Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 20

2188:

artwork in articles generally ought to be informative in the best manner that is available, meaning not speculative if actual ones are taken, and based on the best information we have if "speculation" is what we are reduced to. I like very much the idea that speculative art should at least have been published by a reliable source, and would even support requiring (or at least recommending) that it is confirmed that the image is representative of our best information. I hestitate to say the art ought to be "representative", because non-representational artistic techniques can convey meaningful things even if they differ from what a photograph would reveal. But I do think that the art work should be competent or professional-looking, and I think we can run into real problems enforcing standards if any editor can submit his/her own work in that medium. We don't allow that for text. Neither should we for images. And let's consider this new "compromise".

266:- I decided to test the educated guess that was made with my grandfather. I asked him if he believes that the GJ 667 Cc's sunset is how the planet actually looks he said that he doesn't believe that that is how the planet looks like because we simply don't have the technology to see the planet as a blue marble nevermind as standing on the surface. Because of this I don't believe that these images are really being misinterpreted as real scientific data unless the person is a 12 year old who believes everything they see. They all list artists impression below them too so that should also lower the chance of it being misinterpreted. Imo this is all nonsense and will require lots of work do something that could be prevented by logic and basic questioning. But that is my two cents. 2300:"Facepalm" Lets not talk about Knowledge (XXG)'s Goals and standards Vs. ESO's because I would likely to be banned. But lets just say this if you reference Knowledge (XXG) on your papers in University you get a 0 and maybe a laugh in the face from your prof. That wouldn't happen with ESO or NASA. Anyhow I wont go further in that. So now we have a proposal from a person who says if there isn't an evidence based picture than one from a reliable source is fine but takes down an image from a reliable source because ESO's goals are only to make money and that Knowledge (XXG)'s goals are far superior? Really is this where this is going? I'm sorry if I offended anyone but I just had to point this out. 2377:

simply do not know how large the planet is only its mass is known. Of course there has been size comparisons but they are all generally complicated and unpleasing to look at. Size comparisons of course don't need to be created by reliable sources but they should be using information from reliable sources (However most size comparisons that we could possibly need are already here so all we need to really do is reuse them which we already do.). The "unconstructive" criticism part that really could still be applied to your compromised views are really the fact that you were boasting how you were taking down celestia images and previously clamed that they were "OK". -

330:, and these decisions can't be made project-wide. It might be possible to form some general guidelines about when to use artist's impressions, but ultimately the decision will be case-by-case and depend upon the consensus in an individual article. I don't have enough information on the specific circumstances which you're referring to to have a reasonable opinion, and I don't think any editor could based on the information provided here. And it appears that you're finding a different forum instead of engaging with the editor(s) with whom you disagree; that is very, very bad practice. Could you point to the specific discussion you're referring to? —Alex ( 2403:: I initially decided to let it stay because it contained no speculation since it depicts no features at all besides sphericity. My concern is that the images might be misleading, and I don't think that is a danger if no features of the planet are depicted. Do you (and anyone else reading this discussion) think it would be best to remove all Celestia images as a matter of course, or is it okay to leave these images if they depict no features, as is the case with the image mentioned above? I can see good arguments both ways and would be fine with either choice. 1105:. Our differing goals and intentions mean that just because they publish the image does not mean it belongs here. As an analogy, researchers often publish highly technical figures, none of which end up on Knowledge (XXG). The figures don't end up on Knowledge (XXG) because our goals are again different in this case; they are trying to communicate with peers, we are trying to be more accessible. The principle is that we need to judge whether images from scientific sources are appropriate-- their source does not automatically merit their inclusion. 2342:

were mine alone, I would follow the guidelines that I proposed in my first post in this discussion, namely: "Artist's impressions based primarily on known (or reasonably suspected) features of the object are okay as long as they make that feature more prominent than the speculative bits." However, the choice is not mine alone, and after having read and taken into account the comments in this discussion, I proposed the compromise that you quoted above as a way to best satisfy everyone and comply with policy, in particular

2173:

here for keeping the first category of images. A lack of complete agreement does not mean that nothing can be drawn from the discussion. You yourself stated: "Making up our own would be original research, but if a reliable source has published them then WP:OR does not apply." This comment (and your arguments in general) were important in informing the compromise that I proposed. Do you have any arguments for keeping the first category of images, or any ways in which you would modify the compromise I proposed?

3254:, It appears to me that GJ is just an expansion of the Gliese (Gl/GL) catalog and we should use the base catalogs name. It seems so complicated that this set of numbers would have to be named GJ because they are in the Gliese+Jahreiss expansion and others called NSC because they are used in that expansion. I think we should call all of them by the base catalog name (Gliese) and none of the extension, expansion, or addition names that could be very complicated and confusing especially for 148: 1595:

reasonably suspected) features of the object are okay as long as they make that feature more prominent than the speculative bits." Aside from the separate point about art vs. scientific representation, most/all of the Agincourt images could also stay under this guideline. Most exoplanet images, and all the ones that I removed, fail this guideline since they are based on nothing but the planet's mass/size. I'm not opposed to responsible artist's impressions, just baseless ones.

2223: 766:

discussion-terminating global assertions are inappropriate. Though at the same time, it is also inappropriate to have an RfC on every contested image removal, so it's not a bad idea to build consensus around a few general guidelines, so that discussion can focus on borderline images and special cases. That was the intention of my points above (which I realize now are written in a somewhat too authoritative style-- they reflect only my personal beliefs at this time) .

31: 2126:

broad participation, something that is not possible between just two editors on a talk page. If we don't establish a guideline, then I will go about removing more images than some people here are okay with (although probably fewer than some others would remove), and when someone objects, whether the image remains will be determined by whoever is the more skillful and persistent edit warrior, or whoever happens to get a favorable

128: 1847:- I've seen so many artist impressions through the decades, and they are never even close to what we eventually find. I would allow none of them near the top of an article. However, what I might do is have a specific "Artist's impression" section where two or three examples would be shown as to what it "might" look like. With it's own section there should be no mistake by readers as to the intention of the pictures. 138: 2267:- I've ignored this discussion for a while to see how this would play out (Seems like the most controversial RfC I've ever seen) but I know who the person who forced me to do this is and they know very well who they are but now trying to hold back just to let the community to play out but when I saw this users proposal I almost fell out of my seat (Here is the quote I will explain why I fell off after): 951:

up to help people assess whether any given artists impression is of encyclopedic value. For instance I don't know enough about what is known about the first two planets shown as speculative to know whether or not the image is encyclopedically valuable or not. But I would look to see whether RS confirmed atmosphere, clouds and coloration because those are the 3 key features I see from those 2 images.

133: 2909: 2326:

Cc's image (I appreciate that you are no longer removing this image). Please people no fence sitting or position swapping make up your minds! PS Also other people I find are starting to abuse this argument. One person was angry at me that I put a size comparison for KOI-3010.01 and it was just me reusing the Kepler-10b size comparison since they have a very similar radius.

2090:, and (3) the first phrase of the caption is "An artist's impression of...". Point (2) is obviously the crucial and potentially controversial one. In my judgement, none of the reasoned arguments in this discussion for artist's impressions indicated that Celestia images generated by random editors would be acceptable, and that is what 95% of the images I removed were. 3312:- I was contacted by the feedback request service and invited to participate in this discussion as a non-involved science editor. I can see that the discussion is going in the right direction and that all involved are acting in good faith and are notably civil and courteous with each other. I can only offer my opinion and please feel free to consider it or not... 832:. Original research only applies to Knowledge (XXG) editors. If another source conducts original research and we use it as a citation or use the image, that's fine from a policy point of view. The question here is whether we want to include these artist's impressions as an editorial matter; the original research policy has no bearing one way or the other. —Alex ( 153: 1575:

planet's sunset viewed from its surface has nothing to do with the planet's apparent color but, again, these images seem to have misled you into thinking that blue sunsets on Mars have something to do with planets appearing blue. If you, someone who has clearly thought a lot about this, are misled like this, how can we expect the average reader to fare?

1172:

articulated ideas for more nuanced guidelines in this RfC. It is good to have a central discussion about these distinctions because of the great number of cases involved. It wastes everybody's time to have dozens of identical discussions. Two discussions on individual cases have already occurred, and one of them prompted this RfC. Those cases are at

2064:- There is no agreement in this discussion, but the views range from allowing artistic impressions to only allowing images that are entirely based on evidence. A policy that could be a compromise between these views is to allow artistic impressions only when (1) every speculation is disclosed and (2) a more evidence-based image is not available. 3749:

readily for inclusion of other images that meet the commonly-found quality that comes from RSes. The only workable way to achieve a consensus here is, I think, to remain somewhat loose in term of hard-and-fast rules, but to set a measuring stick in place against which we can do some comparing in making decisions on specific cases.

2472:

Rotation alone produces unequal tidal stresses (with the star) in the planetary material otherwise, yielding friction therefore heat, then melting, then reshaping. (There might be other mechanisms as well; I don't know.) I believe that this is guaranteed to happen for anything large enough to qualify as a planet.

2584:, meaning a lightning flash. Blitzars occur when a neutron star exceeds its maximum allowed mass, which can theoretically occur if it is rotating. When the rotation slows (eg. by magnetic braking) then it will spontaneously collapse to form a black hole. This mechanism is one possible explanation for 3640:

are available. Praemonitus is correct that there was no clear consensus in the earlier discussion, but that doesn't mean we should dismiss constructive proposals such as this one. I could support a guideline that only included the current points 1 and 3, plus the definition of an artists' impression.

3530:

The guideline uses "reliable source" in a different way than Knowledge (XXG); "non-scientific print or online media" is certainly a reliable source by Knowledge (XXG)'s definition, so the guideline should either be changed to allow images from non-scientific media (though in practice such images will

2082:

I would propose a slightly different compromise, in some ways more accepting and in some ways more strict. The requirement to disclose every speculation would result in overlong, disputed captions that would serve as battlegrounds. I would suggest that we allow artist's impressions only if (1) a more

1674:

could contain a view from a planet showing a red sun, with the caption "artist's impression of a planet orbiting a red dwarf". The purpose of these images is only to provide illustration, bobody expects them to provide any specific details, only to look plausible and not contradict established facts.

1026:

that image would be reasonably scientifically informed. But none of those things are known or even reasonably suspected from the current data, and yet the ESO publishes this image. Honestly, I think they are trying to get the public excited about their work, but their goals are different from ours in

950:

in general, keep on a case by case. I started reading this RFC thinking I'd come down the other way but I'm conviced by HeadBomb and A2Soup that a lot of these images are actively misleading. I like A2Soups basic points as a guideline for inclusion and I would favour an essay or guideline being drawn

399:

would have those relative sizes when viewed from the surface e) clouds f) somehow has very sharp non-eroded peaks despite having an atmosphere that would sustain significant winds over timescales long enough for canyons to form g) A very inclined orbit relative to its stars. Sure, some aspect of them

3639:

The draft guideline is overly verbose and includes lots of extraneous material, but I agree with points 1 and 3. Point 2 I think is over the top, and the text partially contradicts it by explaining that it's not a requirement after all. Editors would want to include suitable real data anyway if they

3324:

I believe that this article, this topic and associated articles can both satisfy the expert and the eighth grader. Leave or make the article title something that the eighth grader can find with a simple search and handle the alternate names of the star systems with redirects. Introduce the article's

3048:

Other reasons I heard is that other websites and catalogs use GJ instead of Gliese. I will tell everyone what I was told when I used the other sources excuse "Knowledge (XXG) has different goals, policies, and standards than other sources." The changed name would fit better with other Exoplanets and

2637:

shows that they each have a sentence in the lead, but nothing else. Personally knowing only what was already in the article, I thought I'd do some digging. A search for K-corona shows mainly the same as what's in Corona (with little extra information), though admittedly I only skimmed the first page

2187:

I rather think that the original proposal was a bit hard-line: keep or remove. With no clear choice between the absolutes here, I tend to agree that the discussion need not be entirely wasted if a more moderate approach can be taken that might prove generally acceptable. I am of the opinion that the

2144:

I think A2soup's compromise will be easier to implement, and will lead to just one or two artist's impressions in all but the longest articles. With a blanket keep or blanket delete, there will be too many special cases: readers will either be misled, confused or denied illustration and inspiration.

