Template talk:Extrasolar planet counts

Data in this template

Qurq removed two of the data items in this template, and I have reverted that change.

The justification for this template is that these numbers are used in a number of places, both, in different articles, and in some cases in multiple places in the same article. Updating them has occurred irregularly in the past, with different articles and locations within the same article not being updated at the same time. Thus the idea for this template, to central the data and allow all of those items to be updated with less effort, and more consistently.

The Interactive Extra-solar Planets Catalog provides three main numbers (number of planets, number of systems, and the number of multi-planet systems), all of which are interesting, relevant and have been used in Wikipedia articles prior to this. These all update at the same frequent rate (in fact, all three updated twice so far *today*. As they are all used in WP, and they are all from the same frequently updated source, I think it makes sense to keep them.

If there is a concern about WP:NOR, as the system and multiple-planet system counts are not single numbers on the Interactive Extra-solar Planets Catalog, I think it does not apply. All of the data *is* on the home page, just those two numbers are presented in four pieces (as is the planet count, but that is totaled as well). WP:CALC provides the relevant exception to WP:NOR.

In any event, if we decide to remove them, it needs to be done somewhat more carefully. For example, Kepler (spacecraft) was left broken (not, as my edit note said Discoveries of extrasolar planets - too many windows open at one).

It has also been suggested that additional data be added to the template, although I have some concerns. See the (short) discussion at: User talk:Rwessel#Extrasolar planet counts

If we can improve things to make the process less confusing, by all means, let's do so. Rwessel (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

By putting systems counts into the same template as the planet count, it means people can no longer update the planet count unless they also update the systems count, or else the systems count will not match the asof-date. This forcing people to do extra work isn't a simiplification. Putting even more parameters into the template, as has been suggested would create even more work for people to do, when all they want is to update the planet count. Qurq (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure there's more work if you only care about the planet count, but the system counts change with almost every change in the planet count, and those need to be updated anyway. And if it’s not done in this one place, where you're already looking at the updated data, it'll have to be done manually in multiple other places. And if an article uses both the planet and system count, that will leave them out of sync. I could see your point in some circumstances if there were some significant amount of work involved in updating the other numbers (but there isn't), or they weren’t strongly related to the headline main number (but they are). Rwessel (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Template caching issue

FWIW - Tried To Update The "asof" Parameter To The Present "September 14, 2011" Date Noted On The EPE WebSite - Seems To Have Updated OK On The Extrasolar planet, Discoveries of extrasolar planets, Planet, Extraterrestrial life And Kepler (spacecraft) Wiki-Articles (as well as Template:Extrasolar_planet_counts/doc and the Rwessel Test Page) - But NOT On The Introductory Template:Extrasolar_planet_counts Page Itself For Some Reason? - In Any Regards - Thanks For The Template Efforts - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that's an Internet Explorer caching glitch of some sort. I've seen it happen while creating the template. Usually another update fixes it, or it clears by itself after some time. If I look at the template page with Safari, for example, it's correct. Also, if I look with IE from a machine that's not accessed the template, it's OK as well. And as you noted, the update is reflected in all the transclusions. Rwessel (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks For Your Comments - I Was Using The Latest Beta Google Chrome Browser (v 15.0.874.5 beta/WinXP) At The Time Of Updating The Template On A Dell Desktop Computer - At The Moment (on an entirely different computer/hp-pavilion laptop), Chrome Continues Not To Display The Correct Introductory Template Page (at page top) Update; Neither Does MSIE 8, FireFox 7, Safari 5.1 Or Opera 11.51 - As Before, All Template-Linked Wiki-Articles (transclusions?) Are Completely OK And Updated Correctly - In Any Case - Hope This Helps In Some Way - Thanks Again For Your Comments - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a caching problem somewhere at WP. I just did a trivial change, and everything seems to have updated. Again, I noticed that behavior when creating this template, but it appears to only impact the template/read page. Odd. I wonder who to take this up with at WP? Rwessel (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes - At The Moment, All Seems Better Here Also re Correctly Updating The Template/Read Page On Our Dell/WinXP PC [Chrome/15.0.874.5b, MSIE/8, Firefox/7, Safari/5.1, Opera/11.51] - Thanks Again For Your Efforts - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 09:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

