Talk:Kepler-62f

Details Section: Mass, Radius, Luminosity... February 1, 2014, 11:51 AM GMT-5:00

These numbers appear to be copy-pasted from the star's page, Kepler-62. This is very misleading and inappropriate. For a second I was like... really? 1.4 Earth Radius and 0.69 Solar Masses?! I then looked over at the star's page to see it was just a silly copy-paste. The same goes for radius and luminosity, a planet has next to nothing in terms of luminosity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.109.204 (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Habitability section

Yesterday I had added a section called "Long-term stability" which regarded potential advantages to life because of Kepler-62 being a K-type star. It was reverted by A2soup (talk · contribs) and I understand why. I was wondering if there's any way for me to add some info regarding this without violating WP:OR? Feedback would be appreciated. --MarioProtIV (talk) 11:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The article you cited was about low solar activity in orange dwarfs making their planets more hospitable. If you found a source saying that Kepler-62 is a orange dwarf (its article does not currently say this), I personally would not consider it an inappropriate synthesis to say something like "The low solar activity of orange dwarfs like Kepler-62 creates a relatively benign radiation environment for planets orbiting their habitable zones, increasing their potential habitability." A2soup (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Orange dwarf redirects to K-type main sequence star so that basically makes Kepler-62 an orange dwarf. If you're fine with this, I can restore the previous edit, but remove the thing regarding temperature (Unless you want to keep it) and estimated timespan of life on Kepler-62f, and add the sentence you just suggested. --MarioProtIV (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I see that. I'm not sure about restoring most of the section though - I was suggesting the one sentence above as the maximum that I thought should be added to this article based on the source you cited. How about you add what you think doesn't violate WP:OR, and if I think it's too much, I'll pare it down to what I think works. And then if you think I removed too much, you can put some back. And then if I think it's too much again, we can discuss it further here. A2soup (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok. --MarioProtIV (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

BatteryIncluded (talk · contribs) why delete? We are trying to come up with a way to add this without violating WP:OR, next time view the talk page before reverting. --MarioProtIV (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Violated for third time. Really, it is very simple: find a reliable source that states what you insert; that is all Wikipedia needs and all it is about. Thank you. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Astronomers hardly estimate its size and orbit, elaborating on the evolution of its flora and fauna is waaaaay out of scope. I'd love to have such data too, believe me. I worked in astrobiology. But being hopeful and extrapolating/synthesizing ideas is not correct. I want to believe, but I am an objective scientist, and Wikipedia has standards on scientific articles. I hope I am not coming across too sharp, it is not my intention. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I get that, but in terms the section tells how IF Kepler-62f was habitable (and to the certain temperature where it can be) and what the advantages would be considered to Earth. The 20-30 billion year lifetime for k-type stars is stated in the source article, plus what A2soup (talk · contribs) suggested yesterday. Frankly, I don't see how that's violating WP:OR. --MarioProtIV (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Would appreciate a response regarding this topic sometime soon. --MarioProtIV (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

This is getting really old. Extrapolations and assumptions are not OK. WP:CRYSTALBALL applies, along with WP:POV, WP:BIAS and so on. Where does it stop? The favorite breakfast of Clingons IF they drop by sight-seeing? User A2Soup already suggested to you an acceptable alternative in one sentence: "The low solar activity of orange dwarfs like Kepler-62 creates a relatively benign radiation environment for planets orbiting their habitable zones, increasing their potential habitability." BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

That's what I'm going to add, but I still feel like the 20–30 billion year life-time should be included, since it is included in the source (I may find a better source to support it better). Only thing I would say is POV is the temperature thing, I will likely change it to something like "If Kepler-62f is found to be habitable and support a suitable temperature similar to that of Earth.." as to not make it biased. --MarioProtIV (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Gravity

What about its gravitational field strength? I can calculate this using the formula but it would be helpful to include an estimate compared to Earth. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Surface gravity can also be calculated, but the currently displayed mass (the value range) makes it kind of meaningless. I followed the mass citation (phl) and i stomped on a mass < 30 EM refferencing borucki et al 2013. So where does 2.8 EM even comes from? Artriant (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect Planetbox usage

The image in the infobox should not be used as it does not follow the usage guide for the template:

This template is part of a group of templates that are used to display information about a specific extrasolar planet.
Images of published planetary properties are preferred where available, especially when they are available from cited publications.
Artist's conception, regardless of the source, should be avoided.
Examples of acceptable images include
* direct images, such as one used for GJ 758 b, in the rare cases where these are available;
* output of a model that is integral to a cited paper, such as the image used in HD 80606 b;
* user-generated images that clearly illustrate published properties, such as the size comparisons currently used in GJ 1214 b or Gliese 436 b.

My edits followed these guidelines but were revered by User:MarioProtIV.

The habitable zone comparison belongs in the orbit and/or habitability sections, not in the infobox.

A useful radius comparison to Earh in the relevant section of the article was also removed.

I'm opening discussion as to why ...

--EvenGreenerFish (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know, the consensus has been for years to allow images in the infobox if it comes from NASA or other reliable source (this is where WP:ASTROART comes in). Stop making excuses just to get it removed. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 10:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kepler-62f. 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/20141207205111/https://science.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-space-and-subcommittee-research-joint-hearing-exoplanet-discoveries-have-we to https://science.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-space-and-subcommittee-research-joint-hearing-exoplanet-discoveries-have-we
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105082102/http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/kepler/main/index.html to http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/kepler/main/index.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 16:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kepler-62f. 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/20141207205111/https://science.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-space-and-subcommittee-research-joint-hearing-exoplanet-discoveries-have-we to https://science.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-space-and-subcommittee-research-joint-hearing-exoplanet-discoveries-have-we

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 00:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: from the source provided (5), Kepler-62f is 1,200 light years from Earth, not 990.

Yes, that source is old and now outdated. The well-constrained Gaia parallax implies a distance of around 300 parsecs. Someone has changed the distance but not updated the citation. I guess we could just cite the latest Gaia EDR3 papers, though extrapolating distance from parallax is not strictly a trivial calculation. ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)