1039:, I don't see the issue in general with artists impressions (even quite fanciful ones) as long as their descriptions provide suitable explanations of the speculative nature of what's being depicted. I would argue that use of images supplied by official organizations associated with a discovery is fine, and should in fact, be encouraged (since for most of these planets they are the best impressions we will have for quite some time) as long at is made clear that the image represents an artist's impression of one possible form of the planet. However, in cases like this one, were the source's image description is in error, we should not use the image.
865:
417:
975:, I'm mystified by what the supposed problem is. Are there four planets depicted or three? Well, who cares? What does it matter? It's a sourced artist's impression of the planet covered in this article. That it also depicts some space, some stars, and some other planetary bodies is irrelevant; that it fails (or may fail) to depict some other space, some other stars, some other planetary bodies, or even the '38 Yankees, is likewise quite simply irrelevant.
270:
201:
345:
318:
1133:
lighting? That absurd result is the upshot of your argument. This file doesn't purport to be a photograph; it's an artist's impression. It may be a problematic representation of the system, but it's a well-sourced artist's impression of the subject of this article, and it serves the reader just as does File:Planets2008.jpg. Your argument might justify excluding the picture from an article dealing with the system
287:
248:
689:"At a minimum of 1.9 Earth masses, it is the smallest extrasolar planet discovered around a normal star, as of 23 April 2009, and the closest in mass to Earth, though at an orbital distance of just 0.03 AU from its parent star (which is well out of the habitable zone) it is unlikely to possess an atmosphere due to its high temperature, small size, and strong radiation from the star."
355:
883:- There are supposed to be 4 planets lined up in the picture (file name says photo) and the blue dot that looks like a moon of the so-called farthest planet out is supposed to be one of those 4 planets. Just because someone contributed their picture to an official site for a judging contest doesn't mean it is an official picture, it's still trash.
1419:
1179:. As I argue above, there's nothing wrong with artist's impressions, and their inclusion should in fact be encouraged (even fanciful or speculative ones, as long as those aspects are made clear). The issue here is that the description accompanying this illustration is frankly in error (and thus confusing to readers) and leaves us doing
1277:
configuration of the system, an impression that could arise from other things depicted in the image? I agree that this is an imperfect image, marred by artistic license or misunderstanding. When a better image becomes available, we should use that one. But for now, I believe this is better than nothing.
1463:
While I am definitely opposed to the image with the other planets as being an impossible representation, I am more neutral to this new version. Note you should probably explicitly state that the original image was from ESO in the summary - I know this is implied by the link but stating it in the text
1132:
In other words, the artist took some artistic license with the small details, or didn't understand the mechanics of such fine-grained details. Again: so what? Are we supposed to delete File:Planets2008.jpg on the grounds that the image depicted is impossible and inconsistent with basic principles of
1825:
was at first the only known moon of Saturn and was called
Saturni Luna (Saturn's moon). It was later called Saturn II, Saturn IV, and Saturn VI, based on its position from Saturn following discoveries of more satellites around Saturn. Exoplanets are numbered (with letters) by discovery order, so in
740:
Much better. The causal link in the last sentence bothers be a bit though; what's the "this" being referred to? If it's the exclusion from the habitable zone, for example, then being "due to" small size doesn't work (esp. since that "small" size is minimally twice the size of a famously atmosphered
1276:
It seems to me that the real argument to inclusion vs. exclusion is over how we should answer the following question. Is any benefit to the reader in seeing what Gliese 581 e may look like outweighed by any detriment to the reader in the risk of their thinking that the image represents the actual
1325:
I agree completely with your formulation of the question. I would just argue that since the description does in fact suggest that the image "represents the actual configuration of the system", the risk is high. (There must be some general policy that's applicable here: what do do if there's a
1261:
of Gliese 581 b and Gliese 581 d, and the issue that you raise is with the depiction of the other planets as orbiting between Gliese 581 e and the star (i.e. the planets are depicted in reverse order to their actual orbits). But this is the article on Gliese 581 e. Is there a problem with the
453:
Whoever put this section in, it is inaccurate, the 'laser-like' signal was not detected near Gliese 581e, the planet was merely mentioned in the same article. The astrophysicist has not yet announced where the source of the alleged signal is coming from. I am therefore removing this
1310:
makes no attempt at perspective or positioning, but functions as a radius comparison and gives the objects in order of increasing solar distance (though the distances depicted are not to scale) and clearly makes no attempt to be the equivalent of a photograph whatsoever.
