Jump to content

User talk:Davidbuddy9/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Fix double redirect on Pr0201-b

I have fixed a double redirect that you have created on Pr0201-b. Ps why did you make Pr0201-b redirect to Pr0211-b? They are two diffrent exoplanets. 184.151.36.189 (talk) 04:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@184.151.36.189: I have not yet created an article for Pr 0201-b or Pr 0211-c, however those two plus Pr 0211-b do make up the first exoplanets (because they were discovered togeather in the paper) discovered in the ♋ Constellation. Davidbuddy9 Talk  21:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Note I will probably get round to it eventually. Davidbuddy9 Talk  21:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Pr 0211-b first exoplanet in constellation ♋

Hello Davidbuddy9 thx for clarifying that Pr 0211-b and Pr 0201-b were first planets discovered in the Beehive star cluster (which itself is in the constellation ♋). I was scratching my head when u said that because I was thinking that 55 Cancri b would be the first discovered in ♋. 184.151.36.189 (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

By scratching your head you mean that you were scratching your head about Pr 0211-b being the first exoplanet in the ♋ (Constellation)? I realized that the 55 Cancri system was located in the ♋ Constellation but this was because the the translator that I was using garbled the sentence a bit but then I noticed that it meant the first in the Beehive cluster. They appear to be detected initially in 2012 and then confirmed in 2016, I will add that into the infobox. Davidbuddy9 Talk  00:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
OK no, Pr 0211-b and Pr 0201-b were confirmed in 2012, while Pr 0211-c was confirmed in 2016. Davidbuddy9 Talk  01:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sudden infant death syndrome

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sudden infant death syndrome. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

  •  Not done, I do not know enough about "fans" to provide constructive feedback for this topic. Davidbuddy9 Talk  04:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

List of potentially habitable moons

I want to let you know the idea an concept is excellent, the close of the discussion was no consensus defaulting to keep. If at any time a valid list of moons can be made with NASA exomoons or peer reviewed accepted criteria of habitability, the list if free to be recreated at any time. Valoem talk contrib 03:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Valoem: I've not been able to find where you (and Alsee) are getting the NASA exomoon idea from NASA's exoplanet archive. I am aware about HEK (not to be confused with HEC from PHL). Davidbuddy9 Talk  03:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Kepler exoplanet candidates by ESI for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Kepler exoplanet candidates by ESI is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kepler exoplanet candidates by ESI until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jps (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Please don't take offense, but I really don't think Wikipedia should be hosting a list of hypothesizedunconfirmed planets with a list inclusion that they have been identified by only one source as being a member of some arbitrary group. Since it is not an exhaustive list, it seems to me there isn't a reasonable way to determine WP:LISTCRITERIA. It seems that Wikipedia should wait until writing articles bout KOIs. jps (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: Thats not a "hypothesided" list. See here. Davidbuddy9 Talk  20:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand. A KOI, by definition, is unconfirmed. If you prefer, I can change the wording. jps (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not misunderstanding, Unconfirmed does not mean it is invented by someone. Did you look at the NASA Exoplanet Archive link? Davidbuddy9 Talk  20:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
"Hypothesized" in the sense I was using means that the Kepler team believes there is evidence that a planet may exist, but there is also a statistically high likelihood that the signal observed might not due to a planet. You are misunderstanding what I wrote. What is invented is the ESI number attached to each KOI. There is no mention of the ESI at the link you provide, for example. There are also hundreds of more KOIs included at the link you provide that are not found on the list here at Wikipedia (which is what I mean when I say that the list is arbitrary). jps (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC≈)
The ESI citation is located at the bottom of the table, to your favourite site of course (Unless you have already removed it) Davidbuddy9 Talk  20:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

