not just like the range in the appendix and that your sentence ends in 'Considering a radius Rp = 0.8 R⊙ and a mass Mp = 20 MJup (Table D.1) this leads to a mass accretion rate M˙acc = 10−6.5±0.7 MJup/yr.', so 20 MJup was valid enough for the authors to use it as basis to calculate the accretion rate. Stevinger (talk) 04:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

The mass has been estimated from evolutionary tracks. Figure D.1 show that the luminosity and age in the L/age diagram (and their errors) are consistent with the evoltionary track of a ~30 M_J object, and is pretty distant to that of a ~20 M_J, while the T^eff/age diagram is consistent with the evolutionary track of a 0.012 – 0.015 M_J object. Both the L/age and T^eff/age estimates do not overlap with each other, nor with a 20 M_J track, so 20 M_J can't be a "best value" as suggested above, and the authors therefore drawn it by averaging both values, which is rather common in astronomical literature, especially in cases where the values overlap. 21 Andromedae (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

You are aware that the object can only have one mass value, right? And there are other ways than the simple average of two numbers to evaluate what this mass value is at best. Stevinger (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

WASP-107b and SIMP0136

I wanted to ask you about your opinion removing Wasp-107b and adding Simp0136.

• Wasp-107b had the notes 'One of lowest-density exoplanets found. First exoplanet with helium detection in atmosphere.' Is that less important than 'First exoplanet to have its secondary eclipse and orbital phases observed from the ground-based observations and first to have titanium oxide (TiO) detected in an exoplanet atmosphere.' (Banksia) or 'First exoplanet found to contain carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide in its atmosphere.' (Bocaprins)? I am rather neutral for this one, since Wasp-107 has a radius below 1 RJup, but wanted to ask for your opinion.
• Simp0136 might confuse readers. Its notes say 'First exoplanet to have its aurora and first to be detected by auroral radio emission.', but its most recent reference says: 'SIMP-0136 is a T2.5 brown dwarf whose young age (200+/-50 Myr) and low mass (15+/-3MJup) make it an ideal analogue for the directly imaged exoplanet population.' What would be the best here? Do we remove the object or change the notes?

Stevinger (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Should HD 100546 b be moved to the Unconfirmed section

As this blog has explained with evidence from papers, there is a good chance that HD 100546 b is not an actual planet. The evidence for the planet can probably be explained by dust and image processing, and its movement is not like other planets. Also, is using a size from a damn PhD Thesis allowed? ArthurSBH (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

This is a difficult one. NASA sees the object as confirmed, but controversial. Exoplanet.eu sees it as confirmed and writes: 'Very large radius estimate likely due to the presence of an extended circumplanetary disk or diffuse dust and gas envelope surrounding the planet. Sissa (2017) provide a greater planetary mass (m = 25 MJup) and higher temperature (T = 2,630 K) for HD 100546 b. Estimated radius is downscaled to 3.4 RJup. Pineda et al. (2019) consider a much lower mass (m = 1.65 MJup) more likely'. So there are references up to at least 2019 that see it as planet. - You write whether damn PhD Thesis results are allowed, which is a bit ironic, since the opinion that it is not an actual planet comes here from a blog by a Ph.D candidate in Astrophysics, so someone who is trying to finish such a thesis. Stevinger (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Objects exceeding limitations given

I recently read our limitations given above the table and realized brown dwarfs that are free-floating are not fulfilling them. I will comment out all objects that are in this category. This includes e.g. 2M1207, as it is the host object, not a companion. Please tell me if you disagree. (Objects will be commented out soon, not deleted, so it can easily be reverted.) Stevinger (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

citation bot

There is a discussion about shutting down citation bot permanently at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#citation_bot_malfunctioning Fdfexoex (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

About WR 102 star

Should this star be included in the main list as a reference object? It has a radius smaller than that of the Sun but > that of the Jupiter. It also represents an important record - it is in fact one of the hottest non-degenerate stars. One small problem is that the star is not in the main-sequence, errrh...SoojinHD219134star (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for looking for additional ones. That is an interesting object, but it is right where we have a young eclipsing binary brown dwarf with comparable radii as reference. It seems a bit much to have all three objects. Reference objects with about ~1.9 or ~1.7 Jupiter radii would be great, as there are remaining gaps in the list with barely a well known comparison. Stevinger (talk) 08:59, 11 December 2025 (UTC)