2039:

At bottom, this (keep or remove) is the wrong question. There is an alternative below that suggests establishing a requirement that images come from a reliable source. That question has much more potential for establishing a useful guideline on images for the project. I suggest that attention should

2007:

seem fine but that's about it. I'm definately against the purely speculative being mixed with real as making for a loss of credibility and confusion. I'm even disinclined to see non-speculative artwork 'based on data' examples of size comparison or dust trail as just line-bending confusions unless

1976:

Can you supply some examples of very accurate artist's impressions that have been removed? I don't ask this question in the "I'm proving you wrong because you can't give any examples" way; I sincerely want to see which accurate artist's impressions have been removed to help me (and others) formulate

1574:

This comment perfectly exemplifies my fears about how these images can be misleading. The technique you link has never been used (to my knowledge), but the colored artists' impressions may lead readers (and you?) think that it has, and that we know more about these planets than we do. The color of a

1382:

Keep the artistic renditions if they substantially conform with the data and the caption describes the content that is speculative. The negative is that following this rule may remain controversial, lead to time-consuming future debates on how many speculation disclosures to add to the caption, and

561:

on a case-by-case basis, rather than applying a blanket deletion. A few editor's banal lack of appreciation for artistic expression should not be used as a reason to turn Knowledge (XXG) into a bland, boring, vanilla read. As long as the illustration is not blatantly misinformative, it has a role in

4274:

is a bit of a quirk. It isn't really a journal at all, never even officially published. ADS just put that in the journal name because there is nothing else. It is a one-off data source, probably only common in Knowledge (XXG) because numerous articles quote UBV data from it (although it has been

4173:

Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society should only be a reliable source in very limited circumstances (such as to support a statement that "So and so presented result XYZ at a AAS meeting in 19XX"). It's just publishing un-reviewed abstracts of talks or posters given at American Astronomical

1957:

Why are we removing artist's impressions suddenly? Sure, maybe the inaccurate ones should be deleted, but the accurate ones? I loved those articles, but now some of them are boring! I get that they aren't photos, but... some of them are accurate. I see some of the very accurate artist's impressions

473:

As a general rule, I don't see the need to delete them from the Wikimedia Commons servers; they're public domain images and don't have to be used anywhere to stay on the servers. Many of the points you make are entirely fair in individual articles, but the decision about whether any image is useful

3772:

were from a non-RS, it would be excluded under the guideline. I feel that this double standard is warranted because good speculation requires considerable judgment and familiarity with the subject, something we can expect only from reliable sources and should not pretend to have as non-experts per

3742:

Re the intro to the inclusion guideline, which currently reads "In general, an artist’s impression of an astronomical object is acceptable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) only if:". This intro rather conflicts with the last paragraph, which makes it clear that guidelines are not absolute. I would

2376:

I do like the part of your amendments statement saying that images should be from reliable source's rather than from planetary Simulation applications. Evidence seems to be a little of a far stretch mostly because then planets confirmed via radial velocity would have no size comparisons because we

2325:

is acceptable, when we have this image which has both the speculative part as well as the fact that it is from a Celestia or a Celestia-like application. I just pointed this out in case this was going to be used in defense. And I assume that the last 5% includes the attempted removal of Gliese 667

1709:

As I wrote, the image must not contradict established facts. If an image uses coloration that is known to be incorrect then it is unacceptable, otherwise - what's the harm? Obviously almost everything in the image is guesswork, but if it gets a few major facts right - such as the number, sizes and

1594:

As for artists' impressions of extinct animals, while they certainly have speculative features, they are based on known skeletons, fossil impressions, and/or living relatives. I would keep most of them under the suggestion in my main comment here: "Artist's impressions based primarily on known (or

1334:

most of these, but judge them individually. Images in an article should be for illustrating facts presented in an article, not for drama. Thus the one of the tailed planet passing in front of the star should stay, but the overly dramatic one of clouds and canyons and two red suns in the sky really

1041:

It's an "artist's impression", which should make it clear to the reader that it is a work of the artist's imagination. It's not absurdly unrealistic and I don't believe it is creating a misleading impression. But if there's a concern that it is doing so, then that can be made clear in the caption.

850:

OR applies to images created by Knowledge (XXG) editors. Many exoplanet images are generated by Knowledge (XXG) editors from some program they have, which is completely OR unless backed up with proper sources. If the artistic impression comes from a non-RS source, then if it doesn't match the data

119:

images like the one below (which are only a sample) from article pages and lists. Currently only selective pages are having the images striped and I belive either all the speculative images go or none. All the non speculative images can stay. The current definition of a speculative image from this

3549:

I reworded that part about reliable sources so that non-scientific print or online media count as reliable sources but are to be "treated with caution". I'm not too concerned because, as you say, images from such sources are almost never free anyways. Regarding your first point, the page has been

2341:

I am trying to work towards a solution, not defend my initial opinions the the bitter end. Pointing out differences between my actions/arguments before and after the discussion misses the point entirely-- this discussion is about resolving the disagreement, not winning the argument. If the choice

2296:

3. The ESO has different goals and standards than Knowledge (XXG). In addition to informing the public, they benefit from good PR and public excitement, which can lead to more funding. They therefore have a vested interest in publishing exciting images. Knowledge (XXG)'s purpose is to inform it's

2172:

The status quo is tons of random Celestia images and clumsy photoshops from non-expert editors, some highly speculative images from reliable sources, and a few partially evidence-based images from reliable sources. While there is no overall consensus, I see no reasoned arguments in the many posts

2125:

to mean that any image in which speculative features are more prominent than non-speculative features should go. Other people here obviously interpret it differently. Why should we restate our disagreement on every talk page? We've stated it here, and we can reach a consensus here because of the

1387:

Keep an image on an article only if every geological and astronomical feature has been confirmed with a greater than likely chance of accuracy. The only exception is to display a gallery of outdated speculative images once the accuracy appearance has been confirmed. I now support Policy Option 2

1171:

I don't understand why the RfC poster presented the issue as all or nothing; that was unhelpful. Which artists' impressions are appropriate for Knowledge (XXG) is not an all-or-nothing question-- more nuanced inclusion guidelines are possible and preferred, and many people (including myself) have

413:

is what it might have looked like according to another. If we continue to allow those image, we need to decide which depiction to include, according to the speculations of random people made in light of what is often questionable data. Artist depictions can stay in press releases. Knowledge (XXG)

3230:

Personally, I don't care which way this proposal goes, and will abide by whatever consensus is found here. However, according to the document you linked, it seems we should not use any GJ numbers in the 3000s and 4000s here as article titles since their use is discouraged, and that such articles

2471:

Note: if a "planet" has an "odd sphericity" (which I assume means something not quite spherical), then it is not a planet. A dwarf planet maybe. But beyond a certain mass, gravity pulls even solid masses into an approximately spherical shape, where the approximation is proportionally very small.

1737:

would have those relative sizes when viewed from the surface e) that it atmosphere contains clouds f) somehow has very sharp non-eroded peaks despite having an atmosphere that would sustain significant winds over timescales long enough for canyons to form g) A very inclined orbit relative to its

1526:

The same can be said of illustrations of long extinct animals, such as dinosaurs. It is understood that the color schemes are speculative by the artist; there's no need to convert them to b&w for the sake of being fastidious. Just stating they are "artist's impressions" should be sufficient.

1475:

as long as clearly identified as an artists's impression and unless image is definitely misleading - so review on a case-by-case basis. We don't disallow all artist's impressions in other areas of Knowledge (XXG) - they are widely used in articles on fossil animals, historical events and people.

1137:

Woah, there. This comment is the first time anyone has said "ban" in this discussion-- neither I nor anyone else is advocating a ban AFAIK. The issue is under what conditions the use of an artist's impression is acceptable, so your argument and my response above about scientific sources are very

972:

that all artists impressions are clearly and unambiguously identified as such at the start of the caption. Reasonable scientifically-informed inferences or even best guesses made by reliable sources are fine to include in an encyclopaedia, so long as they are indicated as such. Making up our own

765:

I would argue that no amount of clarity about the nature of an artist's impression makes it appropriate for an encyclopedia if it depicts essentially no known or well-evidenced features of an object while also depicting many highly speculative features. But yes, I agree on the general point that

746:

I think this makes a lot of sense as general criteria, and I'd emphasize that it's a case-by-case decision. There certainly are cases in which artist's impressions are useful as long as the caption is very clear about what they are (and preferably briefly state the assumptions used in making the

3748:

I also sympathize somewhat with Praemonitus' comment above about being too restrictive, although I don't go so far as liking the idea of an "order of preference". I think if point #1, that images from RSes are generally acceptable, is taken as a kind of standard, then we should be able to argue

3510:

Any feedback, suggestions, and improvements would be much appreciated. Feel free to make wording and organization improvements, but please discuss any substantive changes on the talk page before making them. I will formally put the guideline up for an RfC if/when it appears that people here are

3020:

the first time it is used on a page". I'm only asking for the article title to bear the name Gliese rather than GJ just for consistency in category lists however it should be mentioned in the beginning of an article as well. I understand the concern with using this point is that we will have to

1665:

I don't think so. Technically they are provably non-authentic images, which means they are "not provably authentic", therefore they are allowed by MoS as long as they look reasonably close to what they are trying to illustrate. With virtually infinite number of planets, there have to be planets

1511:

The Agincourt pictures are artworks for the sake of art, not scientific representation. The telestrator type schematic is a schematic (thus like our orbit diagrams). Many of these planet pictures are misleading, as they have unsupportable coloration that does not show any link to some real life

3316:

All involved appear to be quite knowledgeable on this topic and its associated articles. I am not. I edit primarily on topics related to pathogenic bacteria. But I see the same problem in my own editing that I see here. We get caught up in the lingo associated with our field of 'expertise' and

1157:

The RfC says 'all the speculative images go or none'. So if the decision is to remove them all, that's a ban - whether you use that word or not. Given that we're discussing a general policy, I don't feel it is productive to get into discussions about individual images here. Indeed, I advocated

3624:

for now as being too restrictive. Artists's illustrations are not the same as scientific publications and should not be restricted based on the same criteria. I'd prefer to see an order of preference for illustration sources, then only prohibit images based upon contradiction with established

2237:

at right). So where do we draw the line? I think any set of bright-line rules will be unworkable and problematic in practice. Just use Knowledge (XXG) editors' editorial judgement inline with existing guidelines. But I generally agree that this proposal is a good starting point for a possible

3918:

transclusion on the page it is used on. Since many items have DOIs as well as other UIDs such as PubMed IDs, we have multiple different sets of the same information in the various databases that the various bots generate for each of these template systems, depending on which bot created what

1119:

You're shifting attention away from the issue - should we ban artists impressions of exoplanets? If you want to proceed with your analogy: we have no blanket ban on technical figures (whether original or recreated), instead their inclusion or not is left up to individual editorial judgement,

3320:

You, the experts (sincerely) are quite delighted to be able to discuss the finer points of astronomy along with the nomenclature and definitions. Frankly, I can barely follow the points being made. I did read as many articles that I could and finally discovered that we are talking about the

3325:

topic with the simplest lede possible and then create the detail for the experts and define acronyms. That is about as simple as my opinion can get. I hope you are comfortable with reading this and I do hope that I was able to help. I look forward to more discussion on this. Best Regards,

2228:

I think that an outright requirement that images be from a reliable source goes too far. It's always a subjective, case-by-case determination. In general, the more the image is an impression, the more important it is that it be directly from a reliable source. Diagrams representing real

1690:

Even with infinite planets, there are some things (certain colorations, banding patterns) that are actually impossible, but I do see your point for general pages. All of the images removed to date, however, have been from the pages of specific exoplanets. What do you think about that re

3191:

All of which just shows that the waters are muddy. We could either follow the Gliese/GJ split by catalogue version, as consistent with most scientific usage and the example of the HD catalogue, or we could standardise everything to GJ which is consistent with SIMBAD and simpler. What I

3526:

I think this proposal is good. I do fear that this guideline, particularly since it is limited to exoplanets, is an example of instruction creep, though I think it's probably helpful enough to be worthwhile. But the ideas in the guideline aren't really specific to exoplanet artist's

3391:

of the later entries on that page say 'equivalent to GJ' or 'prefer GJ'. Clearly GJ is its preferred format. That MOS page simply says that the acronym should be explained at first use, and also article titles should follow primary usage. We're discussing that that primary usage is.

1766:

And yet reliable sources, such as ESO or NASA consider these images valuable and release them. As long as there is no information that the planet in question *doesn't* have all the features that you derived from the image, it is an acceptable artistic representation. Marking it as

4798:

I was merely addressing your assertion that, "I dont think its possible for planets to be larger than their parent stars". Presumably it's either an error or the event has some other explanation. Perhaps they've discovered two similar planets orbiting closely around each other?

3585:

We already had a consensus about this and I think we're going to stick with what was concluded in the consensus. (AKA Reliable sources, no Celestia/Astronomy program screenshots and "artist's impression" caption). Thank you for your feedback both here and in the consensus.

1826:

And some of us are saying, they do not 'look like' what they would appear as, because we have not enough data to actually tell what they look like. (Thus maps like "here be dragons" and lost continents like "High Brazil", which look nothing like real maps we have now) --

2436:

I would say remove them all. If the planet had an odd sphericity I think a reliable source would make an artists impression, otherwise all (exo)planets are genuinely spherical. I would rather put a size comparison either by creating an image or (and more simply) use the

110:

There is an argument going on created by a user who believe that many planetary images are speculative and inappropriate for use on an encyclopedia. I do not want to argue with him so I'm seeking everyone's opinion and I want to do it in a democratic way. Do you want to

4174:

Society meetings, which do not have written proceedings. Such material will be published in a peer-reviewed journal if it has been completed to the point of being usable as a source, in which case the journal article should be the source, not the AAS abstract. —Alex (

3763:

I worry that by replacing "only if" with "when", it turns into inclusion criteria without any potential for exclusion. The point of the guideline is very much to exclude speculative non-RS images. The caveat at the end allows, as an exception, non-RS images that are

1428:

I have to agree. The fact that an artist's impression is published in a NASA or ESO press release is no guarantee that it is remotely representative of anything except the artist's imagination and the opinion of the press officer that it might attract some viewers.