FWIW - Interesting Observations? - Template/Read Page Seems To Have Updated To The "New *Correct* Data" After A Follow-up *SECOND* (no-real-edit) "Edit" - I Was Trying To Add The Following "Edit Summary" (which didn't seem to actually post - due to the "no-real-edit" edit?) --> [oops - update was "AM" instead - specifically, update counts/epe -> "687" planet, "565" system, "80" multiplanetsystem a/o "September 22, 2011" (08:12amET/usa)] - In Any Case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC) - UPDATE: An Additional Follow-up SECOND ("no-real-edit" and blank "edit summary") "Edit" (after the first "real" edit and "edit summary" note) Seems To Update The Template/Read Page To The *Correct* Data - This Second "Edit", Other Than Correcting The Template/Read Page Data, Does Not Seem To Register A Posted Entry - (A THIRD Such Follow-up "Edit" Doesn't Seem To Do Anything At All) - In Any Regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed the same effect as well. This clearly appears to be a glitch in some caching routine over at WP. I'm thinking of putting together a simple test template that demonstrates the problem and can be messed with (just a trivial template and /doc page), and then figuring out how to contact the developers. Rwessel (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds Like A Great Idea - Best w/ This Of Course - Overall, The Template:Extrasolar planet counts Seems An *Excellent* Solution To The Updating Issue - Only Thing Better *Might* Be Some Kind Of Real-Time Automatic Updating Of All Variables (asof,planet_count,system_count,multiplanetsystem_count) Sent Directly To The Wikipedia Transclusions From The EPE Site Itself - Of Course This May Not Be Possible For One Reason Or Another - In Any Regards - Thanks Again For Your Efforts - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

BEST PROCEDURE? -> UPDATE (add NEW counts/date/edit summary) - POST - THEN - SIMPLY POST AGAIN (add NOTHING) - DONE. Drbogdan (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

See related WP:Purge#Null edit Drbogdan (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

"PURGE" PROCEDURE -> UPDATE (add NEW counts/date/edit summary) - POST - THEN - Click "PURGE" Link (bottom left of Template Page) - DONE. Drbogdan (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

See related WP:Purge#Just by clicking a link Drbogdan (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Excessively massive "planets" listed on Extrasolar Planets Encyclopedia?

The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopedia is a great site, in fact an indispensable one. But it seems to follow an unusual definition of "planet" in which planets can have up to 30 Jupiter masses. Since a cutoff of 13 Jupiter masses is more widely accepted, that means several "planets" are listed on the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopedia that many astronomers would not regard as planets at all. Right now, Wikipedia's own article on extrasolar planets indicates that it follows the cutoff of 13 Jupiter masses, but the total planet count does not reflect that. This is a picky point, but it looks like some sort of adjustment somewhere is in order.Kevin Nelson (talk) 08:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Any suggestions as to how to do something like that? There doesn't appear to be an easy way to extract that subset from the EPE's web site. Extrasolar planets itself, in the 'Definition' section mentioning the 13 Jupiter-mass limit, discusses that the limit is arbitrary and at least somewhat controversial, and includes:

Copied From Extrasolar_planet#Definition

The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia includes objects up to 25 Jupiter masses, saying: "The fact that there is no special feature around 13 MJup in the observed mass spectrum reinforces the choice to forget this mass limit.", and the Exoplanet Data Explorer includes objects up to 24 Jupiter masses with the advisory: "The 13 Jupiter-mass distinction by the IAU Working Group is physically unmotivated for planets with rocky cores, and observationally problematic due to the sin i ambiguity"

Rwessel (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW - Seems NASA Maintains The PlanetQuest WebSite Which May Also Be Keeping Count Of Extrasolar Planets - And May Be Worth Considering Further - Nonetheless, The EPE WebSite Seems Preferable To Me At The Moment - In Any Regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems A *Very New* (?) (And *Very Relevant*?) Exoplanet Database,"The Habitable Exoplanets Catalog", May Now Be Available On The Internet - Seems Impressive - At Least At First Glance - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

ALSO Relevant (?) => "NASA Exoplanet Archive" WebSites Including: NASA Exoplanet Archive - Home - AND - NASA Exoplanet Archive - Table - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

New variable: singleplanetsystem_count

user:Wer900 added a new variable, singleplanetsystem_count, to this template. I don't object in principal to adding more items, indeed I've contemplated whether or not some of the Kepler data should be here, but what gets added here should actually be useful. So my question is, is this actually being used anywhere?