So you admit that the table is just a reproduction of the PHL table rather than the Kepler KOI catalog? jps (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Not entirely, the article should be expanded and improved upon not choked with AfD's every 20 days. Davidbuddy9 Talk  21:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, what do you mean by "reproduction of the PHL table rather than the Kepler KOI catalog?" We cannot reproduce the Kepler KOI Catalog because of WP:SIZE (likely), and NASA doesn't have there own "Habitable KOI" tables either. Where are we supposed to get the ESI information from? Davidbuddy9 Talk  21:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia likely shouldn't reproduce a webpage uncritically. There is no requirement that we include list of objects by ESI at Wikipedia. jps (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Really, nothing is required to be included here. We are volunteers volunteering to make, improve, expand etc, Wikipedia, Arguing that an article shouldn't exist because its not required is truly an arbitrary statement. Davidbuddy9 Talk  22:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Davidbuddy9, you may revert his nomination at anytime. Prior nomination less than one month ago. A no consensus close allows any uninvolved editor to nominate the article, but the original nominator must wait a period of time before renomination. Valoem talk contrib 21:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
@Valoem: Thanks for the reminder! I'll keep an eye out on other articles too if anything fishy happens. Davidbuddy9 Talk  21:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
No consensus closure does not mean "wait one month". Incorrect, Valoem. You should know better. jps (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: Possibly incorrect, WP Deletion Policy states: "After a deletion debate concludes and the consensus is in favor of keeping the page, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." However this was a "no consensus" makes puts us into a grey area. Davidbuddy9 Talk  22:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

It was a no consensus close. If you keep acting disruptively like this, I will ask for your account to be blocked. jps (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove an Articles for deletion notice or a comment from an AfD discussion, as you did at List of Kepler exoplanet candidates by ESI. You just got off a week-long block. Please don't violate Wikipedia policy anymore. jps (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: Sorry, I was told by @Valoem: that it was a OK. Davidbuddy9 Talk  23:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
It should be ok as long as an editor other than jps doesn't revert it. I am getting confirmation from an administrator. Watch out for 3RR though, that's still blockable. Valoem talk contrib 02:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Closing AfD discussions is not to be done by WP:INVOLVED editors. jps (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Davidbuddy9 and Valoem: Removing the AfD notice from a page is not OK. Not by involved editors, not by uninvolved editors, not by anyone - not until the deletion discussion runs its course and is closed. To quote from the notice itself - the one you were deleting - "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." I know you misunderstood and thought you were acting in good faith. Now you know. Don't do it again. --MelanieN (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Involved isn't the problem. Involved or uninvolved doesn't matter. You can't remove the tag, period. You can discuss the situation, mentioning previous AfDs in your argument if you like, at the AfD discussion page. But the discussion, once started, will proceed for a week unless there is some unusual reason to speedy-close it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
@MelanieN:I was basing my actions on this close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primecoin (4th nomination), I was not aware it was improper. Valoem talk contrib 03:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I see why you were confused by the Primecoin article. But you SHOULD NOT remove the tag from the article page. Removing that tag is not how you stop the deletion process or save the article. In fact, it would be counter-productive, because if it wasn't for that tag, no-one would know they should go to the discussion and comment. And even if you managed to get away with removing the tag from the article, the discussion would continue. The decision will be made at the discussion, nowhere else. If you want to argue for a procedural close, like with the Primecoin article, say so and make your arguments at the discussion. (I see that someone did say at the Primecoin discussion "I'm taking down the AfD notice" - but they were wrong to say so and I can't find that they did so.) When someone closes the discussion, after consensus is reached, then THAT PERSON - the person who closes the discussion (usually an administrator) - will remove the tag from the article. Not you, and not until the discussion closes. Clear now? --MelanieN (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
@MelanieN: Thanks for clarifying that, however there are still some differences. In Primecoin, it was two separate editors nominating, in this case it is the same editor, jps. Jps has made it clear he doesn't like the content, now with two nominations in a month, the prior close only 11 days ago, seems disruptive. Also the prior AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Potentially Habitable Exoplanets Kepler Candidates (2nd nomination)) suggested ESI was not a measure of habitability so it was moved to this current page, it seems suspicious to me that jps failed to mention the prior discussion and the logical conclusion I drew is that he is being disruptive. Valoem talk contrib 04:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Dude, you don't get to decide whether I am disruptive or not. We have a history. I find you to be a disruptive editor. You don't see me stalking you from page to page. Lay off and let the process decide. If it's really as awful as you are contending to renominate a no consensus close of an AfD for a list after every single item on the list has been removed from Wikipedia, someone else will surely come along and do this for you. Stop policing me. jps (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not stalking I have even agreed with you in the past, this is the SAME PAGE, I'm watching this page. Valoem talk contrib 04:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Just let the discussion happen. jps (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Valoem: those are points to make at the discussion, not here. (As I keep telling you, the discussion is the ONLY place where this will be decided.) You point out that the last AfD was 11 days ago, that's a valid point (although if the close is "no consensus", as this one was, there is no prohibition against speedy renomination). You point out that it is the same nominator as the last time, that's a valid point. At the discussion you can argue for procedural close, or you can argue for "keep", or both. (My impression is that your "procedural close" argument is a little weak and you would do better to make the case for a "keep".) jps points out that all of the items on the list have been deleted since the last discussion, that's a valid point. Make your points at the discussion, both of you, and then let the community decide. And leave the personalities out of it; focus on whether the article meets Wikipedia guidelines or not. --MelanieN (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:American Petroleum Institute

