Talk:Hycean planet
 | This article was nominated for deletion on December 4, 2021. The result of the discussion was delete. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
.jpg?lang=en){kind=small}
So, in a bout of inattentiveness, before translating the deWikipedia article I didn't notice the abovelinked AfD. That said, I'd argue that there are a number more sources on this topic than the 2021 article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- If I were here I would have voted to keep the article. Now there are many more sources as you said, and also a potential hycean planet has been detected and is in the news lately. We should keep this article up. Gary (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Not sure that this addition is a good idea. The article relies on an arXiv preprint that isn't peer-reviewed yet (Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Preprints). I don't think news magazines are a replacement for peer review and the length of the addition might be a bit undue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- But we are not using the paper itself as a reference, but space.com, a reliable secondary source. As for length, it's just 4 lines, and the article had just another 7. Rather than reduce it, it may be better to expand it with those several articles linked. Cambalachero (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- My understanding is that when it comes to science, news magazines often don't improve (analyze, interpret) on a research paper to such a degree as to solve reliability concerns with the original papers. Consider for example that the space.com article does lack many of the qualifiers that the arXiv makes about its conclusions. That's why WP:NEWSORG does caution against using news for academic topics. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- The problem addressed by NEWSORG is that a newspaper may be written by reliable and trustworthy people but they may not be experts on complex topics, and we prefer things written by such experts. Space.com is written by experts in space stuff. In particular, Paul Sutter, the author of the article: "Paul M. Sutter is an astrophysicist at SUNY Stony Brook and the Flatiron Institute in New York City. Paul received his PhD in Physics from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2011, and spent three years at the Paris Institute of Astrophysics, followed by a research fellowship in Trieste, Italy". He knows what he's writing about. Cambalachero (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- My understanding is that when it comes to science, news magazines often don't improve (analyze, interpret) on a research paper to such a degree as to solve reliability concerns with the original papers. Consider for example that the space.com article does lack many of the qualifiers that the arXiv makes about its conclusions. That's why WP:NEWSORG does caution against using news for academic topics. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I added numerous amount of content in the article. Furthermore, I cited sources as well as making little modification to this text. Do you have any comments regardless of content I inserted in the article? Does features of Hycean required more points or information? You may answer that. /EnjoyBrowser557 (userpage) (talk) (contributions) 19:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think that using newspaper articles for an academic topic is a good idea - as noted by Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (science)#Popular press they tend to oversimplify and misinterpret stuff. I don't think that it is an universally agreed upon opinion, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=de&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22hycean%22+-site%3Aarxiv.org&btnG= Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Removed this tag as it's not clear how or why the text needs explanation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Highlights from Faraday Discussion: Astrochemistry at high resolution, Baltimore, USA, May 2023 says it's "HI-shin, not hi-SEE-en" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
What is meant by this quote? Is it citing two different sources for these numbers for earth radius and earth mass?
>Hycean planets could be considerably larger than previous estimates for habitable planets, with radii reaching 2.6 R🜨 (2.3 R🜨) and masses of 10 ME (5 ME). Gary (talk) 10:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Hey, it seems there was some disagreement/reversion over the edit in response to the {{clarify}} template I placed a couple days ago.
Fwiw, as the person who placed it, I found the edit that clarified and removed the tag to be and improvement and helpful in understanding (if still requiring some -- now much smaller -- leaps of logic). So thank you for that, Jo-Jo Eumerus.
I'm personally fine with the untagging, though also of the opinion that one could reasonably disagree. It sounds like the IP (205.155.225.248) who restored the template maybe didn't find the new edit answered the question clearly enough for them to understand? -- Avocado (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe, but from
Of course, it helps any better. An experienced editor has placed the tag
it's not clear what the problem is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)- Agreed! -- Avocado (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)