Talk:List of potentially habitable exoplanets

Please add this exoplanet to the list.

2020 in science has this:

• NASA reports the discovery of Kepler-1649c, an exoplanet that, according to Jeff Coughlin, the director of SETI's K2 Science Office, is closer to Earth in size and likely temperature than any other world yet found in data from the Kepler Space Telescope. The planet was originally deemed a false positive by Kepler's robovetter algorithm, highlighting the value of human inspection of planet candidates even as automated techniques improve.^[1][2][3]

--Prototyperspective (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

There are still some Kepler planets not shown in the list, like Kepler-155c, Kepler-235e and Kepler-1649c but I am unsure where to put 155c and 235e. Could one of you classify them? Kepler-1229b talk — Preceding undated comment added 18:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

(This was continued in the below section Talk:List of potentially habitable exoplanets § Kepler-737b.) SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of potentially habitable exoplanets's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "exoplanet.eu":

• From List of exoplanets discovered using the Kepler space telescope: Exoplanet.eu, "Kepler-41"^{[permanent dead link]}
• From Kepler-1649: "The Extrasolar Planet Encyclopaedia — Kepler-1649 c". exoplanet.eu. Retrieved 2020-12-12.
• From Kepler-1625: exoplanet.eu: Planet Kepler-1625 b
• From 51 Eridani b: "Planet 51 Eri b". The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia. Retrieved 25 December 2020.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Responding to @Kepler-1229b:'s recent edit: If this list is supposed to be exactly the same as the HEC list, then all the planets not listed by HEC should be removed (which I would probably be fine with TBH). The division into conservative/optimistic samples is based on the likelihood of being rocky, which HEC determines based solely on the radius and mass (which is often a minimum mass). If there is additional information on a planet's composition or true mass that should be taken into account here; at the very least LHS 1140 b, which is confirmed to be rocky, shouldn't be listed in the optimistic sample of probably-mini-Neptunes. However, I'd be fine with removing the conservative/optimistic distinction for Wikipedia's list, which would simplify things. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Then I will be merging the conservative and optimistic tables. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

And if this were the exact same as the HEC list, then it should be called "List of potentially habitable exoplanets from the HEC". I would oppose renaming the list to that. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

So I will be removing the part that says "from the Habitable Exoplanets Catalog". 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Kepler-737b may be potentially habitable, but I do not know yet. I need a reliable source as well. When the planet was a candidate it was potentially habitable. Could you tell me if this planet should be in this list? 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't add a planet to the list just because it was considered potentially habitable before it was confirmed; parameters often change significantly when a Kepler candidate is confirmed, an example being KOI-3138.01/Kepler-1649b. In this case HEC doesn't list the planet, and hzgallery.org places it interior to the habitable zone. (Same goes for the planets you mentioned above: , ) SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the following image lists them both as being potentially habitable. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

File:PIA19827-Kepler-SmallPlanets-HabitableZone-20150723.jpg

I suspect that's based on the KOI data. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Then again, many of the potentially habitable planets recognized by HEC are in the image. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking into it, that image seems to have been released with the discovery of Kepler-452b. The discovery paper lists the other 9 planets in the image as small habitable zone planets, but it doesn't mention Kepler-155c or Kepler-235e. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. According to Open Exoplanet Catalogue, it is well within the habitable zone. It is less than 2x the radius of earth and has a higher density than 2 g/cm³. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtadesse (talk • contribs) 19:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

That's a possible HZ estimate, so we don't know for sure.🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

places the planet as being within the habitable zone. The planet has a radius of 0.227 Jupiter radii. Why is it not in the list? 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

That's slightly larger than 2.5 Earth radii, which is the upper limit for the list. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Then why not change the upper limit for the list? 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Because 2.5 Earth radii is the upper limit HEC uses and is already quite generous; any planet larger than that is virtually certain to be gaseous. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, this list should not be entirely based on the HEC. See above for more info. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

IMO it should be mostly based on the HEC (unless you know of another similar catalog?), and in any case it shouldn't list gaseous planets, since it's "List of potentially habitable exoplanets", not "List of exoplanets in the habitable zone". (In which case K2-3d and K2-18b should probably be moved to the "Previous candidates" section.) SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

There could be other sources like https://www.hzgallery.org to help determine whether a planet is within the habitable zone. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but that's not a pre-compiled list of potentially habitable planets like HEC is. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Remember that a rocky planet can be as large as 3x the radius of earth, depending on it's mass. We saw this with K2-18b, which is 2.7x the radius of earth, but has a density of 4.01 g/cm³ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtadesse (talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Yep.🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 14:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Terchaye: If you look at the talk page history, there seems to have been a consensus to not include ESI on this list (e.g. here). SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Kepler-1229b: as well. ESI should not be in the article unless a new consensus is established. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Given the recent IPCC report, should Earth be removed from the list now or should we wait until 2028 or so? 68.107.189.97 (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

FYI, Template:HabPlanetScore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Template:ESIScore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) have been nominated for deletion. Per the template documentation, these are related to this list? -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