2043:
1352:, but if I'm not mistaken, for an image to be included here, it has to be by-and-large free of restrictions. If this one is here on a license that allows us to do so, why don't I just pull the image into photoshop, delete the other three planets, and we'll use
1433:
The original was released under a cc3 license that allows adaptation. I have adapted the file by airbrushing out the three planets that users have said cause the problems (the orbital distance implicit in the perspective is unfixable but not particularly
941:
in our sky). In my personal opinion, the only thing that makes this image nonsense is that it is a speculative artist's image. But since we do not know what these planets actually look like, we don't have an image of them as a spec (like we do with
1103:
Wow, your right. The description makes no sense at all. I think it has to be in error. I'd still keep it for the time being, but make clear (on the image's
Wikimedia page) that the description provided by the source has to be wrong. Vote changed.
1961:. In fact, there is already precedent for leaving holes in designation sequences, including this system where the "g" candidate continued to be referred to as such even after the refutation of the candidate "f". The multiple star system
1965:
can also be regarded as another example of this: the distant companions continue to use the letters "H" and "L", despite "B", "C", "D", etc. being shown to be unrelated stars that happened to be located close to the line-of-sight.
1555:
No. It's not transiting, so any such size estimate would have to be based on compositional models, which would produce a wide range of values. In addition, since the inclination is unknown, the mass itself is a (minimum) estimate.
1074:
as the phase shown of the blue planet is impossible, unless the blue planet is located closer to the star than the foreground planet. Maximum phase angle occurs when the planet and star are in quadrature, and thus for planet
936:
to be precise). The two planet orbit close to each other, that you would be able to clearly see planet b from planet e, while planets c and d would appear as bright stars (similar to how we can see the the planets of the
1305:
Given the image includes lens flare, clearly includes perspective and appears to be an attempt to visualise what it would be like in the Gliese 581 system, I think yes it is intended to be the equivalent of a photograph.
164:
1662:
Thanks for the interesting image. But is a "water planet" possible so far inside the habitable zone? I'd think not - all the water would be in vapor form and soon be lost to the solar (stellar?) wind. --
1083:, it cannot exceed ~45-50 degrees, which corresponds to a gibbous phase, while the blue planet is depicted at half phase. The image therefore is inconsistent with basic principles of lighting.
905:
OK, I didn't realize there was a discussion on here (please forgive me). I see nothing wrong with this particular image. Can you explain to me what you find "nonsensical" about this image? —
2033:
1766:
Best ask some astronomers here. This move would make ambiguity between the false detection Gliese 581 d and the genuine Gliese 581 e. If move acccepted, we better also move the existing
2013:
1590:'s mass. So could its composition be such that it turns out to be bigger than Kepler-10b, and is this likely? If so, we should correct the "smallest exoplanet" claim in this article.--
726:
Good start. The date was definitely bothering me, although I'm guilty of overusing parenthesis myself. I've tried to break it up into three separate sentences. What do you think?
1536:
Is there a size (i.e. diameter/radius) estimate for this planet? Since it is the lightest non-pulsar exoplanet known, I'd expect it to be the smallest as well (i.e. smaller than
1273:
one assumes that it is supposed to be the equivalent of a photograph, representing the actual configuration of the system. By that standard, however, so is File:Planets2008.jpg.
407:
1326:
reasonable case for including an image on its own merits, but the description of the image at its source is in error or confusing. If there is, we should just apply that.)