539:

information. These images do not provide the former; they give the reader inaccurate information, which undermines Knowledge (XXG) and makes it unreliable. I don't even see how this is a debate, honestly. As Headbomb mentions, pretty images go to flickr, not here.

1138:

pertinent, not shifting attention away from the issue at all. This started when I removed several dozen images on 7th-8th July, on a case-by-case basis, leaving behind some images that I felt were okay. The editor who started this RfC disagreed with my removal of

4600:

now has a radius of 6140 Earth Radii / 558.18 Jupiter Radii / 56.2 Solar radii. For comparison the parent star has a radius of 97.68 Earth Radii / 8.88 Jupiter Radii / 0.893 Solar Radii. Something is clearly not correct with the data. Also note that before DR 24

3987: 2233:) data created by Knowledge (XXG) editors and other non-reliable sources are clearly fine. And diagrams largely based on real data with some interpolation could be viewed as artist's impressions but are probably OK despite not being from a reliable source (eg 1096:

The issue is that the PR people/researchers who probably sign off on the press releases are not trying to accurately depict the planet, nor are they terribly concerned about misleading readers. They are trying to get the public excited about their work, and

1083:. If the researchers involved were satisfied by the artist's impression (which they must have been if they approved the release), as are reliable observatory/university/institute sources, then why should we believe we know more about the topic than they do? 3570:

I think the guideline for an artist's impression of an astronomical object or phenomenon should just be "don't use images that contradict established scientific data about the object". Tagging the image with "artist's impression" should cover the rest.

885:

Yes, both. Though depicting characteristics which are derived from an analogous situation (such as a Solar System planet) or from planetary theory, given the boundary conditions of the observed characteristics would be the allowable artistic leeway. --

1998:

and then some - up to the group, but I feel that WikiProject Astronomy should craft an advice position here and I'd recommend it be to seek to exclusively use images from or about actual astronomy. Whether that is an X-ray image or composed data like

1733:, which I as mentioned before might be a damned pretty planet, there are zero indication that a) it possess water / liquids b) there is a sedimentation process on the surface c) that is has (or had) tectonic activity / mountains d) that the stars of 306:

What about the samples I gave should those be removed? They are all made by NASA/ESO (the top row). People are taking down artists impressions made by official sources. All of the speculative samples are made by official sources that I have listed.

3021:

change all HD entries to Henry Draper entries however this is not a discussion about the HD Catalog. But MoS also states that an acronym can be used if the object is best known by it or if it is a ship. Ever since the discoveries (and disputes) of

1628:, "images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images". Clearly indicated artistic impression of an alien planet is more illustrative than the best available "real" image showing a blurry dot. 283:: You can not make a blanket decision as a lot of it needs to depend on the quality of the source. I think a lot of artists impressions are made by 12 year olds and you can not compare that to an impression produced by a more reliable source. -- 2652:

EDIT: obviously the three layers are important, as I'm finding based on a Web of Science search, but they seem to just be useful for measuring various aspects of the sun. Maybe a single article that covers all three and their uses, with a

4102: 3664:

Thanks for the feedback. I see what you mean about point 2 being partially contradicted by the text. What do you think about removing it but leaving the text about making a more evidence-based image the lead image if available

1443:

Yeah I see this in all areas of science - you don't have to go far before someone (probably unconsciously) throws decent process thinking out the window to either make some odd pronouncement or artistic venture that defies

1142:

in particular. What do you think of that image? Please look at my main comment in this discussion to see my position on this, which is far from a ban on artist's impressions. What do you think of the ideas in that comment?

1738:

stars. Generally speaking, other than the thing being round, the error bars mean we rarely know even basic things such as is the planet rocky or gaseous. And inferring any more than that is pure and baseless speculation.

3684:

kind of extraneous, but I feel that calling out Celestia specifically is important, since some might regard it as reliable, and I think the part about encouraging caution with non-scientific media is important to have.

2592:

article itself is poor, for example two of its handful of references are actually to the same paper, and a third to a PR piece about the article. This is very recent research, but ADS shows 55 citations of the paper.

855:

we are misleading our audience by providing false facts. If the reliable source itself provides the artistic impression, then I would hesitate to use it if it doesn't match the known characteristics of the world. --

924:

and re-labelled as 438b. While a 1.12 Earth and 1.17 Earth is not much difference, it is not the image that the second labelling says it is. I think the 'obviously illustration' argument is better given in the

3053:. Agian this is all about consistency, being consistent with everything else in the same catalog should really not be something disputable. Also note were not abbreviating anything in the Kepler Catalog either. - 3791:

Well, my comment above was just a thought, and after some hours, I'm not as sure of it. Let it remain here in case anyone likes it enough to defend it, but I take your point as well and wouldn't want to object.

3006:

that are triple digit entries and use the GJ acronym rather than the Gliese and vise versa for quadruple digit numbers. Even if this was all perfect all entries in the Gliese catalog would not have a consistent

2540:

This format gives light-year at scientific notation with the point after the first significant digit; in contrast to some articles whose multiplier is thousands or millions only and not on the correct notation.

400:

might (e.g. Is it a rocky planet? Does it have an atmosphere? How many stars does it have?) be based on data, but that data is very often accompanied by large error bars and/or is in dire need of confirmation.

2565:. However, the article is outside my area of expertise, I was wondering whether someone would be willing to do a quick fact-check of the DYK-fact, and whether I represented it correctly. Thanks in advance, 2346:. I stand by all my comments-- my personal opinions have not changed, but my later statements have been in defense of a compromise that I am trying to develop rather than in defense of my personal opinions. 2317:

none of the reasoned arguments in this discussion for artist's impressions indicated that Celestia images generated by random editors would be acceptable, and that is what 95% of the images I removed were.

1512:

reason why they should be such colors (and with no examples of such colors that are known, they are quite speculative). They would need to be converted to B&W to get rid of that kind of speculation. --

1180:. Given the discussion of individual cases that has already occurred, what general guidelines do you think would be good? In other words, would you have kept the images removed in those two cases, and why? 4520:

The maik.ru site wasn't loading properly for me when I last looked, and I thought that a less-than-one score wasn't good, but clearly I am mistaken (which is why I posted here). Will do some more digging.

1807:

requires that images "look like" the object in question, not the same as. So long as that requirement is satisfied and the caption explains that the image is a speculative impression then I don't see the

799:. There is no way to tell what color the planet is. Similarly weather bands, since on our giant planets, Neptune and Uranus have few noticeable banding, and Saturn is rather muted. We should be guided by 2008:

the item is somehow key in actual Astronomy discussions it seems not needed as not actually part of Astronomy and not promoting actual astronomy. The eye candy speculative art seems to me belonging to

1555:

Only true if there is a living relative. The fact that some are B&W is a choice of media by the artist; it wasn't something that we forced on the artistic interpretation. As for the purple planet...

870:

Can you clarify if by "doesn't match the known characteristics of the world" you mean actively inconsistent with known characteristics or simply depicting characteristics for which there is no evidence?

3135:

The cutoff point is not the number of digits, but which version it was first included in. Confusingly later editions used decimals to insert extra stars into the sorted list, rather than continuing the

1729:. Shaka Zulu was an African ruler from the early 1800s, and it's very reasonable to assume he was dressed in some form of early 1800s Zulu warrior garb, given he was himself a warrior. Contrast this to 3812: 3132:

The differing prefixes reflect that the stars were included in different editions of the catalogues, published by different authors. GJ is thus distinct from Gliese because it also includes Jahreiss.

2130:, because we fundamentally disagree. Why not reach a central compromise that everyone can follow? Discussions will still be possible if someone thinks an image is a special case for whatever reason. 1934:

images should resemble what they are meant to be illustrated. In my opinion, it's absurd to use blurred telescopic images if it's not even possible to distinguish features of the subject matter. --

3076: 4020: 2441:

Template to generate a size comparison. I fixed a few bugs in the template so It should be working better now and I see really no reason why not to use it (as long as the radius is confirmed).

3676:

application of the guideline, given the very real (if rare) possibility of an excellent, evidence-based amateur artist's impression. I was inspired to include it by the amateur impressions on

2919: 2638:

of Google hits. Is it worth making articles for these three areas of the corona or area they really little more than dictionary definitions? Should I just make them into redirects to Corona?

2202:

Certainly. Take the discussion on board, formulate a new proposal, and take another straw poll. If the compromise really does fit the thoughts of those commenting above, it will pass easily.

3551: 3387:

That SIMBAD entry means that it recognises them as being valid search terms for entries in the catalogue. It does not mean that they are completely equivalent. Indeed it lists GJ first and

2683: 1158:

holding those discussions on the relevant article talk page. Some images are inappropriate, others are not. That determination should be made on a case-by-case basis, not a blanket ban.

1079:

That is not our problem. Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopaedia - a tertiary source which reports claims made by reliable sources of primary and secondary literature. It is not our job to

667:(listed below). As other party to the original discussion, I would have appreciated being informed about the discussion here when it was posted. The original discussion can be found at 4329:

It isn't really a SIMBAD thing, although the catalogue is available on SIMBAD. It is just a single star catalogue with no actual journal. On ADS, the publication is actually listed as

395:

might be a damned pretty planet, but looking at it one could be mislead into thinking there's a) water / liquids b) sedimentation c) tectonic activity / mountain d) that the stars of

4003: 1291:

You're being vague, overly emotive, and appear to be employing hyperbole to win an argument. Exactly how many cases are you talking about, and how many of those appear inappropriate?

1541:

Extinct animals are extrapolated from living relatives, and are frequently B&W sketches. How does a purple planet or similar "artistic ideas" extrapolate from known examples? --

803:

and remove any original research images. If the artistic impression is in black-and-white and based on albedo estimates, then that's fine, but coloration should not be involved. -- `

215:

An RfC is closed, usually by an uninvolved admin, after evaluating the merit of the arguments presented by all the editors who commented on the RfC, and not just by counting voices.

724:

Artist's impressions based primarily on known (or reasonably suspected) features of the object are okay as long as they make that feature more prominent than the speculative bits.

1911:

most. Knowledge (XXG) should present verifiable facts. Including works of fiction, even if labelled as such, does not help readers and damages the reputation of Knowledge (XXG).

1002:, but is based on nothing but the planet's mass and distance from its star. The size (and therefore density), composition, and atmospheric features of the exoplanet are unknown. 1958:

gone from articles, and I certainly don't like the sound of that! But I'm all ready to get banned from Knowledge (XXG) now, so just feel free to ban my if you hate my opinions.

700:

what they are meant to illustrate". This is also cannot be reasonably expected to be the case for most exoplanet impressions. This guideline is meant to ensure that images have

2823:

Yes, a stupid outcome, given that the result appears to have been based on the !vote tally and not the arguments given. Of course, I realise I am slightly biased, but oh well.

3531:

rarely be free anyway) or to be more restrictive about the kind of source but not use the word "reliable source" or specifically discriminate amongst reliable sources. —Alex (

3429:

think someone who knows a thing or two about the Gliese catalog (or even just know some exoplanets particularly the possibly habitable ones) will only be able to recognize it

2791: 2297:

readers with as much accurate information as possible. The image here conveys no accurate information, and indeed conveys a good deal of very probably inaccurate information.

747:

impression). As in everything, the use of these impressions depends on context, and any global assertions that all should go or all should stay are just inappropriate. —Alex (

4026: 2159:

There is no consensus, therefore the result should be to continue with the status quo. If you want to propose a different solution, it would need a new discussion and !vote.

1027:

that department. Their status as a scientifically respected source does not automatically make their images responsible or acceptable here-- we should judge them ourselves.

97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 4784:

But the planet has a radius 558.18 times that of Jupiter! The star its an F-type star with a radius 8.88 times that of Jupiter! That would not be possible in any terms.

3888:

system turns Knowledge (XXG) into a DOI database, since the bot that maintains the DOI citation template generates a new subtemplate for each time a new DOI is used, as

4605:

had a radius of 3.42 Earth Radii. Anybody knows what is going on with the new Kepler Data? I dont think its possible for planets to be larger than their parent stars.

3971: 2764: 3496: 3489: 2500: 1977:

an artist's impression inclusion guideline that avoids such removals. Also, no one's going to ban you for your opinions-- only behavior can get you blocked/banned.

619:

as they vary wildly in accuracy. Overall I am dubious of the value of many. Size comparisons are good. I think we need to have the discussion where the images are.