In the table the star type column is coloured with (at least) 3 different shades but there is no explanation of the meaning of these shades. Could one please be added? treesmill (talk) 09:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Standard Primary Habitability and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 1#Standard Primary Habitability until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Beland (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Standard primary habitability and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 1#Standard primary habitability until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Beland (talk) 10:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Add this planet to the list, it was discovered in 2023 and has characteristics of a potentially habitable planet InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done SevenSpheres (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Can someone calculate Earth similarity index for these planets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BA:9F01:1FC7:0:0:0:1 (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem with ESI is that there isn't a definite single way to do that. Everybody has its own way of doing it. For instance, you can do it with only the data that is well estimated like the illumination, planet mass and planet orbit. But then one might put different weight on each of these. I started to write a special subpage under my name space where I was planning to show different ways of calculating ESI, but it's still a work in progress... Temperature is currently estimated for most planets, but the estimate might be refined with new measurements. Now with the new ability to detect molecules around a planet, we can start to estimate the atmospheric composition, and that will be a good factor to include in the calculation of a better ESI. I have a spreadsheet where I included 2 different ways of calculating ESI, and the ranking of the planets changes a little bit between the 2, but they are mostly in the same ball park. Another factor to consider is the distance of a planet from earth. The closer the planet, and the more likely we might consider sending some type of mission to it. So by combining ESI with proximity, you get some kind of attractiveness index. Dhrm77 (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

This planet is missing. It is a potentially habitable planet located just 22.4 light-years away. See LTT 1445#LTT 1445 Ad for more information InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding my comment about PHL below, this planet isn't in their list either, but that's because it's not in their source database (the NASA Exoplanet Archive). I would guess that's because the Exoplanet Archive considers it to require further confirmation. The list does include an unconfirmed planet candidate though (L 98-59 f), and some planets that have been challenged. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Tau Ceti e and f sit within or within a few percent of the habitable zone under optimistic scenarios and meet the requirements in terms of approximate mass. It is my view that they should be included. If they are not included, then I think the list definition should be made clearer as to what 'in the habitable zone' means.

Best wishes, ~ El D. (talk to me) 18:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The list (which needs to be updated) is mainly based on the PHL list, which uses the Kopparapu et al. 2013 habitable zone model, as do most modern sources. PHL doesn't list Tau Ceti e & f because the data it uses puts them outside the habitable zone by this definition; in Figure 2 planet f can be seen just beyond the outer edge of the habitable zone. However, the list does currently include a few planets described as potentially habitable by other sources, such as Gliese 625 b which is much too hot to be in the habitable zone by the Kopparapu definition - so if these are kept Tau Ceti e & f could be added as well, I guess. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Please add this planet to the list. It is a super-Earth orbiting within the conservative habitable zone of its star.^[1] Currently, there are draft articles about this planet and its host star still under construction. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Yep, that one should be added. You can do it! SevenSpheres (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I added it to the list. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Venus has been added and removed at least twice. Everybody knows that Venus isn't basically considered habitable. However, there are some good reasons to include it as a reference. Consider Teq, for instance: By comparing Venus's value to Earth's value, one might think that Venus is cooler than Earth. We all know that's the other way around. So including Venus in the list shows that there are a wide range of parameters that might make a planet "potentially" habitable, or not. So having Venus in the list might be useful to a reader. Dhrm77 (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

If Venus is removed, most other entries should be removed as they are hardly habitable as well (especially ones like Proxima Centauri b and Kepler-22 b). Ignoring Venus’ upper atmosphere, it could be considered habitable the same way the others are. Mars is also potentially habitable using that method of mass and T_eq. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 17:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't see anything useful by including Venus in the list. It contradicts the name of the article, List of potentially habitable exoplanets. Venus is not habitable, adding it to the list without any explanation reduces the reliability of Wikipedia. 21 Andromedae (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Removing Venus would allow almost all planets on the list as they most likely aren't habitable either. There should be at least some consistency. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 14:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Besides the name, we know too little about exoplanets, so we say that they are potentially habitable, not knowing for sure. Venus and Mars, we have loads of extra information, so we know that they are 100% not habitable, not without terraforming, even if there is some good statistic about them. Cambalachero (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course they are not habitable but it should be shown that using the same method of T_eq and mass that they are also technically potentially habitable. If we do have to remove Venus, we should also remove Proxima Centauri b as it has been demonstrated that it can only retain an atmosphere for ~10⁸ years according to this paper. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 19:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I would like to suggest Mars as a reference planet for habitability. As we already have Venus on one side of the scale, it would make sense to have Mars...particularly in regards to the habitable zone as we know it. Swilliamrex (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Done :D 89.139.41.243 (talk) 10:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

the IP user 2001:f70:3020:6b00:a417:b1c6:5579:2b28 has made multiple unfounded/test edits to the article, as can be seen in the history. [even after the restoration to the last good revision by SoojinHD219134star] 115.76.49.42 (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Just look at the page history!!!~2025-33589-59 (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Everyone seems to prefer the current revision, but the older revision has more planets and a user added sources for the ones are unsourced. Better to revert to the old revision or not? ~2025-33861-71 (talk) 19:16, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

The old one is sourced already so I prefer the old one.(already reverted) ~2025-33861-63 (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I see some anonymous editor has reinstated a lot of questionable entries that I removed, and added even more highly speculative WP:OR like a "chance of habitability" column. That should definitely be reverted. SevenSpheres (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Chance of Habitability should be removed, but the planets aren’t questionable. This article is called “List of potentially habitable exoplanets”, not “List of exoplanets that are 100% habitable”.