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:American Petroleum Institute. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2MASS J1119–1137, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Western University. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Psychology sidebar

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Psychology sidebar. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-17

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Problems

  • Wikimedia tested a new data center last week. This meant that the wikis could be read but not edited for 45 minutes on April 19 and for 20 minutes on April 21. [2]
  • When the data center was tested, new edits were not shown in the recent changes log for 20 minutes. They are in the logs now. You can read more about how to find the edits.
  • Unread notifications were sometimes counted incorrectly. This has now been fixed. [3]

Changes this week

  • Wikimedia Commons will have better access to Wikidata. They can use data from any page on Wikidata on any page on Commons. This will happen on April 26. [4]
  • It will be easier to choose if you want to watch files you have uploaded with the upload wizard. [5]
  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from April 26. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from April 27. It will be on all wikis from April 28 (calendar).

Meetings

  • You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on April 26 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • The "Save page" button when you edit will be called "Publish" instead. This is to help new editors understand what it does. It already works like this on some wikis. [6]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

21:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Quick clarification on AfD

Just a friendly reminder: WP:AfD in the past explicitly stood for "articles for discussion" rather than "articles for deletion". Yes, deletion is an outcome that is possible and, yes, most nominators think that deletion is the appropriate action, but it is explicit that merge or redirect can be legitimate outcomes of the discussion as well. Many times AfD discussions are more efficient than RfCs or move requests because they are more visible and the timeline for discussion is appropriately short to generate a quicker outcome. That's why I prefer AfDs over many other forms of communication on Wikipedia.

jps (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WP:AfD redirects to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and the first sentence of the lead reads Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted.. While some wikipedians may recall "articles for discussion" (I don't), the current verbiage is much less benign, and it is what everyone now sees. If you AfD with the sole intention of discussion, that shows a basic misunderstanding and misuse of the guidelines, however well-intentioned. Also, I find that one upsets the fewest # of people by commenting on the corresponding project page rather than jumping to AfD. You're free to do either (assuming you're not AfD'ing for discussion), of course; I'm just advising based on my experience.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
As a rule, I never nominate a page at AfD unless I think it probably would be better if Wikipedia didn't have an article on the subject. On the other hand, I have seen discussions which have resulted in satisfying results that were not deletions. The example that comes to mind for me is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flower of Life (geometry) (4th nomination). One thing I think I'm running into here is a cohort of editors who aren't used to outsiders being WP:Wikidragons. I guess that's fine, but it definitely comes across as WP:OWN-violating. The morbidly slow pace of discussions on Wikipedia now that it's in editorial decline mean that those of us who are trying to improve things at Wikipedia have a hard time getting the critical mass necessary for consensus, and it would only take two or three sticks-in-the-mud to grind editorial processes to a halt. That's what it feels like on my end, anyway. jps (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
As a much newer editor(?) I would consider AfD = Article for Deletion. For redirecting/merging usually RfC's are usually done now (at least that's the impression that I have received). Davidbuddy9 Talk  01:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I do not understand how you got this impression, more than 10 years ago it was changed from Votes for Deletion (VfD) to Articles for Deletion (AfD)! Davidbuddy9 Talk  02:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me that you didn't learn from reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flower of Life (geometry) (4th nomination). See what a productive conversation can lead to? See how you are not doing that in the current discussions? jps (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