4609: 3148: 2990:

with similar articles 'GJ' and 'Gl' is short for 'Gliese' and most articles on Knowledge (XXG) use the word 'Gliese' over 'GJ' and you can clearly see this on the

4677:

on the other hand has either both the wrong values use and the PDF is wrong or the Values in the archive is correct and the new PDF is very wrong. I know the PDF

4042:

for help on writing these articles. Note that some of these might be better as sections of another article (usually publisher, or affiliated society), similar to

2562: 3037:

the word Gliese is more known to everyday people than GJ which was not the case when the previous consensus took place. We also know that all Gliese entries are

2104:

Whilst I agree with those points as a basis for discussion, I still disagree that it is necessary to impose any sort of rule on this. They're already covered by

4759:

Yes, it's possible for the least massive red dwarfs (R ~ 0.087 solar radii) to have a lower radius than Jupiter (R ~ 0.10 solar radii). Perhaps the planet is a

4201: 4128: 4124: 4098: 2121:

Do you really not see the value in establishing consensus in a central place, rather than having a long, acrimonious discussion on every talk page? I interpret

230: 175: 4446:

which means it's likely Russian-based for the most part. And given that it's been around since 1967, I would be really, really surprised that it doesn't pass

1670:

could show a drawing of some Earth-like planet with a caption "artist's impression of a habitable planet in the Goldilocks zone". Similarly, an article about

4706: 4670: 3196:

think we can do is standardise everything to Gliese, as a) no-one else does this and b) it's inaccurate as Jahreiss' GJ stars weren't in Gliese's catalogue.

391:

shows stars and nebula/dust behind the planet, and there's just no way those would be captured in a real image of any 'super Venus' that we sent a probe at.

929:

image about orbits with labeling in the image so it could not be mislabelled, and that the white ball image is something that both articles should remove.

4678: 4648: 3998: 406: 4669:. I know the PDF is correct in this case because the values from the PDF match exactly with both what was here on Knowledge (XXG) and the previous report 1480:, for example, is an artists's impression and the article would be poorer without them. I see no reason to make a special policy for astronomy articles. 4728: 3433:

by GJ or Gl? I personally don't, especially with the discovery of many potentially habitable exoplanets in the catalog that are listed as "Gliese" (ex.

3422: 3414: 4159:

Good point about the DAB. I'll go through the ambiguous ones, see if I can determine exactly which Bulletin it is, and create a disambig for the BAS.

1725:"as long as they look reasonably close to what they are trying to illustrate." And that's the thing. These do not look 'reasonably close'. Compare to 1305:

If they're appropriate to the article (the image is based off what knowledge we have of them) then keep. Otherwise, remove. We're not an art gallery.

675:. I have made very detailed (perhaps too detailed) arguments for my position on those pages, and I won't repost them again here. The main points are: 4275:

superceded). I don't know what you link it to, probably nothing as all the citations most likely are already linked directly to the bibcode for it.

2854:

is pretty clear that unless that resolution exists, there shouldn't be an article. I'm half-tempted to re-nominate it since there was no consensus.

3724:

Item 2 has been removed because it was redundant with the text below, so the phrase "no more" no longer appears. Does this clear up the confusion?

3500: 3002:

objects with 4 digits should be called GJ and objects with 3 digits should bear the title 'Gliese'. This is not the case, there articles such as

2837:

Right now it's not a very good article since it lacks any information on how it was "discovered". But eventually science will resolve the issue.

690:. This is not the case for many exoplanet impressions, and they are therefore inconsistent with the usual responsible use of artist's impression. 47: 17: 3993: 120:

persion as I understand it are "Images that contain unconfirmed details, patterns, or features of a planet or substellar object (Brown Dwarf)."

4014: 994:

In my experience, the "reliable sources" creating these images do not feel obliged to make them reasonable scientifically-informed inferences.

3457: 4539:

I've moved the list to a separate page, linked above, so that it will persist when this page is archived, and can be more easily linked-to.

3811:

An update: after more than a week without new feedback, an RfC has been started for promotion of the draft to guideline status. Weigh in at

4652: 4094: 4008: 3981: 3240: 549: 3668:

Re extraneous material, I feel that the first para is valuable because it explains to people why their image was removed, rather than the

531:; agree with everything Headbomb wrote. I can't stress this enough, both here and in other areas of encyclopedic editing: if something is 3174:

which when read with the surrounding material and source paper means splitting the names based on which catalogue they first appeared in.

4555: 3920: 3824: 3520: 2736: 2692: 2234: 791:

A white sphere comparing an exoplanet to Earth certainly is appropriate, since it is a size comparison. A picture of a purple planet is

3080: 4827: 4627: 3600:

I saw no such consensus during the prior discussion; just a lot of disagreement. It appears to constitute a consensus of two editors.

3111: 2503:. Any further discussion of it would probably be better conducted on its talk page rather than here. Thanks everyone for their input! 1828: 1542: 1513: 887: 857: 804: 2945: 203: 4417: 2588:, wide spectrum radio events lasting just a few milliseconds. The paper was co-authored with Luciano Rezolla. The Knowledge (XXG) 4735:

And I can confirm agian that the paramiters of the Archive are incorrect once agian. However I still cannot understand the other

2995: 388: 2686:, where I've provided evidence against an—in my regard—unbased nomination. I thought this would be within your purview. Kindly, 4038:

If members of this project could help writing those articles, that would be much appreciated. See our journal-writing guide at

1778: 1717: 1682: 1635: 246: 227: 4502: 4470: 4374: 4311: 4298: 4141: 4056: 1877: 1748: 1455: 1273: 630: 594: 502: 455: 424: 365: 2999: 3769: 3483:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3184:

We already use differing prefixes for HD and HDE stars, which is a similar example of a catalogue that was later extended.

3030: 2290: 1730: 1411: 1407: 1139: 999: 995: 392: 3841:. There is a discussion to deprecate this template. Since doi's are used the sciences and this is a science WikiProject, 2534:

article concerning the use of SI prefixes has been deleted due to lack of reference. I propose an option to any article:

1406:

The trick is that scientific sources often publish images not supported by scholarly references. What do you think about

796: 728:

is borderline but okay since the exoplanet is known to be blue. This is the responsible way to use artist's impressions.

4610:

Here is the link if you want to see what Im talking about (Look under planet radius and then look at stellar properties)

4230:

list it as just the "Bulletin of the Astronomical Society." I'm holding off changing the rest until I can find one that

4183: 4131:

is most likely the intended publication. Plus fixing the citations using |journal=Bulletin of the Astronomical Society.

3540: 2247: 1667: 841: 756: 483: 339: 158:

So what do you think should artists impressions go or not? Note the images are not a complete list there are more. Vote

1692: 1625: 1233:

Since the disagreement is over what "appropriate" means in these cases, maybe you could clarify what you mean by that?

535:, such as these images are, it needs to go, because it undermines our purpose of the encyclopedia, which is to provide 4076: 2499:- Since it got a few positive responses, the compromise I proposed above has been converted into a draft guideline at 1063:

I guess I just wonder why you think that works of artists' imaginations are appropriate for Knowledge (XXG) articles?

387:, they tend to quite grossly misrepresent what a real picture of the damned thing would look like anyway. For example 3892: 3554:

following discussion on the talk page and your comments here. Thanks for taking to time looking it over and comment!

410: 1963: 362: 38: 3672:"this is just how it is" impression that many guidelines have. The last para is there to encourage discussion and 3507:. Before formally requesting an RfC on the guideline, I want to give people here an opportunity give their input. 686:

for whatever reason. As a result, while the average reader can expect some speculation in an artist's impression,

220:

I suggest you revert your recent changes (announcing that the RfC is over) and let the process complete normally.

3838: 2438: 2962:

There is consensus to use Gliese. The majority opinion cites consistency in naming as the main reason to do so.

1362:- if from a scientific source such as NASA or ESA or scholarly references support the concept in the image, but 405:

These image don't belong on Knowledge (XXG) because they serve no purpose but to make people go "oooh pretty!".

327: 3342:

I have added "Star Catalog" to the title to avoid further confusion. I apologize for not doing that initially.

3236: 2991: 1863: 1120:

discussed on a case-by-case basis on the article talk page. The same should be true for artists impressions of

545: 351:

so long as they clearly state in the article that the image is an artist concept. But agree with Ashill above.

4689:. (Page 1 on the report even says that It's not a KOI). You can also tell that it's giving info for the wrong 4413: 4248:

I've been through 3/4 of the publications and no indication it's anything other than BAAS. Creatind redirect.

3673: 1866:

about the ones used on that page, so maybe people can take a look at an actual example and see how they feel.

2607:

Thank you for the speedy response and explanation, fascinating material. I'm glad I formulated it correctly.

2271:

I would suggest that we allow artist's impressions only if (1) a more evidence-based image is not available,

688:

it should be accurate (or at least based on substantial evidence) in its broad strokes and prominent features

4808: 4793: 4772: 4752: 4722: 4635: 4620: 4577: 4568:

Stub's been created. I'm finding a great lack of information, though I'll try searching Russian sites next.

4559: 4551: 4530: 4515: 4483: 4429: 4387: 4359: 4342: 4324: 4284: 4257: 4243: 4213: 4187: 4168: 4154: 4114: 4088: 4069: 3956: 3954: 3928: 3924: 3873: 3858: 3801: 3786: 3758: 3733: 3715: 3697: 3648: 3646: 3634: 3609: 3595: 3580: 3563: 3544: 3469: 3400: 3398: 3382: 3351: 3337: 3299: 3285: 3271: 3244: 3225: 3204: 3202: 3119: 3100: 3062: 2968: 2931: 2899: 2884: 2863: 2846: 2832: 2818: 2803: 2776: 2747: 2742: 2722: 2703: 2698: 2672: 2647: 2616: 2602: 2574: 2547: 2512: 2481: 2450: 2412: 2386: 2360: 2335: 2309: 2251: 2210: 2208: 2197: 2182: 2167: 2165: 2154: 2139: 2116: 2114: 2099: 2073: 2069: 2049: 2029: 1986: 1967: 1947: 1920: 1901: 1881: 1856: 1852: 1836: 1817: 1781: 1761: 1720: 1704: 1685: 1660: 1638: 1604: 1587: 1569: 1557: 1550: 1536: 1521: 1506: 1504: 1489: 1459: 1438: 1423: 1397: 1393: 1371: 1350: 1316: 1300: 1286: 1258: 1242: 1224: 1189: 1177: 1166: 1164: 1152: 1132: 1130: 1114: 1091: 1089: 1072: 1051: 1036: 985: 983: 960: 938: 895: 880: 865: 845: 818: 775: 760: 737: 672: 652: 634: 607: 571: 553: 515: 487: 468: 437: 371: 343: 316: 292: 275: 249: 4127:, so it's ambiguous in that regards. A dab page would probably be better, even if it stands to reason that 3373:

clear states that we should not use acronyms in articles and this doesn't count for any of the exceptions.

1710:

colors of the stars, presence of atmosphere, etc - then in my opinion having the image is better than not.

1102: 814: 718: 4631: 4204:. There are many others in various countries, but I've never seen this name used baldly for any of them. 3853: 3842: 3465: 3378: 3115: 1832: 1546: 1517: 1018:

it has an atmosphere similar to Earth's (so that the pressure/temperature for liquid water is right), and

891: 861: 4713:

will continue to be used as we cannot just trust the Archive because of other cases I already explained.

4457: 4447: 4439: 3258:. And Gl is short for Gliese too which means that they should be renamed to Gliese to better comply with 2975: 2523:

The first discussion shifts the issue to the standard symbol for light-year, however, let's now focus on

209: 4804: 4789: 4768: 4748: 4718: 4616: 4596:

The new q1_q17_dr24_koi report published yesterday updated many KOI planets parameters. Most noticeably

4032: 3935: 3912: 3711: 3630: 3605: 3591: 3576: 3495:

I have drafted a guideline about when artist's impressions of exoplanets are appropriate for inclusion:

3456:

and it is likely that Gliese is more widely accepted because of these new planets. Just look at the new

3347: 3295: 3281: 3267: 3221: 3058: 2880: 2842: 2814: 2446: 2382: 2331: 2305: 2025: 1959: 1813: 1583: 1565: 1532: 1312: 1296: 1254: 1220: 1047: 934: 808: 567: 312: 271: 171: 4642: 1651:

likely look nothing like what they are meant to illustrate. Doesn't this violate the quoted guideline?

2021: 930: 147: 4743:(The orbital Period is very similar to Earth but because this is a larger star It would be too hot). 4401: 4355: 4338: 4280: 4209: 4084: 3797: 3754: 2598: 2477: 2193: 2150: 2045: 1434: 643:

I agree with Praemonitus and Casliber. Going around and removing them all is borderline reckless. --

3255: 2875:. There appear to be sufficient independent and reliable sources available to establish notability. 3369:

clearly states: GJ (Gliese+Jahreiss)= Gl = Gls = Gliese = (NN) = (NSC). As for why Gliese? Because

3232: 2612: 2570: 1772: 1711: 1676: 1629: 1485: 1477: 956: 711:

Keeping these points in mind, the following sorts of artist's impressions are generally acceptable:

541: 240: 221: 4510: 4489: 4478: 4382: 4319: 4149: 4064: 3864:

The depreciation was agreed to in 2014; this discussion is about whether to uphold that decision.

3370: 3259: 3040: 3013: 2868: 2851: 1931: 1756: 1281: 602: 510: 463: 432: 235:

You also need to restore the RfC tag, so it can be closed properly. Note that it's possible for a

4740: 4732: 4710: 4702: 4698: 4694: 4686: 4674: 4573: 4542: 4526: 4498: 4466: 4425: 4370: 4307: 4253: 4239: 4164: 4137: 4110: 4052: 3949: 3869: 3659: 3641: 3393: 3197: 2923: 2859: 2828: 2799: 2772: 2732: 2718: 2710: 2688: 2668: 2643: 2400: 2322: 2282: 2203: 2160: 2109: 2065: 2004: 1940: 1871: 1848: 1744: 1726: 1499: 1449: 1389: 1367: 1269: 1173: 1159: 1125: 1084: 978: 668: 624: 590: 498: 451: 420: 359: 1080: 3215: 1578:

You're leaping to the wrong conclusion. So much so that I hardly know how to respond. Ah well.