If it is kept, would it make more sense to compute the value (as the difference between singleplanetsystem_count and system_count) rather than adding the burden of maintaining the value manually. Alternatively, if only used in one or two places, the computation could be placed in those locations. And if kept, we should at least document it properly (the sample report, plus a discussion of the update procedure). Rwessel (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The computation method was what I used in order to obtain the single planet parameter value. I do believe that the variable is useful because it allows for a comparison between how many single- and multi-planet systems have been confirmed.

@Rwessel Some of what you've mentioned in your comment also occurred to me - ie, is there any real use for the new "singleplanetsystem_count" variable? - at the moment, I'm unable to think of any use in any of the Wikipedia articles - the new variable may be a bit more to think about (and keep maintained?) in fact - I agree w/ the rest of your comment as well - whatever you decide to do finally is entirely ok w/ me - for my part, I'm *very* happy w/ the original template and variables - the original template sure seems to make updating the original variables more fun - and continues to be *greatly* appreciated - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. -R

My comment on computing the value was that it should be computed automatically, rather than requiring the editor to perform the computation, and then updating the template with that value manually. Summing the fields from the Extrasolar Planet Database is unfortunately required. My concern is adding an additional burden on the maintainers (in this case User:Drbogdan is the one doing the vast majority of the count updates), without some compensating gain for the project. If the value is not used at all in any Wikipedia articles, then it should be removed, as it represents added work for *no* gain.

My template fu is not strong enough to say for certain, but while we could definitely automatically compute this within the template, it might require making this two levels - IOW, the existing Template:Extrasolar planet counts (which is used in articles) would actually source the data from an internal template (used only inside this template), perhaps something like Template:Extrasolar planet counts/raw data, as I don't think a recursive reference will work quite right. I may be wrong, I'd need to play with it a bit.

In any event, the alternative is for any articles needing this value (which don't appear to exist yet), to do the computation in the article. See, for example, the last line of User:Rwessel/t1, where I did just that (see the source if you're interested in the details).

While the single-planet system count might well be of interest (and perhaps should be incorporated into some articles), I'm not sure there's any justification for displaying it *here*, as normal readers should never see this template. If it is used in other places, there may be justification for computing it here, for consistency, if nothing else, although there are alternatives to that (as mentioned above). Rwessel (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

As there have been no further comments, and the singleplanetsystems_count parameter appears to be unused, I have removed it. Rwessel (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

New Count System At "Exoplanet Reference WebSite"?

Seems The "Exoplanet Reference WebSite" May Now Be Presenting The Usual Exoplanet Counts ("Exoplanets" + "Planetary Systems" + "Multiple Planet Systems") In A New (& better?) Way => A *Sortable Table* Of Detected (& Confirmed?) Exoplanets - Seems The "Update Date" May Best Be Determined By *Sorting* The "Update" Column (right-side of table) For The "Latest Displayed Date" - The Wiki-Template Seems Best Updated As Described Earlier - In Any Regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

NEW SORTABLE TABLE STUDY: At The Moment (02:30pmEDT/usa,07/11/2012), The New Sortable Table *Filters* As Follows: "All Candidates Detected" [749 planetary systems / 952 planets / 132 multiple planet systems] (952 planet(s) shown) = "Detected By Radial Velocity Or Astrometry" (476 planet(s) shown) + "Transiting Planets" (239 planet(s) shown) + "Detected By Microlensing" (16 planet(s) shown) + "Detected By Imaging" (31 planet(s) shown) + "Detected By Timing" (15 planet(s) shown) + "Unconfirmed, Controversial or Retracted Planets" (175 planet(s) shown) - Seems The Number Of "CONFIRMED" ExoPlanets Would Be 952 - 175 = 777 - Same As Before - Therefore, Reverting To Earlier Template Counts - At Least Until This New Sortable Table Can Be Better Sorted Out - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

