Talk:Hycean planet

Regarding the previous deletion

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)

On the Space news source

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)

Added content

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)

List of sources to use

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)

Unexplained tag

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)

Pronunciation

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)

Weird numbers

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 M_E (5 M_E). Gary (talk) 10:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Re: removal of clarify template

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)

"Hycean planets likely don't exist" section

​ I have a couple of concerns about that section. First, the title: We generally don't put declarative sentences as headers. Secondly, giving it a whole section is WP:UNDUE since it's just one study - a theoretical one rather than an empirical one at that - backed up by a few news articles which don't really add separate weight since they depend on that particular study. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't mind if the study is made less prominent but I do think it should be mentioned in the article somewhere. Fdfexoex (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I replaced this section, for now with only one sentence; does it work? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Paginating sources

AvaStratton just added several sections on the atmosphere etc. I wonder if anyone can reformat the sourcing so that it uses sfn when it has multiple pages cited. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:17, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Atmospheric escape increasing habitability

While this addition seems reasonable on the merits, I am not sure I get this from the source. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 12:47, 4 June 2026 (UTC)