Talk:Newly discovered extra-solar planet may be Earth-like

Images

One: The image listed previously is on commons with no sources, and is not "free" to use on commons as the ESO's image policy states. I know its small, but unless those images can be sourced on Commons they will be deleted, and I have informed them of it. Who are we to know who created those images. DragonFire1024 03:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Who are we to know if space.com follows ESO's image policy? Why didn't you upload your image to Commons? If your image is more "free" it would seem that it would stay there and be available to all wikis..--SVTCobra 04:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Its not "my image." And I don't make ESO rules. And because space.coms POLICY says so. So before you accuse me of wrong doing, look at how sloppy the commons images are. The sapce.com image is sourced and credited properly. DragonFire1024 04:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Just so we are clear. I did not accuse you of wrong-doing. But you keep citing space.com as an authority.--SVTCobra 04:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Never did once say they were right. Just at the moment its the only properly sourced and licensed image we can come up with. DragonFire1024 04:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we find a way to use this? w:Image:Phot-22a-07-normal.jpg. But I really thought we didn't have to question Commons images and that they'd handle it on their end. --SVTCobra 14:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

upload it to Wikinews as Fair use media. tag as publicity photo. –Doldrums(talk) 14:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

except, this article is already 2 days old and shldn't be added on to. –Doldrums(talk) 14:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't be adding to the article, just a higher resolution of the exact same image, the article would've looked exactly the same. However, EOS released the image in a press release dated April 25, 2007, which is after the date of this article, so I am not going to upload it. --SVTCobra 17:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that, and it was only recently made available on their website :) I have deleted the other image and have uploaded the one directly from the ESO. Sorry to have caused such a hassle. DragonFire1024 21:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Calling it "earthlike" goes to far

It is earth-sized, and has a similar temperature, but calling it earthlike goes to far toward implying that it has vegitation or animal life and is thus overly-sensationalist for WN. I will change the title to earth-sized for now. Bill3 06:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

A planet far more massive than the earth, orbiting a much dimmer star than the sun, in 12 and some days.

Maybe it's near earth temperatures. Maybe it isn't.

Is this news? Is this accurate? Does wikinews want to go here?

Yes its news. Yes its accurate as reported by the ESO. If they are wrong,that will be reported. But yes there is no 100% proof its true, but the methods they used say so :) BTW welcome to Wikinews! I hope you enjoy it here :) DragonFire1024 08:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

title

Extra-solar planet possibly Earth-like is short, free of errors, and tells the most important thing. let's leave it as it is. –Doldrums(talk) 08:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The title is incomplete...and makes no sense...at the end it seems like you are waitng for more. DragonFire1024 08:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

how about Extra-solar planet may be Earth-like? has a verb in it and so reads much better. –Doldrums(talk) 08:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

now it is worse! –Doldrums(talk) 08:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

thank you, Brian. –Doldrums(talk) 08:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well the way it was before is not complete and it is driving me nuts. Your title above is acceptable. :) DragonFire1024 08:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

it is of the form "Ronald Reagan dead", used to get punchy headlines. –Doldrums(talk) 08:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I was picky :( DragonFire1024 08:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Who and how

Who discovered and how did he/she do so? W1k13rh3nry 11:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, got it... also will transwiki info to pedia W1k13rh3nry 11:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

“target of the future space missions”

The wording “target of ... future space missions”, with no further explanation, made me think that this involved some craft actually going there — until I recalled that it's twenty-odd light years away (and the existing state of warp drive technology just isn't up to scratch). The source articles clarify that what Delfosse actually had in mind is setting up telescopes outside of the earth's atmosphere.

[‘Target’ may be a mistranslation. Delfosse (who is quoted with those words) is “a member of the team from Grenoble University”, so I suppose his principle language is likely to be French, and he or someone else may have translated from a French idiom. The French version of this page and the ‘Le Monde’ article use the word ‘cible’, one of whose meanings is (according to fr.wiktionary.org) ‘personne ou objet concentrant l'attention’, for which we usually wouldn't use the word ‘target’ in English: we usually say ‘subject’ or ‘focus’ of interest/enquiry/investigation/attention. However, I'm not a native French speaker, I'm just going by that excerpt of fr.wiktionary.org.]

I'm changing to “(a very important) focus of future space missions (dedicated to the search for extra-terrestrial life)”. I'd consider extending the quote to describe the sort of work he had in mind (as per source articles).

(I'm guessing that the word ‘the’ in the existing English text is another subtle mistranslation from ‘des futures missions spatiales consacrées’, and I feel that leaving out the word ‘the’ better preserves the claims from the French version. (Cf use of ‘les’ with ‘éventuels’ (e.g. “un logiciel capable de détecter les éventuels criminels”).) But again, I'm not a native French speaker, and I actually think this case is less likely to be a mistranslation than the cible/target case.)

-- Pjrm (wikipedia username).

Duplicated article

We appear to have a duplicationhere, with A new planet found in 'Habitable Zone'. Chzz (talk) 08:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a different planet, found three years ago orbiting the same star. (Gliese 581 g is not Gliese 581 c.) --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Apt name

Re. "Gliese 581 c, as the planet is aptly named"

...why is it apt? I do not understand.Chzz (talk) 08:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't sound apt to me. Perhaps the original author should have said "systematically named", but the article is archived so it is too late to change it unless it is factually incorrect or a grammar error. --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The Goldilocks Zone

Is not the layman term for a planetary orbit around a star that falls just within the acceptable conditions for liquid water (required for life) of being neither too hot (close) nor too cold (distant) said to be within "the Goldilocks zone"? This metaphor is oft used to explain the principal to people who have little understanding of planetary astronomy and is an easy way to explain the importance of the focus for habitable planets to be on planets "that are just right". Worth including? http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/02oct_goldilocks/ 81.105.8.221 (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought. We don't make significant content changes to a news article after it's been archived, though; a news article is a 'snapshot in time'. --Pi zero (talk) 03:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)