NEW SORTABLE TABLE STUDY: "Confirmed" Exoplanets (777/old count) = "All Candidates" (952/new count) minus "Unconfirmed" (175/new count) Is [OK] - PROBLEMS HOWEVER => At The Moment, Unable To Determine CONFIRMED (not "detected") "Planetary Systems" (624/old count) And CONFIRMED (not "detected") "Multiple Planet Systems" (101/old count) From The New Sortable Table - Interesting That The New Table "Multiple Planet Systems" Count (132/new count) minus "Detected By Imaging" (31/new count) = 101 (The Old Correct? Count) (Coincidence?) - In Any Case - If This Problem Remains Unsolved, Only The "Confirmed Exoplanets" (and "AsOf Date") May Be Reliably Determined - Help and/or Advice Welcome Of Course - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Clearly a bit of an issue. At least for the total planet count, you can do it in a single step by specifying the query as:

not "controversed" IN detection

Obviously we could do this with some software easily enough, but I'm not sure that downloading the database and cooking it is really what we want to do, although it might be the best option. A short Perl script or something would not be hard to write. There's also the interesting problem of counting multi-planet systems when the second (or additional) planets are controversial (I'm not sure what they were doing before). Will need to think about this some more. Rwessel (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - Excellent Comments - Yes, "Total (confirmed) Planet" Count (and "AsOf" Date) Seems OK - I'm Not Experienced w/ Perl Script At The Moment But Seems This (or related?) May Be A Possibility - One (temporary?) Work-Around May Be To Associate The Words "confirmed" and/or "detected" w/ The Article Text - For Example (for the Exoplanet Article): "A total of 777 such planets (in 624 planetary systems and 101 multiple planetary systems) have been identified as of July 5, 2012." - MIGHT INSTEAD LOOK LIKE => "A total of 777 confirmed planets (in 749 detected planetary systems and 132 detected multiple planetary systems) have been identified as of July 5, 2012." - A Related "Template/Edit Summary" May Look Like =>

Possible "Template/Edit Summary" =>

updated counts -> "777" confirmed exoplanets, "749" detected systems, "132" detected multi-planet systems - ref/date=> 07/05/2012 - wiki/date=> 07/12/2012" (11:00amEDT/usa) - per http://exoplanet.eu/catalog.php

In Any Regards - Thanks Again - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem doing a small script to process the dataset (it may take me a couple of days - my day job, and all that), but I'm concerned about processing the data offline like that and WP:NOR. In the mean time, I'm writing an email to the EPE folks, and I've wiki-emailed you a copy of the draft if you'd like to comment, get your name on it, etc. But I think we should not undertake any drastic changes for a few days, until we get a better plan - no sense in just having to undo things if we're going to get a better system in place in short order. Rwessel (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments - I *entirely* agree - no problem whatsoever - thanks for our email message - my email reply should be on the way - thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Again for your help w/ all this - as you may already know, the template counts have now been updated on the basis of the latest reworkings of the EPE count system - seems like an even better improvement in their overall count system imo - Thanks again for your help - and efforts w/ this - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

New Data Source

I'd like to suggest moving away from the proprietary exoplanet.eu website towards the "Open Exoplanet Catalogue": https://github.com/hannorein/open_exoplanet_catalogue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.96.217 (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not adverse to changing to a better source, but a quick look (all I have time for at the moment), doesn't seem to show a good way to retrieve the numbers we're using here. Also I'm not sure who exactly is updating this site, and its reliability. Rwessel (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

FWIW - I *entirely* agree, after looking at the suggested WebSite, w/ the comments made above by Rwessel - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: Seems There's Another URL (*maybe* better?) To The "Open Exoplanet Catalogue" => http://exoplanet.hanno-rein.de/ - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Date format

Hello.

Can someone please make this template work for other date formats than the present hard-coded mdy format? Several pages use the mdy format, and transcluding this template makes the date format inconsistent.

A suggestion: use the df= parameter, well-known from templates used in other contexts.