2038:
633:
158:
946:), and it is likely we will not be able to actually view these planets in detail for several centuries (if not millenniums), an artist's image is just as good. —
426:
328:
90:
531:
as the "previous smallest planet discovered". While COROT-7b had (and still has) the smallest known radius, it did not have the smallest reported mass (see
2028:
932:- Scientifically, this image is correct. The four planets are indeed in this image. The "blue moon" (as you call it) is indeed one of those planets (
397:
2018:
1640:
Iv'e added an image that compares some modeled sizes based on the minimum mass. The figure's caption explains some of the limitations of these models.
96:
2023:
1892:
41:
1697:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
1848:
1801:
817:
492:
55:
558:
81.155.8.127, please discuss your edits here. Reverting a disputed edit already marked as unsoruced (by a third party) is discouraged.
1967:
1939:
1517:
368:
323:
110:
455:
115:
31:
1448:
1370:
1291:
1151:
989:
1612:
Yes, it could be still be bigger. It's hard to know how likely that is though without knowing more (and having more published).
85:
1746:
1871:
mean that the planet Gliese 581 e will be renamed to Gliese 581 d. Instead, it means that Gliese 581 d will simply not exist.
1429:
298:
1793:
76:
1955:- the object's designation quite clearly uses the letter "e". This is true in the 3-planet solutions of both Baluev (2013)
1797:
1652:
1624:
1568:
1495:
1338:
1199:
1116:
1051:
846:
805:
753:
716:
670:
570:
547:
481:
179:
1483:? There's nothing encyclopedic (and a lot that's misleading or just fanciful) about this (and most "impression") images.
1226:
146:
1729:– The previous candidate Gliese 581 d was proven to not exist, making this planet the third to have been discovered. –
1688:
686:
If I get some time this weekend I'll take a stab at breaking up this sentence into something a little more manageable:
230:
1779:
1754:
226:
1771:
1480:
1036:
888:
269:
651:
120:
1175:
868:
636:. Meanwhile, the current entry is wrong: it was not discovered in Switzerland. I changed it to the observatory.
1888:
1831:
1734:
1667:
1595:
1545:
1995:
1698:
304:
286:
496:
140:
1852:
1805:
1521:
952:
911:
831:
821:
790:
1513:
1183:
as we struggle to interpret it. I encourage anyone who originally voted (as I did) to "keep" to review the
1971:
1943:
1938:
this type of renaming is not
Knowledge (XXG)'s job. If it is later renamed we can change the title then.--
1775:
1750:
1017:
768:
731:
694:
816:
I was reemphasizing my edit that added it, while your edit removing it provided an unreasonable example.
234:
66:
884:
459:
136:
605:
Not sure if there is a better place to raise this, but here it goes: Does the info box really need the
81:
1444:
1366:
1307:
1287:
1222:
1184:
1147:
985:
260:
864:
1884:
1827:
1730:
1663:
1591:
1541:
1469:
1393:
1316:
1234:
1088:
431:
186:
172:
1909:
972:
947:
906:
618:
510:
1349:
416:
247:
1648:
1620:
1564:
1491:
1385:
1334:
1195:
1112:
1047:
1013:
842:
801:
764:
749:
727:
712:
690:
666:
591:
566:
543:
477:
62:
1926:
640:
360:
209:
1452:
1374:
1295:
1229:
is meant to be a view from within the system. There is no real comparison between the two.
1155:
993:
200:
1440:
1362:
1283:
1143:
981:
1985:
1180:
789:
76.66.196.218, no need to shout. This is a general issue that should be discussed in the
505:
You are right. Sorry for reverting your removal, I didn't notice this explanation first.
152:
1465:
1389:
1312:
1230:
1084:
1012:- I also don't see what the problem is with the picture. It's an artist's rendition.
2007:
1905:
1711:
614:
506:
1956:
1822:
1789:
1767:
1720:
1643:
1615:
1559:
1486:
1329:
1190:
1187:
of the Gliese 581 system. You'll see immediately that the description is nonsense.