On the List of Kepler exoplanet candidates by ESI AfD I have suggested alternatives to the article, we cannot be productive here because your AfD nominations should really be RfC's, where it is less of a battleground. Suggesting that I should not be allowed to be an editor because of former Sockpuppetry is not a valid point as to the contrary I do not have active sockpuppets at all. Davidbuddy9 Talk  21:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
RfCs are a waste of time, as we've seen. If you want to convert the page into List of potentially habitable exoplanet candidates, that's fine, but by what selection criteria are you going to choose the candidates? Honestly, there is no particular reason to have two lists. List of potentially habitable exoplanets can include candidate exoplanets too as long as we're clear that they are candidate planets and unconfirmed. It's just another column in the list. Having two lists like this helps no one, and having one ordered by ESI is just silly. jps (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: But wouldn't that be a merge/redirect to List of potentially habitable exoplanets then? In that case it would not be an AfD issue but an RfC issue. With no ill intent can you explain how you think RfC's are a waste of time just to clear up the picture? Davidbuddy9 Talk  21:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
(side note) For citation criteria we can use the Planetary Equilibrium temperature generated by NASA exoplanet archive to decided what is included in the list. I think that would be a decent compromise. But we will have to go paper hunting to determine what are the Equilibrium temperature ranges. Davidbuddy9 Talk  21:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect are legitimate AfD outcomes. RfCs are broken processes that take way too long and tend to attract less than WP:COMPETENT commenters. Decisions like this should be made by people who are familiar with the subject, know the problems, and don't have to explain everything millions of times over and over. Look how fast we came up with an idea here! Why wait a month? jps (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: Because the AfD environment is based around deletion, editors tend to have a more aggressive stance and some plug their ears in AfD's and don't want to see alternatives because they are judging the live article. An AfD's purpose is to discuss whether or not an article should be deleted, not what should we do to improve it. Plus, my Ideas are last minute resorts made on my talkpage (although they are no brainers), no editor other than me has suggested compromises in that AfD, and is somewhat uncommon for compromises to be made unlike an RfCs which, exactly are trying to find a consensus which if there is a dispute will boil down to a compromise. Take for example the dispute that lead to the creation of WP:AIAO, instead of deleting every single astronomical impression image (or holding discussions on deleting them) we had an RfC instead. Yes I will admit I was still new to Wikipedia at the time and I didn't open up the RfC properly but the important thing is instead of considering the deletion of the images we came up with a policy to deal with them. Now wouldn't that be a better way to deal with ESI related pages than deleting them? Davidbuddy9 Talk  22:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
In one astronomy class I taught, we told the students that a rough estimate for HZ were between 0.5 and 2 times the incident solar flux at 1 AU. That corresponds to equilibrium temperatures between ~215 K and ~300 K. It's not hard to find papers that reference this kind of rule of thumb. jps (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Equilibrium temperatures is the temperature of a planet excluding the GHG effect, 300K (~27°C) + GHG would really question the planets habitability imo. Also an old short list of this can be found in my exoplanetology sandbox where I made a shortlist of Exoplanet candidates not listed by PHL that has an equilibrium temperature > -100°C < 100°C. We can work from there maybe until its ready to go live? Davidbuddy9 Talk  22:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no perfect rule for what constitutes a HZ. Some planets with equilibrium temperatures of 300 K can sustain life near their poles or if their atmospheres are thin! The one I give puts Venus in it and Mars just outside of it. If you want to provide a better suggestion, go for it. I certainly don't care how the HZ is defined, only that it is defined clearly for the reader.