HandsomeFella (talk) 10:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment - the mdy format *may* not be "hard-coded" after all - in a test, I altered the date format from mdy to dmy instead - (there's some sort of problem w/ updating the template page - a workaround is as follows: make the change in the template, then save the change, then save the change a *second* time without changes) - (note: not clear how to use the "df= parameter") - maybe the "new" dmy format is better for all transclusions? - comments welcome of course - in any case - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

A big thank you. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Making the format variable is easy enough, although the question of which format should be the default is somewhat arbitrary. For review, I've done up a change to the template in User:Rwessel/esp-t1, and you can see the usage in User:Rwessel/t3 (see the source for how the invocations look). Internally this uses Template:Date, and thus supports that template’s format codes as an optional second parameter on the "asof" invocation. It is using that macro's default date formatting, so if no second parameter is specified, you get format "dmy". I can change that, if desired.

The current change to the template is limited to the "asof = " line, although if we change the default format it'll get more complex. Note that I've not updated any documentation.

If we decide to go this route, I can clean up the documentation and move the update into production, and then we can make an effort to go through the uses of the template, and code the desired date format. Rwessel (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

FWIW - Thanks for the effort - looks great - I'm entirely flexible with this - nonetheless, my current thinking is to keep well enough alone and simple and maintain the present dmy format - unless someone has a problem - we could then implement the new effort at that time - in any case - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As a comment, Discoveries of extrasolar planets, List of multiplanetary systems and Extraterrestrial life have mdy dates, so are now mixed with the new dmy format in this template. (Note: I did a quick look through the “what links here” list, and those appeared to have the issue, I might well have missed something). For consistency, I think we should probably go ahead with this change (or something approximately like it), so that we can clean that up. Alternatively fixing up the articles, but changing date formats is at least somewhat more problematic from a WP policy perspective. On a semi-related mater, Planetary system should be using asof in the third paragraph, but does not appear to have an existing date format. Rwessel (talk) 10:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I entirely agree - seems to be time for the change after all - the relevant statement in the Planetary system article has been updated - hopefully its now better - thanks for your efforts - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and updated the template, documentation and the transclusions in Discoveries of extrasolar planets, List of multiplanetary systems and Extraterrestrial life (to specify mdy). The default format is dmy, and so should not have changed for any of the other pages including this template. Rwessel (talk) 08:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Template "Date Change" update seems *Excellent* - Thanks Again for the effort - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Different Exoplanet Counts From "Official" Sites?

At the moment (1 March 2014), seems there's several "official" websites giving significantly different numbers for the "confirmed exoplanet" count => "1078"/EPE,fr AND "1690"/NASA,us AND "1795"/PHL,pr - Suggestions Welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The EPE is at 1081 just now. If and when the EPE includes the just announced 715 Kepler "verified by multiplicity" planets to get 1796 then we would have returned to the usual situation that the EPE number is larger than the NASA number because the EPE includes some objects above 13MJ and some objects that NASA hasn't yet included perhaps because they are not yet published in journals. Over time as the total increases, NASA and EPE will diverge more and more therefore I favour using an approximate number. The current situation will reoccur everytime a large batch is announced. Astredita (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE (6 March 2014/10am/et/usa): Exoplanet Counts now seem to compare better => "1780"/EPE,fr AND "1690"/NASA,us AND "1793"/PHL,pr - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, ok I was wrong about the criteria for inclusion in NASA's archive: http://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/docs/exoplanet_criteria.html Astredita (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing the ref re NASA exoplanet criteria - yes, interesting - thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Number formatting

JohnBlackburne (talk · contribs) has changed this template to add separators to the numbers for consistency with other usage in exoplanet. Somewhat simplified, per MOS:DIGITS, the use of separators for four digit numbers is optional (it is mandatory for five digit numbers and longer), and should be consistent within an article.

Would it be appropriate to add an optional parameter to the numeric values, similar to the optional date format parameter on the "asof" value, to specify the formatting? Something to pass to {{formatnum:}} or Template:Val might be a good start. Rwessel (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Rwessel and JohnBlackburne: FWIW - Thanks for the comments - and suggested optional parameter addition - seems ok with me atm to add the parameter - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) 02:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Switch to or add option for NASA Exoplanet Archive data