1107:
1042:
938:
933:
837:
796:
763:
I like this version. Concise, easy to read, and I think it gets the point across.
744:
707:
661:
587:
561:
538:
472:
741:
planet). I've tried an alternative to deal with this, but it still needs fixing.
17:
2044:
Pages within the scope of WikiProject
Astronomical objects (WP Astronomy Banner)
1922:
943:
637:
532:
35:
1510:
The Gliese star page says it's 20.3LY away this page says 20.5LY which is it?
1035:- The description presents an impossible scenario and has to be wrong. As I've
1994:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
1587:
1583:
1537:
350:
1137:, although I would still resist that conclusion, but not from this article.
373:
344:
317:
254:
225:) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
1582:
There is an upper limit for 581 e's mass of 3.1 Earth masses as well (see
704:
I've made start. I think the first step is to delete the mention of date.
1867:; even if the planet Gliese 581 d has been shown not to exist, this does
1586:), if the Gliese 581 system is to be stable, which is still smaller than
1265:
I don't see error in the description, let alone nonsense. It's the image
528:
1962:
1428:
253:
A news item involving Gliese 581e was featured on
Knowledge (XXG)'s
1975:
1947:
1930:
1913:
1904:. Knowledge (XXG) does not take the initiative in renaming things.
1896:
1856:
1835:
1809:
1783:
1758:
1738:
1714:
1671:
1657:
1629:
1599:
1573:
1549:
1525:
1500:
1473:
1457:
1397:
1379:
1343:
1320:
1300:
1238:
1204:
1160:
1121:
1092:
1056:
1021:
998:
957:
916:
892:
851:
825:
810:
772:
758:
735:
721:
698:
675:
643:
622:
595:
575:
552:
514:
500:
486:
463:
863:
1959:
860:
This picture is nonsense by the publishers description... now RFC
613:
combination. This would be way more informative than a country!
609:
as the discovery site? I think it would be better to record the
586:
Can some admin protect the article, it is under constant attack
280:
242:
195:
26:
1826:
case of false detection, the numbering should be adjusted. --
415:
268:
1687:
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
1725:
171:
1984:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
634:
1701:. No further edits should be made to this section.
1386:
ESO's page on the matter of copyright and licensing
185:
2014:Knowledge (XXG) articles that use American English
1998:. No further edits should be made to this section.
1774:or similar to get it out of the way of incoming.
2034:Start-Class Astronomy articles of Mid-importance
1875:sources start calling this planet Gliese 581 d,
44:for general discussion of the article's subject.
469:Agreed. If it reappears, it should be deleted.
785:Alternate exoplanet designations in main text?
8:
1257:The issues raised by Icalanise are with the
1221:To explain what should be an obvious point,
430:, which collaborates on articles related to
372:, which collaborates on articles related to
284:
611:Observatory (name? location?) - Instrument
312:
213:, which has its own spelling conventions (
2039:Start-Class Astronomical objects articles
1070:- The image cannot be a view from planet
1745:This is a contested technical request (
314:
1794:Gliese 581 d (falsely proposed planet)
1788:If this is renamed, then that article
1269:that is, in some respects, nonsense -
527:I've deleted the unsourced section on
1798:Gliese 581 d (false planet detection)
382:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Astronomy
233:, this should not be changed without
7:
2019:Knowledge (XXG) In the news articles
1706:The result of the move request was:
632:parameter is supposed to be used at
366:This article is within the scope of
1584:Gliese_581#4-planet_solution_(2009)
303:It is of interest to the following
34:for discussing improvements to the
25:
2029:Mid-importance Astronomy articles
61:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
1427:
1417:
427:WikiProject Astronomical objects
353:
343:
316:
285:
246:
199:
56:Click here to start a new topic.
1262:representation of Gliese 581 e?
650:Yes, the documentation for the
628:Good question! I asked how the
402:This article has been rated as
2024:Start-Class Astronomy articles
1772:Gliese 581 d (false detection)
830:Let's keep this discussion in
385:Template:WikiProject Astronomy
1:
1680:Requested move 08 August 2014
523:COROT-7b "previous smallest"?
