Talk:Exoplanet

Doesn’t meet the definitions.

These bodies cannot be “planets outside the solar system”. We can call them exoplanets, but to refer to them as “planets outside the solar system” makes as much sense as referring to cats as “quadrupedal carnivorous humans that meow and purr”.

It’s just a lain fact that there are no planets outside of the solar system. There cannot be by definition.

Taking this in reverse order:

• We do not know if any of these bodies have “cleared their neighbourhoods”. We just don’t. We can’t even begin to see their neighbourhoods. In some cases, though, it’s actually unlikely. Regardless, if we can’t show they have, then they haven’t.

• We don’t actually know what shape they are. I mean sure, it’s very likely that they’re within the boundaries of the IAU’s oh so scientific definition of “pretty round, eh”. But we don’t KNOW. We cannot prove it. One of these exoplanets might be a big cube like Htrae, the Bizarro World. Is it likely? Certainly not. Is it physically possible? We don’t know. So yeah, they probably mostly fit this description, but we don’t know. But even guessing, some of them orbit so close to their stars that they’re probably more egg-shaped.

• Finally, the stopper that covers all other exceptions: Nothing outside the solar system orbits the sun. Else it would be IN the solar system.

Therefore not a one of these things is a planet. 71.236.206.225 (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The IAU itself defines exoplanets as planets beyond the solar system, see here. The definition you saw is only for objects within the solar system. It is meant to distinguish planets from smaller things, not things in and out the solar system. Cambalachero (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

External links

There are eleven entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.

• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• WP:ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. Trim per above. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Life prefers CHZ exoplanets around low metallicity stars?

Life prefers CHZ exoplanets around low metallicity stars?

Added cited Text - Reverted by ip.

QUESTION: - Is the following cited Text a worthy addition to the Exoplanet article - or Not? - Comments Welcome.

In April 2023, astronomers reported studies which concluded that, "... planets in the habitable zones of stars with low metallicity are the best targets to search for complex life on land."

References

in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I've readded it to the article but I've edited it, moved it to the HZ section and added an explanation about UV rays as to why low metallicity stars are better.Fdfexoex (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)