Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:57, 3 April 2016

	Astronomy Start‑class
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Venus ??

How on Earth (excuse the pun) did it go from 0.44 to 0.78 ?? --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The value for Venus is wrong here (second-ranked is Mars not Venus). See example calculation in de:Earth Similarity Index or data_solar_ESI.txt referenced in Earth Similarity Index (ESI). The values in HEC: Data of Potential Habitable Worlds are calculated different. --Mahgue (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The docs.google.com documents seem to be all broken. A copy of the table can be found in slide 7. It is written in German, but for the table this should not matter. --Mahgü (✉) 16:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Venus is listed as having different values on different Misplaced Pages pages. All the pages are backed by contradictory citations. I tried to add a note about the dispute to the actual page so that people wouldn't think the number here is authoritative, but that edit got reverted. A request for an expert was added to this page in 2014. That request has yet to be answered, so please someone add a note that the number is disputed. I apparently lack the standing to even note this contradiction. AristosM (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

NEVER MIND. I just discovered that another user did actually verify the numbers and set them right! :-) AristosM (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Habitability or not ?

Citation: "ESI is not a measure of habitability, ..."

but the article is in category "Planetary habitability" and "Search for extraterrestrial intelligence". --Mahgü (✉) 22:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Higher than Venus or Mars

"The following planets have been determined to have higher ESI than Venus or Mars:" No they haven't. The table goes down to 0.53. The top of the article says Venus 0.78, Mars 0.64 or 0.70. Even #Venus?? above says Venus 0.44, Mars 0.70 – and I don't think "higher ESI than Venus or Mars" means "either higher than Venus, or if not, then higher than Mars" because that could be simplified to just "higher than Venus". Should we qualify the "determined" statement, or shorten the table? It's a contradiction if we don't do either one. Art LaPella (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

ESI is not the same as PLANET HABITABILITY INDEX

Someone has gone substituted PHI figures in for the ESIs in the tables. The two are completely different measures.--EvenGreenerFish (talk) 01:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Updated ESI Moon list to match Planet list

I was thinking about moving the list of moons to the HabPlanetScore format for lists. I would like to know if its a go or no. (Yeah its a bit messy but the missing info will get filled in eventually).--User:Davidbuddy9 (talk) 16, January 2015

ESIs of non-planets

The ESI can be applied to objects other than planets, including natural satellites, dwarf planets and asteroids, though comparisons typically draw lower global ESI due to the lower average density and temperature of these objects, at least for those known in the Solar System.

The following non-planetary objects have relatively high global ESIs:

Of these, only Titan is known to hold on to a significant atmosphere despite an overall lower size and density. --User:Davidbuddy9 (talk) 16, January 2015

Kepler-452b

as today, the NASA official Kepler web site does not report the mass of the planet http://kepler.nasa.gov/Mission/discoveries/ so while the planet radius is know with good approximation, the density is unknown. Many speculating web site report values from 5 EM to <1. So the ESI index for 452b reported in the article is completely arbitrary, remove it from an enciclopedia--Efa (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Efa: I have implemented the ESI value for Kepler-452b that was provided by PHL. I also moved it (Kepler-452b) below Kepler-62e again to match PHL. If there are any more issues than let me know and I will look over the data. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

What is going on with the table?

Just as a note hypopsychroplanet and hyperthermoplanet could have Extremophiles living on them! Thats why they were originally labled Partial instead of No and Mercury is considered Non-Habitable. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Clarification of Key to table

The key for the table in the Planets with relativiely high ESI section lists possible values for the pClass but doesn't include megaterran, the entry for #8, K2-3d. Where does it fall in the range? WesT (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Improvements to the article

Remove original research and self-published sources is extremely important for articles about fringe proposals, which this idea is. We need to contextualize it properly.

Thus, this version, which I think does an admirable job describing this topic. We can add more sources as we may.

05:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: If you looked at many of your AfD's that you opened up or even read your talk page, people are reminding you that you don't understand what WP:OR is. According to you all sources need to be peer reviewed. Unfortunately all of your TfD's don't make sense that you made Earlier this month you do not need to have peer reviewed papers to justify what shades of red to green it should be for numbers ranging from 0 to 1. And no this version is not admirable its either a stub or a start much smaller than the previes version, and Ironically you pulled the equation how to calculate it! And then you go around looking for templates complaining that the ESI is purely Original research WOW. April Fools happened 2 days ago ok it's over get over it. PS. here you stated that it was "vetted by experts" where is the peer reviewed paper please? Or else thats WP:OR! Davidbuddy9 Talk  05:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

David, I understand WP:OR perfectly well. We are not in the business of promulgating information that is sourced to a single self-published website. That's not how Misplaced Pages works. Please read WP:ONUS. The ONUS IS ON YOU to show the peer reviewed paper that actually cites this. NOT THE sole paper published in an obscure journal by the self-same author of the website, any paper citing it. That's what you need to establish the prominence of the information so that you can include it. jps (talk) 05:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: This is how I like to handle situations when I am in your position.

1) Revert to the edit that was used before the controversy started.

2) Open up an RFC on the WP:AST talk page for community input.

yes that is OR but it works and as a community we reached agreements for example WP:AIAO to handle Artists impressions of :::Astronomical objects. Everyone views the rules differently so we need to find a balanced approach of what the entire community thinks, :::not just you or I. Until something can be reached we shall follow the defacto approach that was used before which was clearly not in :::your understanding of WP:OR. So whats holding you back go make an RfC on WP:AST's talk page about this PHL/HEC = Original :::research. Until then I'm going to fight for how things were done before (well until I get pissed off enough that I make my own RfC). Davidbuddy9 Talk  05:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

You are in no position to make demands. Your current argument is that you as a community agreed to violate a fundamental policy of Misplaced Pages. Since there are no peer-reviewed citations of this idex as a calculation, there can be no coverage of it at Misplaced Pages. Artists conceptions are totally separate matters. jps (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: PS. ONUS states " Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article" Which further reinforces my idea of opening up an RFC to determine whether or not we PHL/HEC is OR or not. Davidbuddy9 Talk  06:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Opening an RfC is fine with me. Just realize that according to WP:RfC you must word it neutrally. This means that you have to explain that what you are arguing for is that these specific calculations that you want to include which have never been published in a serious first-rate academic journal in astrophysics and a means of calculating an index which has never been cited in any serious WP:MAINSTREAM literature. If you think you're up for the task of explaining why your calculations and interest in this WP:FRINGE material should be included, by all means start an RfC. jps (talk) 06:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

"Vetted by experts" isn't a rationale

I'm not getting into the edit war and undoing this, but I will point out that its edit summary rationale is starkly unsatisfactory. It is claimed that the current version must be accepted as vetted by experts, but the self-appointed expert in question is I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc themselves who made the edit. Even if you really are an WP:EXPERT, that does not grant you any privileges in resolving conflicts in their favor: in a content dispute between a (supposed) expert and a non-expert, it is not permissible for the expert to "pull rank" and declare victory. Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines must be respected by experts and non-experts alike, so if your WP:BOLD mass-removal of content from this article is challenged, you should follow the same WP:BRD process that everyone else has to, and you should be the one taking it to the talk page at that point, not ask others to while reverting back. LjL (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

1. pg 143. Multivariate and other worksheets for R (or S-Plus): a miscellany P.M.E.Altham, Statistical Laboratory, University of Cambridge. January 10, 2013

• Start-Class Astronomy articles
• Unknown-importance Astronomy articles
• Start-Class Astronomy articles of Unknown-importance