424:This article is supported by
53:Put new text under old text.
1958:and Robertson et al. (2014)
1658:18:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
1630:18:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
1600:18:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
1574:17:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
1550:17:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
1481:delete this image altogether
1227:File:Phot-15a-09-fullres.jpg
1715:07:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
1501:13:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
2060:
1976:12:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
1948:07:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
1931:18:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
1914:15:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
1897:14:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
1857:07:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
1836:05:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
1810:07:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
1784:05:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
1759:05:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
1739:05:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
1672:15:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
1348:I'm a little vague on our
852:03:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
826:01:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
811:16:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
773:01:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
759:21:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
736:21:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
722:21:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
699:20:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
644:22:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
623:20:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
596:17:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
576:16:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
553:15:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
408:project's importance scale
1526:11:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
1474:19:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
1458:19:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
1398:18:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
1380:18:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
1344:18:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
1321:18:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
1301:17:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
1239:17:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
1205:17:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
1161:14:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
1122:19:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
1093:19:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
1057:15:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
1022:14:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
999:15:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
958:16:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
917:16:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
893:00:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
676:19:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
423:
401:
338:
311:
265:section on 22 April 2009.
91:Be welcoming to newcomers
1991:Please do not modify it.
1694:Please do not modify it.
515:18:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
501:18:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
487:22:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
464:22:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
1540:'s 1.4 Earth radii). --
1921:per StringTheory11. --
1173:The issue is with the
871:
420:
293:This article is rated
274:
86:avoid personal attacks
1847:proposed the move --
867:
419:
369:WikiProject Astronomy
297:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
272:
111:Neutral point of view
1464:itself cannot hurt.
1308:File:Planets2008.jpg
1225:is a diagram, while
1223:File:Planets2008.jpg
658:is the observatory.
432:astronomical objects
329:Astronomical objects
231:relevant style guide
227:varieties of English
116:No original research
1845:User:Article editor
1792:should be moved to
376:on Knowledge (XXG).
229:. According to the
1479:Shouldn't we just
973:user:NuclearVacuum
872:
421:
388:Astronomy articles
299:content assessment
275:
97:dispute resolution
58:
1879:we will move it,
1859:
1776:Anthony Appleyard
1761:
1751:Anthony Appleyard
1655:
1627:
1571:
1516:comment added by
1498:
1456:
1378:
1341:
1299:
1202:
1181:original research
1159:
1119:
1054:
997:
849:
808:
791:appropriate place
756:
719:
673:
601:"Discovery site"?
573:
550:
484:
446:
445:
442:
441:
438:
437:
279:
278:
241:
240:
194:
193:
77:Assume good faith
54:
18:Talk:Gliese 581 e
16:(Redirected from
2051:
1993:
1840:
1744:
1728:
1696:
1656:
1647:
1628:
1619:
1572:
1563:
1528:
1499:
1490:
1438:
1437:
1431:
1425:
1421:
1420:
1360:
1359:
1342:
1333:
1281:
1280:
1203:
1194:
1141:
1140:
1120:
1111:
1055:
1046:
979:
978:
955:
950:
914:
909:
885:GabrielVelasquez
850:
841:
809:
800:
757:
748:
720:
711:
674:
665:
657:
631:
574:
565:
551:
542:
535:, for example).