Massive planets may be Hycean Planets or Mega Earths, and planets in the inner edge of HZ can have life and delay/supress Greenhouse Runaway Effects.

(My stance for habitability is optimistic) ~2025-34339-87 (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

“List of exoplanets that are 100% habitable”? This article is definitely not. Then why some editors keep removing some planets in the old revision? ~2025-35456-69 (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Wait, the ones that PHL considered inhabitable wan’t guaranteed inhabitable. And all of the planets are MAYBE habitable, not GUARANTEED to be habitable. So isn’t it ok to add the planets you removed, and their sources said it may be habitable or at least a temperate rocky/hycean planet. And it’s proven that’s not original research. ~2025-35456-69 (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@SevenSpheres, “uninhabitable” is a mistake. The user who changed into “inhabitable” in the old revision is correct. ~2025-35456-69 (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Inhabitable has the same meaning as habitable. Uninhabitable means not habitable. TRAPPIST-1d may not have an atmosphere, so it may be uninhabitable.

The planets I removed from the list didn't have any source claiming they're potentially habitable, PHL or not. Including them is original research. You could argue that any planet has some chance of habitability, however remote, but the point is to list objects of interest - relatively small (possibly terrestrial) planets in the habitable zone. SevenSpheres (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

This article is currently pretty sloppy in terms of accuracy and grammar, perhaps better to take the garbage out. 21 Andromedae (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Now the “Chance of Habitability” removed and the sloppy part fixed, so the most recent revision is the best one. ~2025-34780-59 (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

New researches say that superflares, tidal locking, and low energy output for a civilization make red dwarfs not suitable for life. Should we remove them? Or in a category as “previous mistakes”? They are traps, that in the future humans can’t pick a colony there. The longevity is neutralized by even one of the problems. ~2026-29890-0 (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Proxima b, K2-18 b, TOI-700 d and e, TRAPPIST-1 d,e,f,g, Kepler-186 f, and Teegarden b and c are wrong choices. They are tidally locked and stripped atmosphere. Only half hot half frigid bare rocks are the result of fake “habitable” planets around red dwarfs. Better remove them. Even big stars are better for colonies(I mean long term plans) ~2026-29395-8 (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Better to focus on FGK star systems and maybe don’t overlook B or A type stars too. For high energy. Instead of wasting money on surviving superflares but get low energy, better survive intense UV and spend money on possibly stellar engineering at the future or something and get high energy. Now is the planning time maybe. Remove red dwarfs from the list. ~2026-29395-8 (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

No way considering habitability of red dwarfs. They cause superflares and tidal locking. No hope.(not habitable) Why we should destroy ourselves there because of this list not updated? ~2026-31103-3 (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: All of these temp accounts seem to be talking in a similar manner about this article (particularly, talking about it like it will be used as a guide for which exoplanets humanity will colonize, as well as referring to red dwarves as a "trap"). This is similar to the edit summaries of the recent edits to the article itself. All in all, this seems like one person trying to make it seem like theres consensus to instate their changes after being warned of edit warring. GrayStorm^{(Talk to me|My Contribs.)} 18:09, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

The latest 4 edits is the same person(myself) but the earlier one is different. Red dwarfs are not habitable, JWST and NASA said that. ~2026-38041-6 (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Please give your source for this. GrayStorm^{(Talk to me|My Contribs.)} 14:31, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Look at the sources no.53,54,55 at “previous candidates” and “references” section. I’m the same person as @~2026-38041-6 ~2026-39805-2 (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I want to show the sources so you know why I’m ruling out red dwarfs. Superflares is a dealbreaker, isn’t it? ~2026-39805-2 (talk) 07:13, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

All of the sources you listed seem pessimistic, not certain, about the habitability of these planets. I suppose there needs to be a consensus formed of how likely it is that a planet is habitable for it to be included on this list. I also think this is being taken a bit to seriously. I highly doubt that anyone who is serious about and capable of colonizing other planets is using wikipedia as their sole source on which planets are habitable and which aren't, which seem to be the stakes recent edits are claiming. GrayStorm^{(Talk to me|My Contribs.)} 23:11, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

How about splitting the list into FGK/high energy stars with priority targets” and “red dwarfs(pessimistic for habitability)”? ~2026-41930-6 (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

So it doesn’t look like distruptive but constructive update ~2026-41930-6 (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

And only the latest comment in the talk is myself(the “No way considering~updated?” comment) ~2026-38041-6 (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, NASA is a reliable source. This list has no use if dangerous red dwarfs filling it. I have updated it. Not vandalism. ~2026-38041-6 (talk) 09:37, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Just look at the most recent part of the page history!!!~2026-37722-7 (talk) 11:10, 18 January 2026 (UTC)