4705:

highlited I could confirm if the Archive is correct or not but until then the values from the

4443: 3943: 3902: 3882: 3846: 3834: 3625:

scientific data, copyright violations, clearly amateurish technique/poor taste, or consensus.

3461: 3374: 3214:: I agree, the Gleise designation should just be used to refer to entries in the 1969 catalog. 2963: 2787: 2000: 1916: 1896: 648: 288: 4506: 4474: 4378: 4315: 4145: 4060: 3669: 1752: 1277: 852: 598: 506: 459: 428: 4800: 4785: 4779: 4764: 4744: 4714: 4612: 4179: 4043: 3820: 3782: 3729: 3707: 3693: 3626: 3601: 3587: 3572: 3559: 3536: 3516: 3343: 3333: 3291: 3277: 3263: 3217: 3096: 3054: 2927: 2876: 2838: 2810: 2542: 2508: 2442: 2408: 2378: 2356: 2327: 2301: 2243: 2222: 2178: 2135: 2095: 1982: 1809: 1700: 1656: 1600: 1579: 1561: 1528: 1419: 1307: 1292: 1249: 1238: 1215: 1185: 1148: 1110: 1068: 1058: 1043: 1032: 876: 837: 771: 752: 733: 563: 479: 335: 308: 267: 195: 167: 4039: 3967: 3777:. With this explanation, is it loose enough as it stands, or do you want more wiggle room? 2978:

about changing GJ and Gl short forms into Gliese for consistency, and policy wise reasons.

2872: 236: 199: 4697:

is not even highlighted. Only If I can get my hands on the PDF report (From q17_DR24) for

4351: 4334: 4276: 4205: 4080: 3919:

subtemplate into which database entry on whichever template system the bot maintains. --

3793: 3750: 2594: 2473: 2189: 2041: 1430: 3988:

Bulletin of the Minor Planets Section of the Association of Lunar and Planetary Observers

3940:

does the same job but better, and avoids creating huge numbers of subtemplates. I'm glad

3774: 3706:

Could you disambiguate the meaning of 'no more' in item 2? Some readers may be confused.

3681: 3504: 2983: 2630: 2343: 2293:

to be exact. When I pointed this out this person flipped and said the following (quote):

2286: 2274: 2146: 2086: 974: 829: 800: 3970:, a compilation of 'journal' citation on Knowledge (XXG) has recently been updated (see 1930:- However, it should be clearly stated that these images are artist impressions. As per 127: 3110:

then we don't have to mess with which are considered "Gl" which are considered "GJ" --

3072: 3050: 2757: 2608: 2566: 2013: 1775: 1714: 1679: 1632: 1481: 1343: 952: 243: 239:, but it should be done by an non-involved editor and only when the result is obvious. 224: 2767:

regarding the Giant GRB Ring, which falls into our purview and could use extra input.

2281:

So why did I fall of my seat? Well Ironically this person started the argument on the

2230: 2127: 4821: 4569: 4522: 4494: 4462: 4421: 4416:. If anything, it would only be a stub. I don't even know if it can be redirected to 4366: 4303: 4249: 4235: 4160: 4133: 4106: 4048: 3865: 3440: 3088: 3084: 3034: 2920:

Knowledge (XXG):Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 11#Template:Starbox multi

2855: 2824: 2795: 2768: 2727: 2714: 2664: 2657: 2639: 1935: 1867: 1740: 1445: 1265: 620: 586: 494: 447: 416: 354: 4223: 4219: 3178: 2020:, so the question comes down to if wikiproject astronomy includes those as well. 137: 3677: 3446: 3434: 3026: 3022: 2633:

when I noticed that K-corona, F-corona, and E-corona had requests. A quick look at

2558: 1912: 1892: 1734: 644: 396: 301: 284: 4454: 3421:

recognize the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title." -

492:

Commons can do what it wants. I'm talking about deleting them from our articles.

4760: 4602: 4597: 4175: 3816: 3778: 3725: 3689: 3555: 3532: 3512: 3366: 3329: 3144: 3092: 2504: 2431: 2404: 2371: 2352: 2239: 2174: 2131: 2091: 1978: 1696: 1652: 1596: 1415: 1234: 1181: 1144: 1106: 1064: 1028: 926: 921: 917: 872: 833: 767: 748: 729: 475: 331: 143:

Sample of considered non Speculative (those that can stay if remove is chosen):

132: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3155: 2531: 2122: 2105: 1804: 4218:

So far in my changes I'm finding that you're correct. To add weight to that,

3813:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Artist's impressions of astronomical objects#rfc 7F08024

3688:

Re verbosity, feel free to fix it if you can do so while preserving clarity.

3317:

sometimes forget that our articles need to be intelligible to eighth graders.

973:

would be original research, but if a reliable source has published them then

474:

in any particular article will depend on the context in that article. —Alex (

4736: 4690: 4682: 3417:. "In general, if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to 2278:, and (3) the first phrase of the caption is "An artist's impression of..." 2009: 1671: 1336: 684:

subjects about which a significant amount is known but no image is available

4647:

No I have not. But the PDF's for the report still list the old 3.42 radius

4333:. The origin field is SIMBAD though, which is kind of a publisher field. 3091:, which have recently been moved and are also affected by this discussion. 4297:

is probably the best course of action. Possibly with a new section on the

152: 4405: 2017: 1103:

we want to inform readers by accurately representing our article subjects

123:

Sample of considered speculative (that needs to go if remove is chosen):

4420:

itself, since there doesn't seem to be a specific list of publications.

3948:

is being killed off. Nothing has changed since the previous discussion.

1383:

make the image caption cluttered with speculative guessing disclosures.

2589: 1771:

should prevent anybody from preforming the analysis that you just did.

1666:

looking very much like these images. For example, an article is about

4294: 3140: 3003: 2634: 2580:

The basic fact is correct. The term was coined from the German word

2351:

Let's be constructive: what do you think of the proposed compromise?

721:

are A-OK: they show only known features with no speculative features.

693: 3766:

informative, minimal speculation, primarily depicting known features

180:

So far Keep has the largest so that is what I will be implementing.

671:

and a similar earlier discussion (they blend together a bit) is at

4649:(Here is the pdf. Go to page 2 and look for Rp (Rp=Radius Planet)) 3276:

Even the 3rd edition Gliese Catalogue doesn't take that approach.

2221: 1862:

In case anyone is interested, someone has initiated discussion at

4492:

for the half gazillion databases it's indexed in. A clear pass.

3768:(this is intentionally a bit vague to encourage discussion). If 106:

Should Artist's Impression images that be used on Article Pages?

105: 2912: 25: 1178:

Talk:MOA-2007-BLG-192Lb#Artist.27s impressions and exoplanets

682:

Artist's impressions are usually responsibly used to portray

673:

Talk:MOA-2007-BLG-192Lb#Artist.27s impressions and exoplanets

4021:

Monthly Notes of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa

3552:

Knowledge (XXG):Artist's impressions of astronomical objects

3077:

WT:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archive 22#Gliese vs. GJ

2684:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Frank Hill (scientist)

1366:

if no scholarly source supports the concept in the image.}}

1014:

that water is in a pure form and not hydrates or something,

916:

white sphere ... that one seems an example of misuse as the

725: 580:

This is hardly a 'banal lack of appreciation', these images

2709:

AfD has been closed. Thank you for pointing out my mistake

2145:(Therefore I won't respond in the survey section above.) -- 1213:

if image is appropriate. Clarify their speculative nature.

3898:

containing citation information, instead of replacing the

3974:). The top-cited missing journals/works of astronomy are 1647:

But most of the impressions are based on no evidence and

1388:

because I believe it will be an easier policy to follow.

409:

is what Pluto might have looked according to one person.

3743:

suggest that the last two words be replaced with "when".

3413:

Ah ok thanks for the info. Speaking if "Primary usage",

4004:

Contributi Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova in Asiago

4739:

in the system, that has a shorter orbital period than

3415:

MoS does have rules with using acronyms in page titles

3071:- Prior discussions of this question can be found at 1099:

do not claim to be accurately representing the planet

383:

in these images. Not only do they not represent what

4681:

is very wrong becuase it gives us information for a

3680:. I suppose the para about strict interpretation of 3165:

GJ Gliese & Jahreiss, A&AS, 38, 423 (1979)

2944:

The following discussion is an archived record of a

4653:However the archive here still lists the radius as 4027:

Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union

2954:

