Template talk:Exoplanet

Astronomy: Astronomical objects Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

Geology Template‑class

Template talk:Exoplanet is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

It seems rather strange to me that almost all of the articles listed under missions are space missions that have not actually been built, and may in fact may never be built, while a number of ground based surveys that have actually been successful are not mentioned. I recognize that "missions" here means space missions, but only COROT and the Kepler Mission have done anything, while the California and Carnegie Planet Search, High Accuracy Radial Velocity Planet Searcher, Anglo-Australian Planet Search, Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment, SuperWASP, Magellan Planet Search Program, and HATNet Project (and probably a handful of others that I have forgotten) have collectively discovered hundreds of exoplanets. I would ordinarily just add these, but I feel like this cannot be oversight, so I wanted to check here first that there were not any compelling reasons why exoplanet surveys that have articles and have discovered planets are not included. James McBride (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there the PSR B1257+12 system chart from Extrasolar Visions on the top of the template. It doesn't appear to be relevant. 44Dume (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link for "Carbon giant" listed as a class of gas giant goes to the Carbon star article, which is not a gas giant at all. Pfhreak (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]