485:
476:
449:Signal Detection
390:
389:
386:
383:
380:
363:
361:Astronomy portal
358:
357:
356:
347:
340:
339:
334:
331:
320:
313:
296:
290:
289:
281:
250:
243:
210:American English
206:This article is
203:
196:
190:
189:
175:
106:Article policies
27:
21:
2059:
2058:
2054:
2053:
2052:
2050:
2049:
2048:
2004:
2003:
2002:
1989:
1724:
1692:
1682:
1641:
1613:
1557:
1534:
1511:
1508:
1484:
1435:
1418:
1416:
1357:
1327:
1278:
1188:
1138:
1105:
1079:as viewed from
1040:
976:
953:
948:
912:
907:
862:
835:
794:
787:
742:
705:
684:
682:Run-on sentence
659:
655:
629:
603:
584:
559:
536:
525:
470:
451:
387:
384:
381:
378:
377:
359:
354:
352:
332:
326:
294:
273:Knowledge (XXG)
235:broad consensus
132:
127:
126:
125:
102:
72:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
2057:
2055:
2047:
2046:
2041:
2036:
2031:
2026:
2021:
2016:
2006:
2005:
2001:
2000:
1986:requested move
1980:
1979:
1978:
1950:
1933:
1916:
1899:
1885:StringTheory11
1862:
1861:
1860:
1828:Article editor
1815:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1763:
1762:
1731:Article editor
1718:
1704:
1703:
1689:requested move
1683:
1681:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1664:Roentgenium111
1637:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1592:Roentgenium111
1577:
1576:
1542:Roentgenium111
1533:
1532:Size estimate?
1530:
1507:
1504:
1477:
1476:
1432:
1426:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1323:
1274:
1263:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1037:said elsewhere
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
963:
962:
961:
960:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
898:
897:
896:
895:
874:
861:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
786:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
683:
680:
679:
678:
656:discovery site
647:
646:
630:discovery site
602:
599:
583:
580:
579:
578:
524:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
489:
450:
447:
444:
443:
440:
439:
436:
435:
422:
412:
411:
404:Mid-importance
400:
394:
393:
391:
365:
364:
348:
336:
335:
333:Mid‑importance
321:
309:
308:
302:
291:
277:
276:
266:
251:
239:
238:
204:
192:
191:
129:
128:
124:
123:
118:
113:
104:
103:
101:
100:
93:
88:
79:
73:
71:
70:
59:
50:
49:
46:
45:
39:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2056:
2045:
2042:
2040:
2037:
2035:
2032:
2030:
2027:
2025:
2022:
2020:
2017:
2015:
2012:
2011:
2009:
1999:
1997:
1992:
1987:
1982:
1981:
1977:
1973:
1969:
1964:
1960:
1957:
1954:
1953:Strong oppose
1951:
1949:
1945:
1941:
1937:
1934:
1932:
1928:
1924:
1920:
1917:
1915:
1911:
1907:
1903:
1900:
1898:
1894:
1890:
1886:
1882:
1878:
1874:
1870:
1866:
1865:Strong oppose
1863:
1858:
1854:
1850:
1849:65.94.169.222
1846:
1843:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1833:
1829:
1824:
1820:
1817:
1816:
1811:
1807:
1803:
1802:65.94.169.222
1799:
1795:
1791:
1787:
1786:
1785:
1781:
1777:
1773:
1769:
1765:
1764:
1760:
1756:
1752:
1748:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1736:
1732:
1727:
1722:
1717:
1716:
1713:
1709:
1702:
1700:
1695:
1690:
1685:
1684:
1679:
1673:
1669:
1665:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1654:
1650:
1645:
1639:
1638:
1631:
1626:
1622:
1617:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1601:
1597:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1575:
1570:
1566:
1561:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1547:
1543:
1539:
1531:
1529:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1505:
1503:
1502:
1497:
1493:
1488:
1482:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1454:
1450:
1446:
1442:
1430:
1424:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1387:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1340:
1336:
1331:
1324:
1322:
1318:
1314:
1309:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1275:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1206:
1201:
1197:
1192:
1186:
1185:configuration
1182:
1178:
1177:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1162:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1136:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1123:
1118:
1114:
1109:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1073:
1069:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1058:
1053:
1049:
1044:
1038:
1034:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1000:
995:
991:
987:
983:
974:
970:
967:
966:
965:
964:
959:
956:
951:
945:
940:
935:
931:
928:
927:
926:
925:
918:
915:
910:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
894:
890:
886:
882:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
870:
866:
859:
853:
848:
844:
839:
833:
829:
828:
827:
823:
819:
818:76.66.196.218
815:
814:
813:
812:
807:
803:
798:
792:
784:
774:
770:
766:
762:
761:
760:
755:
751:
746:
739:
738:
737:
733:
729:
725:
724:
723:
718:
714:
709:
703:
702:
701:
700:
696:
692:
687:
681:
677:
672:
668:
663:
653:
649:
648:
645:
642:
639:
635:
627:
626:
625:
624:
620:
616:
612:
608:
600:
598:
597:
593:
589:
582:Protect page?