No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1124:, including exoplanets. There's no need for a ban. 3499:. The guideline is based on the discussion in the 3497:Knowledge (XXG):Artist's impressions of exoplanets 3490:Knowledge (XXG):Artist's impressions of exoplanets 3167:Wo Woolley et al., Roy. Obs. Ann. No. 5 (1970) 3147:. Individual entries list GJ as the primary form ( 2501:Knowledge (XXG):Artist's impressions of exoplanets 2238:consensus, taking on the discussion above. —Alex ( 2003:or people and instruments, and even diagrams like 4626:Have you tried asking NASA's Twitter account? -- 4592:What is going on with the Kepler q17_DR24 Report? 3231:should be moved to an alternate title. Thoughts? 3145:GJ, GI, Gls and Gliese all considered equivalents 3081:Category:List of exoplanets in the Gliese Catalog 414:should not be a repository of pretty wallpapers. 4685:in the system that doesn't even exist nevermind 562:encouraging further exploration of the subject. 4453:After some search, it's got an impact of 0.647 2537:{{convert | ### | Kpc/Mpc/Gpc | ly | abbr=on}} 2321:I appreciate that, but then you also said that 4364:A "catalogues hosted by SIMBAD" section then? 3290:What do you mean by not taking that approach? 3161:Note on Name: the following acronyms are used: 2563:Template:Did you know nominations/Heino Falcke 2399:Thanks for the response! To clarify about the 2108:and can be discussed on a case-by-case basis. 4202:Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society 4129:Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society 4125:Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India 4099:Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society 3837:allows editors to generate a citation from a 3503:and on Knowledge (XXG) policy, in particular 3452:etc). There is only a few that are listed as 2957:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 1414:, which has been discussed here extensively? 187:Case by Case/Keep ones that meet criteria - 4 8: 3169:NN newly added stars (number added at CDS) 1864:Talk:Eris_(dwarf_planet)#Artists_impressions 4404:and a general lack of anything (other than 4348:CDS/ADC Collection of Electronic Catalogues 4293:If it's a SIMBAB thing, then a redirect to 3999:CDS/ADC Collection of Electronic Catalogues 2998:If you remember from the inital consensus 2519:Second discussion: Prefixes for light-year 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Astronomy 3487: 445:: I would keep size comparisons however. 4331:Catalogue of Eggen's UBV data., 0 (1986) 617:Need to determine on cases by case basis 2083:evidence-based image is not available, 1891:. I do not see anything bad with them. 665:Remove unless it meets certain criteria 4406:Springer's own page on the publication 4015:Information Bulletin on Variable Stars 3181:distinguishes between Gl and GJ stars. 3163:Gl Gliese: CNS2,=1969VeARI..22....1G 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4272:Catalogue of Eggen's UBV data. SIMBAD 4075:I've added a publications section to 4044:Australia_ICOMOS#Historic_Environment 3994:Catalogue of Eggen's UBV data. SIMBAD 3511:generally satisfied with it. Thanks! 3460:discovered are the Gliese's are GJ's 3044:so that one can be ruled out as well. 3016:"An acronym should be written out in 2056:Discussion of compromises/resolutions 1101:. We have different goals from them; 7: 4727:PS I found a report that looks good 4198:Bulletin of the Astronomical Society 4095:Bulletin of the Astronomical Society 4009:Harvard College Observatory Bulletin 3982:Bulletin of the Astronomical Society 3843:I am inviting anyone here to comment 2730:No worries, mate! Have a great day, 1174:Talk:Gliese 667 Cc#Image Controversy 851:known about the planet in question, 669:Talk:Gliese 667 Cc#Image Controversy 212:, and comments in RfC are not votes. 4350:is another one with origin SIMBAD. 3321:nomenclature of stars/star systems. 2682:Hello there! Please take a look at 2235:File:rotation curve (Milky Way).JPG 3830:Discussion about Template:Cite doi 2285:page by removing an image from an 24: 3171:See the Nomemclature Note above ! 4442:which seems to be an imprint of 4438:Springer says it's published by 3479:The discussion above is closed. 3458:potentially habitable exoplanets 3049:stellar objects that are in the 2996:Gliese Catalogue of Nearby Stars 2937:GJ, Gl, or Gliese (Star Catalog) 2907: 2809:The outcome was "no consensus". 2525:adding SI prefixes to light-year 2401:the Celestia image you mentioned 389:File:Kepler-69c-_Super-Venus.jpg 210:Knowledge (XXG) is not democracy 151: 146: 136: 131: 126: 29: 3143:Dictionary of Nomenclature has 2902:has been nominated for deletion 2557:I recently created the article 237:non-admin to close a discussion 4809:15:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC) 4794:01:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC) 4773:18:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC) 4560:12:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC) 3957:10:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC) 3929:03:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC) 3079:. Other affected pages are at 2969:15:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC) 2932:11:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC) 2885:18:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC) 2864:23:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC) 2847:17:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC) 2833:18:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC) 2819:15:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC) 2561:and nominated it for DYK, see 1: 4763:with an expanded atmosphere? 4578:23:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC) 4531:15:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC) 4516:04:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC) 4484:03:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC) 4430:22:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC) 4299:Catalogue of Eggen's UBV data 4097:should actually be linked to 3874:16:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC) 3859:14:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC) 3825:19:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC) 3770:File:Gliese_667_Cc_sunset.jpg 3470:03:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC) 3401:16:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC) 3383:03:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC) 3300:15:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC) 3073:Talk:GJ 1214 b#Requested move 2804:22:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC) 2794:. Your input is appreciated. 2273:(2) they were published by a 2085:(2) they were published by a 1731:File:Gliese_667_Cc_sunset.jpg 1476:Almost every illustration in 1412:European Southern Observatory 1408:File:Gliese_667_Cc_sunset.jpg 1140:File:Gliese_667_Cc_sunset.jpg 996:File:Gliese_667_Cc_sunset.jpg 789:Treat on a case by case basis 533:actively misinforming readers 393:File:Gliese_667_Cc_sunset.jpg 4456:, so that's a clear pass of 4093:I have a funny feeling that 3977:Top-cited missing journals: 2792:being discussed for deletion 1727:this depiction of Shaka Zulu 1668:Circumstellar habitable zone 1374:) 04:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC) 1263:So removal nearly all then? 4753:22:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC) 4723:22:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC) 4636:07:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC) 4621:20:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC) 4388:15:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 4360:15:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 4343:14:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 4325:14:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 4285:14:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 4258:14:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 4244:14:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 4214:14:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 4188:14:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 4169:14:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 4155:14:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 4115:14:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 4089:15:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC) 4077:Harvard College Observatory 4070:14:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC) 3802:16:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC) 3787:08:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC) 3759:04:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC) 3734:02:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC) 3716:02:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC) 3698:02:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC) 3649:15:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 3635:18:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC) 3610:16:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC) 3596:00:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC) 3581:14:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC) 3564:23:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC) 3545:12:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC) 3521:17:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC) 3352:03:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC) 3338:00:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC) 3286:16:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC) 3272:03:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 3245:17:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC) 3226:16:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC) 3205:11:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC) 3120:05:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC) 3101:00:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC) 3063:23:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC) 2777:10:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC) 2748:13:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 2723:07:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 2704:18:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 2673:10:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 2648:10:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 2617:17:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC) 2603:15:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC) 2575:14:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC) 2553:DYK fact-check Heino Falcke 2548:04:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC) 2513:21:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC) 2482:23:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC) 2451:22:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC) 2413:00:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC) 2252:20:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC) 2050:19:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC) 2030:17:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC) 1247:Based on scientific basis. 939:16:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC) 4844: 4490:the journal's main website 3963:Top-cited missing journals 3501:recent RfC on this subject 2905: 2387:18:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC) 2361:02:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC) 2336:00:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC) 2310:00:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC) 2211:09:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC) 2198:03:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC) 2183:00:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC) 2168:09:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC) 2155:09:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC) 1987:18:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC) 1948:03:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC) 1921:06:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC) 1902:20:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC) 828:I think you misunderstand 696:notes that "images should 584:blatantly misinformative. 4828:Lists of missing journals 3839:digital object identifier 2992:Gliese Exoplanet Catagory 2782:AfD for Alpha Centauri Bc 2140:12:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC) 2117:07:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC) 2100:18:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC) 2074:16:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC) 1968:15:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC) 1882:20:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC) 1857:18:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC) 1837:08:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC) 1818:22:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC) 1782:21:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC) 1762:20:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC) 1721:21:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC) 1705:20:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC) 1686:20:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC) 1661:19:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC) 1639:15:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC) 1605:19:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC) 1588:03:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC) 1570:16:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC) 1560:? Mars has blue sunsets. 