GQ Lupi b isn't an exoplanet but a brown dwarf. This one would fit better: [1] but I don't know how too include it
![[1]](http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2005/images/phot-14a-05-normal.jpg){kind=link}
added picture...if anyone can find a better one, that might be a good idea. I'm sure there are better ones out there somewhere. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 02:13, 08 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Should PSR B1257+12's 3 light major planets [2] be included? - Jeandré, 2003-06-06t20:52z
What about Van Briesbroek 8B? Or is that a brown dwarf? Archola 14:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Location
Intro needs clarification: Are they considered a part of Solar System, if not, how close need they be? Because when I first saw the word, I though it's any planet not in the Solar System, like those from other constellations. --Menchi 23:28 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Info clarified on Jul 12, 2003 by Oliver Pereira. --Menchi 19:53, Aug 21, 2003 (UTC)
several million extrasolar comets have also been detected.
I never heard of those. Detecting comets should be much harder than detecting planets. I am tempted to remove this sentence, unless it's backed by some reference source. At18 19:25, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- I did a bit of research, and found that many comets have been indirectly inferred. Of course they haven't directly detected - too faint. I'm changing the sentence wording to reflect this fact. At18 21:21, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Pulsar Planets
This op-ed piece in the introduction about pseudo-planets that Wolszczan discovered is very very opinionated. There is currently no definition for planet. So any sub-brown-dwarf accretion large enough to be thought of as a planet, that orbits a star, is a planet. The hooey about pulsar planets not being real planets is chauvinistic crap.
If you use the disk-instability model to make giant planets, according to some opinins, these aren't planets either, as a 'real' planet is formed by core accretion, and disk-instability only forms brown-dwarfs.
The definition of what a planet is, is currently under debate. Apparently the criteria were determined on Sept. 14th and if / when the group develops a consensus on the proposal, it will go to the IAU executive committee for a vote. AZ Central News Article --Jeff 17:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I removed the space telescope part of this sentence:
"Planets orbiting main sequenece stars were not discovered until the 1990's, when new space telescopes good enough were constructed."
and rewrote the surrounding paragraph. -Wikibob | Talk 16:46, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)
Planet naming
- see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects#Extrasolar_Planets; there needs to be a default convention on naming the articles. 132.205.15.43 05:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Non-working or Non-English Links
It's nice to see external links to searchable databases of extrasolar planets. This would allow various user-driven search/sort criteria like sort by ascending distance from earth, etc.
Unfortunately one link points to a German language site: | searchable dynamic database of extrasolar planets and their parent stars
And another link points to a non-functioning server: | Extrasolar Planet XML Database
I found this searchable database, but it doesn't allow sorting by distance from earth: [5]
I found this one, which allows sorting by all criteria; not sure if it's appropriate to reference or not: Joema 03:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
http://vo.obspm.fr/exoplanetes/encyclo/catalog-main.php?mdAff=output#tc
Extrasolar Moons
Does anyone know of any Extrasolar moons? Any information will be helpful on this subject as I have not yet heard of any "real case" of an extrasolar moon. Maurice45 17:55 23 January 2006 (UTC)
New Records
Today's announcement of the 4x earth mass rocky planet has been added, but looks like it will need to be added to the table under the following categories: smallest, and furthest from earth. I'll leave that to the experts as I may be wrong. Jafafa Hots 02:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Zeta Reticuli
I find it interesting that no planets have been found around the binary star system of Zeta Retculi. There was a planet found in 1996 and added to the Extrasolar planets catalog, but it was removed a few days later. What's the odds that this would happen to a star system so caught up in Ufology? Interesting! Barney Hill 23:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)