This is a better source than the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia that's currently used, especially since EPE is now missing so many planets that NEA has a larger planet count despite EPE's much broader inclusion criteria (NEA = 5,419; EPE = 5,381). NEA doesn't list the number of planetary systems but it's not too hard to find using the "Number of Planets" column. I can do the update myself if needed. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@SevenSpheres: Thanks for your comments - and suggestions about using the NEA website (rather than the EPE website) - yes - NEA (5,419 as/of 5/16/2023) seems to note a larger number of "confirmed planets" than EPE (5,382 "planet" as/of 5/19/2023) - not clear how to determine "planetary systems" (EPE: 3,974) and "multiple planet systems" (EPE:858) in the NEA data - more specifics on the exact NEA procedure(s) with these parameters welcome - simply adding the NEA "confirmed planet" number to the usual EPE numbers may be a possibility of course - usually updated the data on the first day of the months over the years - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

You can search the "Number of Planets" column in the table for each number from 1-8 and note the number of results shown. Number of planets in n-planet systems / n = number of n-planet systems. Then add those to get the total number of planetary systems. Currently, I get a total of 4,032 planetary systems, 915 of which have more than one planet. SevenSpheres (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

An option named source is added to specify NEA. The numbers from EPP and NEA are split into subpages. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@NmWTfs85lXusaybq: - Seems the current default of the template pages is now (as before without the recent modifications of the newly added source/subpages coding) the EPE subpage - how exactly does one access the NEA subpage source - somewhat of a newbie with some of this coding - tia - Drbogdan (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I haven't updated the documentation because I have trouble viewing the table on NEA website. To use NEA numbers, one has to assign NEA to the source option. Please compare the following pair of examples:

• {{Extrasolar planet counts|full|source=NEA}} → As of 18 April 2024, there are 5,612 confirmed exoplanets in 4,170 planetary systems, with 948 systems having more than one planet.
• {{Extrasolar planet counts|full|source=}} → As of 1 April 2024, there are 5,653 confirmed exoplanets in 4,161 planetary systems, with 896 systems having more than one planet.

NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

 Note: These examples should be added to Template:Extrasolar planet counts/doc rather than Template:Extrasolar planet counts/numbers/EPE/doc. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@NmWTfs85lXusaybq and SevenSpheres: (and others) - Thanks for all the comments, suggestions and efforts - added some further edits (maybe too much?) to the template docs - *entirely* ok with me to rv/rm/mv/del/ce the new edits of course - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@SevenSpheres: Thanks for your reply - seems the total number of "confirmed planets" is easily noted at the very bottom of the NEA table as "5419" at the moment - determining the number of "planetary systems" and "multiple planet systems" doesn't seem to be easily noted directly from the NEA table; but requires calculation steps for each parameter instead - seems a bit awkward (and somewhat error-prone?) to me at the moment - maybe merge the easily available EPE and NEA data together something like the following:

{{#switch: {{{1|}}}
 | 1 = {{date|1 May 2023|{{{2|}}}}}
 | 2 = 5,366 ([https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/ 5,419; nasa-20230516])
 | 3 = 3,962
 | 4 = 856
 | 5 = <ref name="Exoplanet Catalog (epc)">{{cite web |last1=Schneider |first1=J. |title=Interactive Extra-solar Planets Catalog |url=http://exoplanet.eu/catalog.php |work=[[The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopedia]] |access-date={{extrasolar planet counts/numbers|1}}}}</ref>
}}

iac - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Brief follow-up: Two "confirmed exoplanet" results (EPE; NEA) seems problematic to me atm - after all - both can't be right; but both could be wrong - how to decide which of the two results is the better one - perhaps there's some other result in some other data base which is even better than these two? - Drbogdan (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Simplicity

Hi, all.

Here, as in many other places at Wikipedia, there is no need for the pomposity and verbosity of "As of" and such statements' perverse mixture of the present tense with what almost always is a past date. Example: today, 29 February 2024, this template spits out the words "As of 1 February 2024 [(a date in the past)], there are 5,606 confirmed exoplanets [ * * * ]"—when all it need say is "On 1 February 2024, there were 5,606 confirmed exoplanets [ * * * ]".

Similarly, statements involving just months, years, or centuries, can condense "As of" to "In": "In July 1777, the population of Sevenland was seven."

Those who have seen the light here are welcome to spread it to the many other Wikipedia spots that have the faulty "as of" stuff. ;p

President Lethe (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Insult us and then ask for help. Classy. Primefac (talk) 08:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)