1551:04:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC) 1537:15:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC) 1522:05:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC) 1507:12:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC) 1490:11:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC) 1460:13:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC) 1439:13:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC) 1424:04:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC) 1398:16:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC) 1351:20:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC) 1317:09:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC) 1301:17:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC) 1287:14:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC) 1259:13:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC) 1243:13:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC) 1225:11:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC) 1190:18:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC) 1167:16:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC) 1153:13:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC) 1133:09:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC) 1115:15:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC) 1092:10:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC) 1073:04:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC) 1052:19:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC) 1037:13:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC) 986:13:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC) 961:09:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC) 920:image is then reused for 896:13:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC) 881:06:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC) 866:05:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC) 846:13:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC) 819:07:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC) 776:00:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC) 761:23:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC) 738:22:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC) 653:20:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC) 635:20:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC) 608:19:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC) 572:19:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC) 554:16:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC) 516:16:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC) 488:16:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC) 469:16:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC) 438:15:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC) 372:15:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC) 344:14:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC) 317:14:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC) 293:14:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC) 276:14:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC) 250:21:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC) 231:19:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC) 202:work, especially not how 176:13:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC) 3481:Please do not modify it. 3262:. That is my two cents. 2986:article names should be 2951:Please do not modify it. 4200:I looked at was really 3156:Gliese catalogue itself 1022:is has active geology, 3893:cite doi/doinumberhere 3179:nearby stars catalogue 3173: 2900:Template:Starbox multi 2226: 4410:Solar System Research 4226:I'm finding actually 4033:Solar System Research 3159: 2530:The paragraph on the 2225: 1006:the planet is rocky, 326:: Knowledge (XXG) is 42:of past discussions. 4402:impact factor search 2974:I'm re-requesting a 2037:Oppose this proposal 795:since that contains 4440:Pleiades Publishing 2946:request for comment 2765:deletion discussion 1478:Battle of Agincourt 1010:it contains water, 797:WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH 379:I see little-to-no 4408:), I do not think 2625:K, F, and E-corona 2283:Talk:Gliese_667_Cc 2227: 2005:Trojan (astronomy) 1693:WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE 1626:WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE 702:encyclopedic value 381:encyclopedic value 3835:Template:Cite doi 3488:Draft guideline: 3012:2nd According to 2982:1st According to 2871:doesn't override 2788:Alpha Centauri Bc 2735: 2691: 2586:fast radio bursts 2040:be turned there. 2001:Martian dichotomy 1335:does need to go. 529:Delete nearly all 377:Delete nearly all 369: 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4835: 4783: 4667: 4666: 4665: 4658: 4646: 4558: 4549: 4545: 4514: 4482: 4386: 4323: 4153: 4123:Well there is a 4068: 3947: 3939: 3917: 3911: 3907: 3901: 3897: 3891: 3887: 3881: 3856: 3851: 3663: 3336: 2966: 2953: 2911: 2910: 2745: 2739: 2731: 2701: 2695: 2687: 2662: 2656: 2439:Planetary radius 2435: 2375: 1960:Exoplanet Expert 1945: 1938: 1899: 1760: 1385:Policy Option 2. 1380:Policy Option 1. 1376:Updated opinions 1341: 1315: 1310: 1285: 1257: 1252: 1223: 1218: 1062: 977:does not apply. 821: 719:Size comparisons 606: 514: 467: 436: 370: 357: 305: 198:This is not how 166:to remove them. 162:to keep them or 155: 150: 140: 135: 130: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4843: 4842: 4838: 4837: 4836: 4834: 4833: 4832: 4818: 4817: 4777: 4661: 4660: 4656: 4654: 4640: 4594: 4547: 4541: 4540: 4493: 4461: 4365: 4302: 4132: 4103:similar entries 4047: 3965: 3941: 3933: 3915: 3909: 3905: 3899: 3895: 3889: 3885: 3879: 3854: 3847: 3832: 3682:reliable source 3657: 3493: 3485: 3484: 3334:leave a message 3328: 2971: 2964: 2949: 2939: 2916: 2915: 2908: 2904: 2784: 2761: 2743: 2737: 2699: 2693: 2680: 2663:tag on Corona? 2660: 2654: 2629:I was perusing 2627: 2555: 2521: 2429: 2369: 2319: 2298: 2287:reliable source 2279: 2275:reliable source 2149:(or Hrothulf) ( 2087:reliable source 2058: 1941: 1936: 1897: 1845:Remove from top 1739: 1347: 1337: 1311: 1306: 1264: 1253: 1248: 1219: 1214: 1056: 912:67.70.32.20 -- 812: 793:not appropriate 585: 493: 446: 415: 352: 328:not a democracy 324:Process comment 299: 260: 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4841: 4839: 4831: 4830: 4820: 4819: 4816: 4815: 4814: 4813: 4812: 4811: 4757: 4756: 4755: 4725: 4663: 4593: 4590: 4589: 4588: 4587: 4586: 4585: 4584: 4583: 4582: 4581: 4580: 4537: 4536: 4535: 4534: 4533: 4451: 4433: 4432: 4414:WP:JOURNALCRIT 4397: 4396: 4395: 4394: 4393: 4392: 4391: 4390: 4345: 4288: 4287: 4267: 4266: 4265: 4264: 4263: 4262: 4261: 4260: 4194: 4193: 4192: 4191: 4190: 4118: 4117: 4091: 4036: 4035: 4030: 4024: 4018: 4012: 4006: 4001: 3996: 3991: 3985: 3964: 3961: 3960: 3959: 3931: 3876: 3849:Blue Rasberry 3831: 3828: 3809: 3808: 3807: 3806: 3805: 3804: 3745: 3744: 3739: 3738: 3737: 3736: 3719: 3718: 3703: 3702: 3701: 3700: 3686: 3666: 3652: 3651: 3637: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3614: 3613: 3612: 3568: 3567: 3566: 3528: 3492: 3486: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3359: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3322: 3318: 3307: 3306: 3305: 3304: 3303: 3302: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3233:StringTheory11 3208: 3207: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3182: 3175: 3170: 3168: 3166: 3164: 3162: 3152: 3137: 3133: 3123: 3122: 3104: 3103: 3051:Gliese Catalog 3046: 3045: 3009: 3008: 2972: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2940: 2938: 2935: 2906: 2903: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2783: 2780: 2760: 2758:Giant GRB Ring 2754: 2753: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2679: 2676: 2626: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2554: 2551: 2520: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2364: 2363: 2348: 2347: 2316: 2295: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2200: 2185: 2077: 2076: 2057: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2033: 2032: 2014:Martian canals 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1971: 1970: 1951: 1950: 1924: 1923: 1905: 1904: 1885: 1884: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1821: 1820: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1642: 1641: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1509: 1493: 1492: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1401: 1400: 1354: 1353: 1345: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1303: 1228: 1227: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1081:seek the truth 1077: 1076: 1075: 989: 988: 963: 944: 943: 942: 941: 907: 906: 905: 904: 903: 902: 901: 900: 899: 898: 823: 822: 817:comment added 785: 784: 783: 782: 781: 780: 779: 778: 741: 740: 722: 713: 712: 708: 707: 706: 705: 691: 677: 676: 658: 657: 656: 655: 638: 637: 613: 612: 611: 610: 575: 574: 556: 542:StringTheory11 525: 524: 523: 522: 521: 520: 519: 518: 402: 401: 374: 346: 320: 319: 296: 295: 278: 259: 256: 255: 254: 253: 252: 218: 217: 216: 213: 192: 191: 188: 185: 107: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4840: 4829: 4826: 4825: 4823: 4810: 4806: 4802: 4797: 4796: 4795: 4791: 4787: 4781: 4776: 4775: 4774: 4770: 4766: 4762: 4758: 4754: 4750: 4746: 4742: 4738: 4734: 4730: 4726: 4724: 4720: 4716: 4712: 4708: 4704: 4700: 4696: 4692: 4688: 4684: 4680: 4676: 4672: 4668: 4650: 4644: 4639: 4638: 4637: 4633: 4629: 4625: 4624: 4623: 4622: 4618: 4614: 4611: 4606: 4604: 4599: 4591: 4579: 4575: 4571: 4567: 4566: 4565: 4564: 4563: 4562: 4561: 4557: 4553: 4548:Pigsonthewing 4544: 4538: 4532: 4528: 4524: 4519: 4518: 4517: 4512: 4508: 4504: 4500: 4496: 4491: 4487: 4486: 4485: 4480: 4476: 4472: 4468: 4464: 4459: 4455: 4452: 4449: 4445: 4441: 4437: 4436: 4435: 4434: 4431: 4427: 4423: 4419: 4415: 4411: 4407: 4403: 4399: 4398: 4389: 4384: 4380: 4376: 4372: 4368: 4363: 4362: 4361: 4357: 4353: 4349: 4346: 4344: 4340: 4336: 4332: 4328: 4327: 4326: 4321: 4317: 4313: 4309: 4305: 4300: 4296: 4292: 4291: 4290: 4289: 4286: 4282: 4278: 4273: 4269: 4268: 4259: 4255: 4251: 4247: 4246: 4245: 4241: 4237: 4233: 4229: 4225: 4221: 4217: 4216: 4215: 4211: 4207: 4203: 4199: 4195: 4189: 4185: 4181: 4177: 4172: 4171: 4170: 4166: 4162: 4158: 4157: 4156: 4151: 4147: 4143: 4139: 4135: 4130: 4126: 4122: 4121: 4120: 4119: 4116: 4112: 4108: 4104: 4100: 4096: 4092: 4090: 4086: 4082: 4078: 4074: 4073: 4072: 4071: 4066: 4062: 4058: 4054: 4050: 4045: 4041: 4034: 4031: 4028: 4025: 4022: 4019: 4016: 4013: 4010: 4007: 4005: 4002: 4000: 3997: 3995: 3992: 3989: 3986: 3983: 3980: 3979: 3978: 3975: 3973: 3969: 3962: 3958: 3955: 3953: 3952: 3951:Modest Genius 3945: 3937: 3932: 3930: 3926: 3922: 3921:70.51.202.113 3914: 3904: 3894: 3884: 3877: 3875: 3871: 3867: 3863: 3862: 3861: 3860: 3857: 3852: 3850: 3844: 3840: 3836: 3829: 3827: 3826: 3822: 3818: 3814: 3803: 3799: 3795: 3790: 3789: 3788: 3784: 3780: 3776: 3771: 3767: 3762: 3761: 3760: 3756: 3752: 3747: 3746: 3741: 3740: 3735: 3731: 3727: 3723: 3722: 3721: 3720: 3717: 3713: 3709: 3705: 3704: 3699: 3695: 3691: 3687: 3683: 3679: 3675: 3671: 3667: 3661: 3660:Modest Genius 3656: 3655: 3654: 3653: 3650: 3647: 3645: 3644: 3643:Modest Genius 3638: 3636: 3632: 3628: 3623: 3619: 3618: 3611: 3607: 3603: 3599: 3598: 3597: 3593: 3589: 3584: 3583: 3582: 3578: 3574: 3569: 3565: 3561: 3557: 3553: 3548: 3547: 3546: 3542: 3538: 3534: 3529: 3525: 3524: 3523: 3522: 3518: 3514: 3508: 3506: 3502: 3498: 3491: 3482: 3471: 3467: 3463: 3459: 3455: 3451: 3449: 3445: 3443: 3439: 3437: 3432: 3428: 3424: 3420: 3416: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3402: 3399: 3397: 3396: 3395:Modest Genius 3390: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3380: 3376: 3372: 3368: 3364: 3361: 3360: 3353: 3349: 3345: 3341: 3340: 3339: 3335: 3331: 3327: 3326: 3323: 3319: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3311: 3301: 3297: 3293: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3283: 3279: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3269: 3265: 3261: 3257: 3253: 3250: 3246: 3242: 3238: 3234: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3223: 3219: 3216: 3213: 3210: 3209: 3206: 3203: 3201: 3200: 3199:Modest Genius 3195: 3190: 3189: 3183: 3180: 3176: 3172: 3157: 3153: 3150: 3146: 3142: 3138: 3134: 3131: 3130: 3128: 3125: 3124: 3121: 3117: 3113: 3109: 3106: 3105: 3102: 3098: 3094: 3090: 3089:Gliese 3021 b 3086: 3085:Gliese 3634 b 3083:, especially 3082: 3078: 3074: 3070: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3060: 3056: 3052: 3043: 3042: 3036: 3035:Gliese 667 Cc 3032: 3028: 3024: 3019: 3015: 3011: 3010: 3005: 3001: 2997: 2993: 2989: 2985: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2977: 2970: 2967: 2958: 2955: 2952: 2947: 2942: 2941: 2936: 2934: 2933: 2929: 2925: 2921: 2914: 2901: 2898: 2886: 2882: 2878: 2874: 2870: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2861: 2857: 2853: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2844: 2840: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2830: 2826: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2816: 2812: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2801: 2797: 2793: 2789: 2781: 2779: 2778: 2774: 2770: 2766: 2759: 2755: 2749: 2746: 2740: 2734: 2729: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2720: 2716: 2712: 2711:FoCuSandLeArN 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2702: 2696: 2690: 2685: 2677: 2675: 2674: 2670: 2666: 2659: 2650: 2649: 2645: 2641: 2636: 2632: 2624: 2618: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2600: 2596: 2591: 2587: 2583: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2572: 2568: 2564: 2560: 2552: 2550: 2549: 2546: 2545: 2538: 2535: 2533: 2528: 2526: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2495: 2494: 2483: 2479: 2475: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2452: 2448: 2444: 2440: 2433: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2414: 2410: 2406: 2402: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2388: 2384: 2380: 2373: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2362: 2358: 2354: 2350: 2349: 2345: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2333: 2329: 2324: 2315: 2312: 2311: 2307: 2303: 2294: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2277: 2276: 2266: 2263: 2262: 2253: 2249: 2245: 2241: 2236: 2232: 2224: 2220: 2212: 2209: 2207: 2206: 2205:Modest Genius 2201: 2199: 2195: 2191: 2186: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2166: 2164: 2163: 2162:Modest Genius 2158: 2157: 2156: 2152: 2148: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2128:third opinion 2124: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2115: 2113: 2112: 2111:Modest Genius 2107: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2089: 2088: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2075: 2071: 2067: 2066:Waters.Justin 2063: 2060: 2059: 2055: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2038: 2035: 2034: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2006: 2002: 1997: 1994: 1993: 1988: 1984: 1980: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1969: 1965: 1961: 1956: 1953: 1952: 1949: 1946: 1944: 1939: 1933: 1929: 1926: 1925: 1922: 1918: 1914: 1910: 1907: 1906: 1903: 1900: 1894: 1890: 1887: 1886: 1883: 1879: 1876: 1873: 1869: 1865: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1849:Fyunck(click) 1846: 1838: 1834: 1830: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1806: 