What's this "type" business? I see no sources for "planetary type". I think that's entirely original research. jps (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The type business is not entirely WP:OR this is simply using PHL's format for distingusing between "Sub Earth size" "Near Earth size" and "Super Earth size". NOVA Alien Planets Revealed and NASA's assurtions here disprove OR. Generally the cut-off point is now accepted to be 1.5 Re due to a paper that mentions that planets with Radii larger than >1.6 Re is not rocky. Davidbuddy9 Talk  22:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Ummm. Can you point to a single published paper that talks about these "planetary types" with the words used in your table? "Earth", "Neptune", and "Jupiter" are common referents. The words in that table I've never seen used in a publication. jps (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
1 2, Check that paywall ESI paper too, sure there is something there too. Remember, it doesn't always have to be in peer-reviewed sources as long as its reliable. If I dig around more I'm sure I can find more. Davidbuddy9 Talk  22:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Neither of those sources use the terminology "Warm Terran" to describe a type of planet. I'm not sure why you think they do. jps (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Moreover, Super Earth is the more common term in the literature. Do a search yourself. Go ahead and follow the NASA image, that's fine. But don't just use the word "Terran" just because it is more obscure. It is definitely not more technical. jps (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
These terms are not invented by me, I just didn't want to cite them because your interpretation of WP:OR is quite different then other peoples, I did not introduce the use of the word "Terran" (Which is a spin off of "Terra" from Latin), and is used not necessarily in scientific literature but what the means of it usually in space-related games, (eg. SpaceEngine). Also, PHL and This interesting site also use this word as well. The purpose is to allow the reader to distinguish, sub, near, and super (Earth) sized objects rather than giving raw data which can be eye-bleeding to some. Davidbuddy9 Talk  23:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I thought that might be the issue. If you want to write about space-related games, that's fine, but this is an article about reality and the people who are experts in reality are the scientists who publish in peer-reviewed papers. Following the creative juices of game-developers is not the way we are supposed to write Wikipedia articles. Use the standard terminology. Doing otherwise is bad practice. If you want to use words, use the ones most commonly found in the reliable source literature: "Earth", "Neptune", "Jupiter". The prefixes "sub-" and "super-" are okay. "Hot Jupiter" is a very common term. "Warm" and "Cold" less so, but as long as you have a definition to attach to them, I guess I can be persuaded that such adjectives might be okay. The problem is not with the use of words, the problem is using jargon that is non-standard in the epistemic contexts we require. Avoid getting your information on this subject from science fiction and game literature if you can. jps (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: Last time I checked PHL is not a game developer? Davidbuddy9 Talk  23:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Please stop hanging your hat on that website. Use the peer-reviewed literature. jps (talk) 23:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps we could contact @Axmendez: about this:
Type - PHL's classification of planets that includes host star spectral type (F, G, K, M), habitable zone location (hot, warm, cold) and size (miniterran, subterran, terran, superterran, jovian, neptunian) (e.g. Earth = G-Warm Terran, Venus = G-Hot Terran, Mars = G-Warm Subterran).? It was originally used by the creator of List of potentially habitable exoplanets and slowly has spread around even before I started editing here. We need more input before we can decide if we can use the "Terran" terminology but since it is simply just a latin name for Super-Earth Etc I don't know why It would be so controversial. I'll wait for the RfC's to play out and then I'll look into the use for this terminology but until then we should use this terminology unless the RfC's says otherwise about PHL. Davidbuddy9 Talk  23:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
What's going on here is you are enamored with a Space Engine game that used PHL as a source. Wikipedia is not a space engine game. It is a reference source that is used for things beyond just WP:MADEUP. There is an entire literature of papers that I read as part of my job. They do not use this terminology normally. This is exactly why RfCs are broken. It's a waste of time waiting for people to come up with the answer. If you won't budge then that's it, we're going to not have any "types" in the table unless you can find a peer-reviewed source that identifies the type specifically. jps (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
A Super-Earth is a type of Exoplanet why can't we have that denoted inside the table? Davidbuddy9 Talk  00:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
If you want to include it in the table, call it a Super Earth. Don't call it "Super Terran". The former term is used FAR more often than the latter. This stuff matters because it affects, for example, students who use Wikipedia uncritically and think they can write reports that use a totally different vocabulary than what is present in the literature. If you don't believe me, just do a search for the two terms at http://adsabs.harvard.edu/ and see which one has more hits. jps (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc:, Can do! Meanwhile could you then do the same for List of potentially habitable exoplanets I don't really want to deal with the whole mess there with the edit warring. Davidbuddy9 Talk  00:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I would if I knew what thresholds we were using. Do you want to go by the NASA histogram? That's what I would do. The problem I'm running into, though, is that the "size" is not well determined. If we're going by "Earth mass", then we really should only do it for planets that have verified masses. If we're going by "Earth radius" then it's only for Earth's that are transit detected. As it is, we need to find sources that identify each specific planet as falling into the specific category. We don't have that right now. We only have the speculation of PHL. jps (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Even more problematically, there are uncertainties on most of the planetary radii measured by Kepler. This does not lend itself to easy division of the different kinds of planets on the list. We need sources which identify each one. There are some out there, obviously. jps (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes there are uncertainties but we can simply separate them by using the radius number/mass number before uncertainties and adjust as the uncertainties get smaller. As for the PHL one has a confusing 5 Me or 1.5 Re rule, while the NASA conventions simply use 1.25 Re. Although the 1.5 Re cut off point makes more sense because of papers like Leslie A. Rogers, “Most 1.6 Earth-Radius Planets are not Rocky”, The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 801, No. 1, Article id. 41, March 2015 and Heller & Armstrong 2014 paper on Planetary "Super Habitability" justifies moving the Super-Earth range up to more PHLy standards, the problem is that (to you at least) it could count as WP:OR. Davidbuddy9 Talk  00:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
This is an example of the kind of work we need to do. Find a source that identifies the description of the planet and link it. That paper specifically calls the planet a "super earth". That's what we need. We also need those references for each mass, radius, and flux. Usually they'll be in the same paper, but not always! jps (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Davidbuddy9/Archive_1&oldid=1144358615"