581:
577:
572:
568:
563:
557:
556:
555:
554:
549:
545:
540:
534:
530:
522:
516:
512:
508:
504:
503:
502:
498:
494:
493:84.122.154.39
490:
488:
483:
479:
474:
468:
467:
466:
465:
461:
457:
448:
433:
429:
428:
418:
414:
413:
409:
405:
399:
396:
395:
392:
375:
371:
370:
362:
351:
349:
346:
342:
341:
337:
330:
325:
322:
319:
315:
310:
306:
300:
292:
288:
283:
282:
271:
267:
264:
263:
262:
256:
252:
249:
245:
244:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
211:
205:
202:
198:
197:
188:
184:
181:
178:
174:
170:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
138:
135:
134:Find sources:
131:
130:
122:
121:Verifiability
119:
117:
114:
112:
109:
108:
107:
98:
94:
92:
89:
87:
83:
80:
78:
75:
74:
68:
64:
63:Learn to edit
60:
57:
52:
51:
48:
47:
43:
37:
33:
29:
28:
19:
1990:
1983:
1968:77.57.25.250
1952:
1940:67.68.22.129
1935:
1918:
1901:
1880:
1876:
1872:
1868:
1864:
1844:
1841:
1818:
1790:Gliese 581 d
1768:Gliese 581 d
1726:Gliese 581 d
1721:Gliese 581 e
1719:
1707:
1705:
1693:
1686:
1535:
1518:67.204.24.19
1509:
1478:
1436:- Simon Dodd
1422:
1414:
1384:Well here's
1358:- Simon Dodd
1353:
1350:image policy
1279:- Simon Dodd
1270:
1266:
1258:
1174:
1139:- Simon Dodd
1134:
1080:
1076:
1071:
1067:
1032:
1014:Wolfhound668
1009:
977:- Simon Dodd
968:
939:solar system
929:
880:
873:
788:
765:Wolfhound668
728:Wolfhound668
691:Wolfhound668
688:
685:
610:
606:
604:
585:
526:
452:
425:
403:
367:
305:WikiProjects
259:
258:
222:
218:
214:
207:
182:
176:
168:
161:
155:
149:
143:
133:
105:
30:This is the
1996:move review
1699:move review
1512:—Preceding
1434:troubling.)
1176:description
944:Fomalhaut b
869:description
533:HD 181433 b
456:75.67.80.68
295:Start-class
261:In the news
208:written in
159:free images
42:not a forum
36:Gliese 581e
2008:Categories
1588:Kepler-10b
1538:Kepler-10b
1747:permalink
1708:not moved
1466:Icalanise
1390:Icalanise
1313:Icalanise
1259:depiction
1231:Icalanise
1085:Icalanise
832:one place
491:Agreed.--
379:Astronomy
374:Astronomy
324:Astronomy
255:Main Page
99:if needed
82:Be polite
32:talk page
1906:Rothorpe
1883:before.
1712:Armbrust
1514:unsigned
1506:Distance
1415:(undent)
934:planet b
652:template
615:Awolf002
529:COROT-7b
507:Offliner
454:section.
223:traveled
67:get help
40:This is
38:article.
1963:Capella
1819:Support
1644:Aldaron
1616:Aldaron
1560:Aldaron
1487:Aldaron
1356:image?