1802: 1799: 1798: 1783: 1780: 1777: 1774: 1770: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1746: 1742: 1736: 1732: 1728: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1719: 1716: 1713: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1684: 1681: 1678: 1673: 1669: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1650: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1640: 1637: 1634: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1620: 1619: 1606: 1602: 1598: 1593: 1589: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1576: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1559: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1548: 1544: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1534: 1530: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1519: 1515: 1510: 1508: 1505: 1503: 1502: 1501:Modest Genius 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1479: 1474: 1471: 1470: 1461: 1457: 1454: 1451: 1447: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1390:Waters.Justin 1386: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1368:Waters.Justin 1365: 1361: 1360: 1356: 1355: 1352: 1349: 1348: 1342: 1340: 1333: 1330: 1329: 1318: 1314: 1309: 1304: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1256: 1251: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1240: 1236: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1226: 1222: 1217: 1212: 1209: 1208: 1191: 1187: 1183: 1179: 1175: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1165: 1163: 1162: 1161:Modest Genius 1156: 1155: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1141: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1131: 1129: 1128: 1127:Modest Genius 1123: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1100: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1090: 1088: 1087: 1086:Modest Genius 1082: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1060: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1001: 997: 993: 992: 991: 990: 987: 984: 982: 981: 980:Modest Genius 976: 971: 967: 964: 962: 958: 954: 949: 946: 945: 940: 936: 932: 928: 923: 919: 915: 911: 910: 909: 908: 897: 893: 889: 884: 883: 882: 878: 874: 869: 868: 867: 863: 859: 854: 849: 848: 847: 843: 839: 835: 831: 827: 826: 825: 824: 820: 816: 810: 806: 802: 798: 794: 790: 787: 786: 777: 773: 769: 764: 763: 762: 758: 754: 750: 745: 744: 743: 742: 739: 735: 731: 727: 723: 720: 717: 716: 715: 714: 710: 709: 703: 699: 695: 692: 689: 685: 681: 680: 679: 678: 674: 670: 666: 664: 660: 659: 654: 650: 646: 642: 641: 640: 639: 636: 632: 629: 626: 622: 618: 615: 614: 609: 604: 600: 596: 592: 588: 583: 579: 578: 577: 576: 573: 569: 565: 560: 557: 555: 551: 547: 543: 538: 534: 530: 527: 526: 517: 512: 508: 504: 500: 496: 491: 490: 489: 485: 481: 477: 472: 471: 470: 465: 461: 457: 453: 449: 444: 441: 440: 439: 434: 430: 426: 422: 418: 412: 408: 404: 403: 398: 394: 390: 386: 382: 378: 375: 373: 367: 364: 361: 356: 350: 347: 345: 341: 337: 333: 329: 325: 322: 321: 318: 314: 310: 303: 298: 297: 294: 290: 286: 282: 279: 277: 273: 269: 265: 262: 261: 257: 251: 248: 245: 242: 238: 234: 233: 232: 229: 226: 223: 219: 214: 211: 208: 207: 205: 201: 197: 194: 193: 189: 186: 183: 182: 181: 178: 177: 173: 169: 165: 161: 156: 154: 149: 144: 141: 139: 134: 129: 124: 121: 118: 114: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4693:because the 4643:67.70.32.190 4628:67.70.32.190 4607: 4595: 4556:Andy's edits 4552:Talk to Andy 4543:Andy Mabbett 4458:WP:NJOURNALS 4448:WP:NJOURNALS 4409: 4400:Based on an 4347: 4330: 4271: 4231: 4227: 4197: 4037: 3976: 3966: 3950: 3936:cite journal 3913:cite journal 3848: 3833: 3810: 3765: 3678:Life on Mars 3674:common sense 3642: 3621: 3527:impressions. 3509: 3494: 3480: 3462:QuentinQuade 3453: 3447: 3441: 3435: 3430: 3426: 3418: 3394: 3388: 3375:QuentinQuade 3363:Use "Gliese" 3362: 3309: 3308: 3252:Use "Gliese" 3251: 3211: 3198: 3193: 3160: 3126: 3112:67.70.32.190 3108:Use "Gliese" 3107: 3068: 3047: 3038: 3031:Gliese 581 g 3027:Gliese 581 d 3023:Gliese 581 c 3017: 2987: 2973: 2965:AlbinoFerret 2956: 2950: 2943: 2917: 2785: 2762: 2681: 2651: 2628: 2585: 2581: 2559:Heino Falcke 2556: 2543: 2539: 2536: 2529: 2524: 2522: 2496: 2320: 2313: 2299: 2280: 2272: 2264: 2204: 2161: 2110: 2084: 2061: 2036: 1995: 1954: 1942: 1927: 1908: 1888: 1874: 1844: 1843: 1829:67.70.32.190 1803:in general. 1800: 1768: 1735:Gliese 667Cc 1648: 1621: 1543:67.70.32.190 1514:67.70.32.190 1500: 1472: 1452: 1384: 1379: 1375: 1363: 1358: 1357: 1344: 1338: 1331: 1210: 1160: 1126: 1121: 1098: 1085: 1023: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1003: 998:is from the 979: 969: 968:in general, 965: 947: 913: 888:67.70.32.190 858:67.70.32.190 813:— Preceding 792: 788: 701: 697: 687: 683: 662: 661: 627: 616: 581: 558: 536: 532: 528: 442: 397:Gliese 667Cc 384: 380: 376: 348: 323: 280: 263: 179: 163: 159: 157: 145: 142: 125: 122: 116: 112: 109: 78: 43: 37: 4801:Praemonitus 4786:Davidbuddy9 4780:Praemonitus 4765:Praemonitus 4761:hot jupiter 4745:Davidbuddy9 4741:KOI-7296.01 4733:KOI-7296.01 4715:Davidbuddy9 4711:KOI-7296.01 4707:last report 4703:KOI-7296.01 4699:KOI-7296.01 4695:KOI-7296.01 4687:KOI-7296.01 4675:KOI-7296.01 4613:Davidbuddy9 4598:KOI-7599.01 4101:, based on 3708:Praemonitus 3627:Praemonitus 3602:Praemonitus 3588:Davidbuddy9 3573:Praemonitus 3344:Davidbuddy9 3292:Davidbuddy9 3278:Praemonitus 3264:Davidbuddy9 3218:Praemonitus 3055:Davidbuddy9 2918:Please see 2877:Praemonitus 2839:Praemonitus 2811:Praemonitus 2790:article is 2763:There is a 2744:talk to me! 2700:talk to me! 2544:SkyFlubbler 2443:Davidbuddy9 2379:Davidbuddy9 2328:Davidbuddy9 2302:Davidbuddy9 2022:Markbassett 1810:Levelledout 1580:Praemonitus 1562:Praemonitus 1529:Praemonitus 1498:Hear hear. 1293:Praemonitus 1059:Praemonitus 1044:Praemonitus 931:Markbassett 927:Kepler-186f 922:Kepler-438b 918:Kepler-186f 805:67.70.32.20 564:Praemonitus 385:actually is 309:Davidbuddy9 268:Davidbuddy9 196:Davidbuddy9 168:Davidbuddy9 36:This is an 4673:. However 4603:the planet 4444:Maik NAUKA 4352:Lithopsian 4335:Lithopsian 4277:Lithopsian 4206:Lithopsian 4105:. Agreed? 4081:Lithopsian 4029:(redirect) 4023:(redirect) 4017:(redirect) 4011:(redirect) 3990:(redirect) 3984:(redirect) 3972:old thread 3938:|doi=...}} 3794:Evensteven 3751:Evensteven 3136:numbering. 2994:or on the 2988:consistent 2595:Lithopsian 2532:Light-year 2474:Evensteven 2323:this image 2231:verifiable 2190:Evensteven 2123:MOS:IMAGES 2106:MOS:IMAGES 2042:Evensteven 1805:MOS:IMAGES 1431:Lithopsian 726:This image 258:Discussion 190:Remove - 4 98:Archive 25 90:Archive 22 85:Archive 21 79:Archive 20 73:Archive 19 68:Archive 18 60:Archive 15 4701:that has 4488:See also 3685:Thoughts? 3550:moved to 2976:consensus 2869:WP:NASTRO 2852:WP:NASTRO 2609:Crispulop 2567:Crispulop 2010:Space art 1932:WP:IRELEV 1868:Cas Liber 1776:WarKosign 1715:WarKosign 1680:WarKosign 1672:red dwarf 1633:WarKosign 1482:Gandalf61 1446:Cas Liber 1444:logic.... 1410:from the 953:SPACKlick 698:look like 621:Cas Liber 244:WarKosign 225:WarKosign 4822:Category 4570:Primefac 4523:Primefac 4503:contribs 4495:Headbomb 4471:contribs 4463:Headbomb 4422:Primefac 4418:Springer 4375:contribs 4367:Headbomb 4312:contribs 4304:Headbomb 4250:Primefac 4236:Primefac 4184:contribs 4161:Primefac 4142:contribs 4134:Headbomb 4107:Primefac 4057:contribs 4049:Headbomb 3944:cite doi 3903:cite doi 3883:cite doi 3866:Primefac 3541:contribs 3425:. So do 3127:Comments 2856:Primefac 2825:Primefac 2796:Primefac 2769:Primefac 2738:contribs 2728:Primefac 2715:Primefac 2694:contribs 2665:Primefac 2640:Primefac 2248:contribs 2018:Martians 1889:Keep all 1878:contribs 1808:problem. 1769:artistic 1749:contribs 1741:Headbomb 1456:contribs 1274:contribs 1266:Headbomb 1122:anything 970:provided 842:contribs 757:contribs 631:contribs 595:contribs 587:Headbomb 537:accurate 503:contribs 495:Headbomb 484:contribs 456:contribs 448:Headbomb 443:Addendum 425:contribs 417:Headbomb 355:Huntster 340:contribs 204:they end 184:Keep - 6 4507:physics 4475:physics 4379:physics 4316:physics 4222:of the 4146:physics 4061:physics 3908:with a 3665:intact? 3310:Comment 3256:newbies 3212:Comment 3158:states 3149:example 3069:Comment 2756:AfD at 2590:blitzar 2265:Comment 2147:Hroðulf 2062:Comment 1937:Chamith 1913:Maproom 1753:physics 1558:why not 1278:physics 853:WP:HOAX 815:undated 645:Kheider 599:physics 507:physics 460:physics 429:physics 302:Kheider 285:Kheider 281:Comment 39:archive 4737:planet 4691:planet 4683:planet 4679:(here) 4671:(here) 4664:−577.6 4608:EDIT: 4412:meets 4295:SIMBAD 4234:BAAS. 4224:adsabs 4196:Every 4176:Ashill 4040:WP:JWG 3968:WP:JCW 3855:(talk) 3817:A2soup 3779:A2soup 3726:A2soup 3690:A2soup 3622:oppose 3556:A2soup 3533:Ashill 3513:A2soup 3448:Gliese 3444:667 Cc 3442:Gliese 3436:Gliese 3367:SIMBAD 3330:Bfpage 3141:SIMBAD 3093:A2soup 3004:GJ 180 2924:Alakzi 2873:WP:GNG 2635:Corona 2505:A2soup 2497:Update 2432:A2soup 2405:A2soup 2372:A2soup 2353:A2soup 2240:Ashill 2175:A2soup 2132:A2soup 2092:A2soup 1996:Remove 1979:A2soup 1943:(talk) 1909:Remove 1893:Ruslik 1697:A2soup 1653:A2soup 1624:. Per 1597:A2soup 1416:A2soup 1364:delete 1332:Delete 1308:Kieran 1250:Kieran 1235:A2soup 1216:Kieran 1182:A2soup 1145:A2soup 1107:A2soup 1065:A2soup 1029:A2soup 948:Remove 914:Baaaad 873:A2soup 834:Ashill 768:A2soup 749:Ashill 730:A2soup 663:Delete 476:Ashill 332:Ashill 164:Remove 117:remove 4662:+2544 4511:books 4479:books 4383:books 4320:books 4232:isn't 4150:books 4065:books 3775:WP:OR 3670:bitey 3620:Weak 3505:WP:OR 3450:832 c 3438:581 d 3194:don't 3041:ships 3007:name. 2984:WP:NC 2733:FoCuS 2689:FoCuS 2631:WP:RA 2582:blitz 2344:WP:OR 2314:EDIT 1757:books 1313:Tribe 1282:books 1255:Tribe 1221:Tribe 975:WP:OR 830:WP:OR 801:WP:OR 603:books 511:books 464:books 433:books 16:< 4805:talk 4790:talk 4769:talk 4749:talk 4731:for 4729:here 4719:talk 4632:talk 4617:talk 4574:talk 4527:talk 4499:talk 4467:talk 4426:talk 4371:talk 4356:talk 4339:talk 4308:talk 4281:talk 4270:The 4254:talk 4240:talk 4220:most 4210:talk 4180:talk 4165:talk 4138:talk 4111:talk 4085:talk 4053:talk 3925:talk 3878:The 3870:talk 3821:talk 3798:talk 3783:talk 3755:talk 3730:talk 3712:talk 3694:talk 3631:talk 3606:talk 3592:talk 3577:talk 3560:talk 3537:talk 3517:talk 3466:talk 3431:only 3419:only 3379:talk 3348:talk 3296:talk 3282:talk 3268:talk 3222:talk 3177:The 3154:The 3139:The 3116:talk 3097:talk 3087:and 3075:and 3059:talk 3039:not 3018:full 3000:here 2928:talk 2881:talk 2860:talk 2843:talk 2829:talk 2815:talk 2800:talk 2786:The 2773:talk 2719:talk 2669:talk 2658:main 2644:talk 2613:talk 2599:talk 2571:talk 2509:talk 2478:talk 2447:talk 2409:talk 2383:talk 2357:talk 2332:talk 2306:talk 2244:talk 2194:talk 2179:talk 2151:Talk 2136:talk 2096:talk 2070:talk 2046:talk 2026:talk 1983:talk 1964:talk 1955:Keep 1928:Keep 1917:talk 1898:Zero 1872:talk 1853:talk 1833:talk 1814:talk 1801:Keep 1745:talk 1701:talk 1657:talk 1649:very 1622:Keep 1601:talk 1584:talk 1566:talk 1547:talk 1533:talk 1518:talk 1486:talk 1473:Keep 1450:talk 1435:talk 1420:talk 1394:talk 1372:talk 1359:Keep 1339:Reyk 1297:talk 1270:talk 1239:talk 1211:Keep 1186:talk 1176:and 1149:talk 1111:talk 1069:talk 1048:talk 1033:talk 1024:then 966:Keep 957:talk 935:talk 892:talk 877:talk 862:talk 838:talk 809:talk 772:talk 753:talk 734:talk 649:talk 625:talk 591:talk 568:talk 559:Keep 499:talk 480:talk 452:talk 421:talk 411:This 407:This 349:Keep 336:talk 313:talk 289:talk 272:talk 264:Keep 200:RfCs 172:talk 160:Keep 113:keep 4709:of 4659:.44 4657:140 4550:); 4450:... 3427:you 3423:MoS 3389:all 3371:MoS 3260:MoS 3014:MoS 2913:FYI 2678:AfD 2291:ESO 2016:or 2012:or 1346:YO! 1000:ESO 811:) 694:MOS 582:are 115:or 4824:: 4807:) 4792:) 4771:) 4751:) 4721:) 4651:. 4634:) 4619:) 4576:) 4554:; 4529:) 4509:/ 4505:/ 4501:/ 4477:/ 4473:/ 4469:/ 4460:. 4428:) 4381:/ 4377:/ 4373:/ 4358:) 4341:) 4318:/ 4314:/ 4310:/ 4301:. 4283:) 4256:) 4242:) 4228:do 4212:) 4186:) 4182:| 4178:| 4167:) 4148:/ 4144:/ 4140:/ 4113:) 4087:) 4079:. 4063:/ 4059:/ 4055:/ 4046:. 3946:}} 3942:{{ 3934:{{ 3927:) 3916:}} 3910:{{ 3906:}} 3900:{{ 3896:}} 3890:{{ 3886:}} 3880:{{ 3872:) 3845:. 3823:) 3815:. 3800:) 3785:) 3757:) 3732:) 3714:) 3696:) 3633:) 3608:) 3594:) 3579:) 3562:) 3543:) 3539:| 3535:| 3519:) 3468:) 3454:GJ 3381:) 3365:, 3350:) 3298:) 3284:) 3270:) 3243:) 3239:• 3224:) 3151:). 3129:: 3118:) 3099:) 3061:) 3033:, 3029:, 3025:, 2948:. 2930:) 2922:. 2883:) 2862:) 2845:) 2831:) 2817:) 2802:) 2775:) 2741:; 2721:) 2713:. 2697:; 2671:) 2661:}} 2655:{{ 2646:) 2615:) 2601:) 2573:) 2527:. 2511:) 2480:) 2449:) 2411:) 2385:) 2359:) 2334:) 2308:) 2289:, 2250:) 2246:| 2242:| 2196:) 2181:) 2153:) 2138:) 2098:) 2072:) 2048:) 2028:) 1985:) 1966:) 1919:) 1880:) 1855:) 1835:) 1816:) 1755:/ 1751:/ 1747:/ 1703:) 1695:? 1659:) 1603:) 1586:) 1568:) 1549:) 1535:) 1520:) 1488:) 1458:) 1437:) 1422:) 1396:) 1378:- 1299:) 1280:/ 1276:/ 1272:/ 1241:) 1188:) 1151:) 1113:) 1071:) 1050:) 1035:) 1020:if 1016:if 1012:if 1008:if 1004:If 959:) 937:) 894:) 879:) 864:) 844:) 840:| 836:| 774:) 759:) 755:| 751:| 736:) 651:) 633:) 601:/ 597:/ 593:/ 570:) 552:) 548:• 509:/ 505:/ 501:/ 486:) 482:| 478:| 462:/ 458:/ 454:/ 431:/ 427:/ 423:/ 353:— 342:) 338:| 334:| 315:) 291:) 274:) 206:. 174:) 94:→ 64:← 4803:( 4788:( 4782:: 4778:@ 4767:( 4747:( 4717:( 4655:6 4645:: 4641:@ 4630:( 4615:( 4572:( 4546:( 4525:( 4513:} 4497:{ 4481:} 4465:{ 4424:( 4385:} 4369:{ 4354:( 4337:( 4322:} 4306:{ 4279:( 4252:( 4238:( 4208:( 4163:( 4152:} 4136:{ 4109:( 4083:( 4067:} 4051:{ 3923:( 3868:( 3819:( 3796:( 3781:( 3753:( 3728:( 3710:( 3692:( 3662:: 3658:@ 3629:( 3604:( 3590:( 3575:( 3558:( 3515:( 3464:( 3377:( 3346:( 3332:| 3294:( 3280:( 3266:( 3241:c 3237:t 3235:( 3220:( 3114:( 3095:( 3057:( 2926:( 2879:( 2858:( 2841:( 2827:( 2813:( 2798:( 2771:( 2717:( 2667:( 2642:( 2611:( 2597:( 2569:( 2507:( 2476:( 2445:( 2434:: 2430:@ 2407:( 2381:( 2374:: 2370:@ 2355:( 2330:( 2304:( 2229:( 2192:( 2177:( 2134:( 2094:( 2068:( 2044:( 2024:( 1981:( 1962:( 1915:( 1895:_ 1875:· 1870:( 1851:( 1831:( 1812:( 1779:” 1773:“ 1759:} 1743:{ 1718:” 1712:“ 1699:( 1683:” 1677:“ 1655:( 1636:” 1630:“ 1599:( 1582:( 1564:( 1545:( 1531:( 1516:( 1484:( 1453:· 1448:( 1433:( 1418:( 1392:( 1370:( 1295:( 1284:} 1268:{ 1237:( 1184:( 1147:( 1109:( 1067:( 1061:: 1057:@ 1046:( 1031:( 955:( 933:( 890:( 875:( 860:( 807:( 770:( 732:( 704:. 647:( 628:· 623:( 605:} 589:{ 566:( 550:c 546:t 544:( 513:} 497:{ 466:} 450:{ 435:} 419:{ 368:) 366:c 363:@ 360:t 358:( 311:( 304:: 300:@ 287:( 270:( 247:” 241:“ 228:” 222:“ 170:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 20 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index