1330:Aldaron
1191:Aldaron
1135:in toto
1108:Aldaron
1043:Aldaron
971:- like
949:Nuclear
908:Nuclear
838:Aldaron
797:Aldaron
745:Aldaron
708:Aldaron
662:Aldaron
607:country
588:Mtpaley
562:Aldaron
539:Aldaron
473:Aldaron
406:on the
257:in the
219:defense
165:WP refs
153:scholar
1936:Oppose
1923:IJBall
1919:Oppose
1902:Oppose
1453:WP:LAW
1375:WP:LAW
1296:WP:LAW
1267:itself
1156:WP:LAW
1068:Delete
1033:Delete
994:WP:LAW
954:Vacuum
913:Vacuum
881:Delete
641:(Talk)
638:Finell
301:scale.
137:Google
1823:Titan
654:says
215:color
180:JSTOR
141:books
95:Seek
1972:talk
1944:talk
1927:talk
1910:talk
1877:then
1853:talk
1842:NOTE
1832:talk
1806:talk
1780:talk
1755:talk
1735:talk
1668:talk
1596:talk
1546:talk
1522:talk
1470:talk
1423:Done
1394:talk
1354:that
1317:talk
1235:talk
1089:talk
1018:talk
1010:Keep
969:Keep
930:Keep
889:talk
822:talk
769:talk
732:talk
695:talk
619:talk
592:talk
511:talk
497:talk
460:talk
173:FENS
147:news
84:and
1988:.
1881:not
1869:not
1800:--
1796:or
1770:to
1749:).
398:Mid
187:TWL
2010::
1974:)
1946:)
1929:)
1912:)
1895:)
1891:•
1873:If
1855:)
1834:)
1821::
1808:)
1782:)
1757:)
1737:)
1723:→
1710:.
1691:.
1670:)
1646:•
1642:—
1618:•
1614:—
1598:)
1562:•
1558:—
1548:)
1524:)
1489:•
1485:—
1472:)
1439:{
1396:)
1388:.
1361:{
1332:•
1328:—
1319:)
1282:{
1271:if
1237:)
1193:•
1189:—
1142:{
1110:•
1106:—
1091:)
1045:•
1041:—
1020:)
980:{
891:)
840:•
836:—
834:.
824:)
799:•
795:—
793:.
771:)
747:•
743:—
734:)
710:•
706:—
697:)
664:•
660:—
621:)
594:)
564:•
560:—
541:•
537:—
513:)
499:)
475:•
471:—
462:)
327::
221:,
217:,
167:)
65:;
1970:(
1942:(
1925:(
1908:(
1893:c
1889:t
1887:(
1851:(
1830:(
1804:(
1778:(
1753:(
1733:(
1666:(
1653:C
1651:/
1649:T
1625:C
1623:/
1621:T
1594:(
1569:C
1567:/
1565:T
1544:(
1520:(
1496:C
1494:/
1492:T
1468:(
1455:}
1451:·
1449:C
1447:·
1445:T
1443:·
1441:U
1392:(
1377:}
1373:·
1371:C
1369:·
1367:T
1365:·
1363:U
1339:C
1337:/
1335:T
1315:(
1298:}
1294:·
1292:C
1290:·
1288:T
1286:·
1284:U
1233:(
1200:C
1198:/
1196:T
1158:}
1154:·
1152:C
1150:·
1148:T
1146:·
1144:U
1117:C
1115:/
1113:T
1087:(
1081:e
1077:b
1072:e
1052:C
1050:/
1048:T
1016:(
996:}
992:·
990:C
988:·
986:T
984:·
982:U
887:(
847:C
845:/
843:T
820:(
806:C
804:/
802:T
767:(
754:C
752:/
750:T
730:(
717:C
715:/
713:T
693:(
671:C
669:/
667:T
617:(
590:(
571:C
569:/
567:T
548:C
546:/
544:T
509:(
495:(
482:C
480:/
478:T
458:(
434:.
410:.
307::
237:.
183:·
177:·
169:·
162:·
156:·
150:·
144:·
139:(
69:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
