Jump to content

Talk:TRAPPIST-1/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Pre-FAC review

Per Jo-Jo's request, I'll post review comments here with the aim of getting the article ready for another run at FAC. I'll add comments as I have time to go through the article.

  • "its planets were discovered in 2016 and 2017 based on observations from the Transiting Planets and Planetesimals Small Telescope (TRAPPIST) at La Silla Observatory in Chile and numerous other telescopes. Following the initial discovery of two terrestrial planets in orbit around TRAPPIST-1, a data "anomaly" was found to be caused by five more planets." The anomaly here is just the light-curve data, right? I'm not sure we want to use "anomaly" for that in the lead, and why use scare quotes? I think it would make more sense to say that the data was initially interpreted as indicating three planets, but further analysis revealed that there were seven.
    That's done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
    I think we should focus more on what was discovered. How about "The star was discovered in 1999. In 2016 observations from the Transiting Planets and Planetesimals Small Telescope (TRAPPIST) at La Silla Observatory in Chile and numerous other telescopes led to the discovery of two terrestrial planets in orbit around the star, and in 2017 further analysis of the light curve identified five more planets." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
    That sounds better; I've put it in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Suggest moving the rather alphabet-soup list of alternative names for the star to footnote e to join the comment about SPECULOOS, unless any of these names are important for some reason.
    Hrmm. Given the importance of such names to database searches, I am actually inclined to leave them in the text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
    Could the list of designations be put in the infobox, using Template:Starbox catalog? That's what's done on most star articles. SevenSpheres (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
    You sure that that is the right template? But upon thinking, a footnote might work too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
    The infobox would be better, but I think it's important to get them out of the text. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
    Well, what do you know, I had forgotten that there was a commented-out Starbox catalog template here. I've put them there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
  • "TRAPPIST-1 is a very close star, parallax measurements have yielded a distance of 40.662 ± 0.036 light-years (12.467 ± 0.011 pc) from the Solar System, and has a large proper motion. There is no evidence that TRAPPIST-1 has companion stars." This is a good example of what I think needs to be done in a copyedit. The conversion to parsecs isn't really necessary, given that a scientist would understand either measurement and a lay-person won't be that familiar with either. Five significant figures is too many for the text. The infobox has the conversion, and only gives four sig figs; I would suggest that's fine for the text too. I don't think we need to say parallax is how the distance was determined -- unless I've forgotten what astrophysics I know, that's how all nearby star distances are determined, so it's not an interesting fact about this star. And the source for the last sentence says it has conclusively eliminated the possibility of companion stars. So I think this could be "TRAPPIST-1 is a very close star, at 40.66 ± 0.04 light-years away, with a large proper motion. It has no companion stars."
    Did that rewrite. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I imagine some of the lettered footnotes are the result of FAC comments asking for inline explanations. I think this can go too far. See the last few comments in this discussion; the example by NebY is how this reads to me, as someone with a (minor) background in the topic. I'm not going to suggest you remove any of them, but I think you do have more than you really need.
    Actually, I did put many of the footnotes there myself. But yes, some people like to have the terms explained in the article. Others are satisfied with links. I don't think I've seen much of a consensus on what's better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
  • "TRAPPIST-1 is a red dwarf,[30] a cold star with a smaller mass than the Sun. Red dwarfs include the spectral types[h] M and K,[32] and TRAPPIST-1 belongs to class M8.0±0.5.[33] Its mass is about 8.98% of the Sun's mass,[34] only barely sufficient mass to allow nuclear fusion to take place.[35][36] Its radius is 11.9% that of the Sun, making the star slightly larger than Jupiter.[33] While denser than the Sun,[33] TRAPPIST-1 has an unusually low density for its kind of star.[37] Its luminosity is only about 0.055% that of the Sun[34] and is mostly infrared light;[38] it is not variable[33] and there is no evidence for a solar cycle.[39] TRAPPIST-1 has an effective temperature[i] of 2,566 K (2,293 °C; 4,159 °F),[5] making it the coldest known star (as of 2022) to host planets.[41]" Suggest "TRAPPIST-1 is a red dwarf with spectral class M8.0±0.5, meaning that it is small and cold. Its radius is about 12% of the Sun's radius, and its mass is about 9% of the Sun's, which is barely sufficient to allow nuclear fusion to take place. Hence it has a low effective temperature of 2,566 K, making it the coldest known star (as of 2022) to host planets. TRAPPIST-1's density is unusually low for a red dwarf, and it has a luminosity of about 0.055% that of the Sun, consisting mostly of infrared light. It is not variable and there is no evidence for a solar cycle." I would argue against converting a temperature in K in a scientific article.
    I distinctly remember that some people wanted an explanation of "red dwarf", so I left that in. I think Dwarf stars like TRAPPIST-1 are over ten times more common than Sun-like stars[1] and these stars are more likely to host small planets than Sun-like stars.[2] The known planetary systems around ultracold stars contain multiple planets,[3] but it is unclear how many such stars feature planets.[4] is useful "putting into context information", myself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
    The "as of" has a capital "A"; presumably this is controlled by a template? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
    Yes; fixed that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Lingam & Loeb 2019a, p. 15.
  2. ^ Delrez et al. 2018, p. 3578.
  3. ^ Delrez et al. 2022, p. 21.
  4. ^ Huang & Ormel 2022, p. 3814.
  • "Stars like TRAPPIST-1 are so cold that clouds consisting of condensates and dust can form in their photosphere.[45] Patterns of TRAPPIST-1's radiation indicate the existence of dust, which is distributed evenly across the star's surface." The source is careful to make it clear that this is not the standard definition of "dust" or "cloud"; to avoid having to do further explanations inline I would suggest avoiding both of these words. These two sentence say "Stars like this can have X; this star has X". I think this is unnecessarily wordy; how about "TRAPPIST-1 is cold enough for condensates to form in its photosphere, which have been detected by a polarimetric analysis of its radiation during transits of its planets."
    That's certainly better, but now I worry folks will want to know what "polarimetric" means. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, it's possible. I would suggest not adding a footnote though -- as I said above, I think there are too many already. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
    In that case, the rewrite is in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Pausing here to make sure this feedback is useful; let me know what you think about these suggestions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Rotation period and age

  • "As of 2020, discrepancies between rotational data obtained by the Spitzer Space Telescope and Kepler space telescope remain unexplained". Is this based on the word "putative" in Ducrot? If so I don't think that's enough.
    Sort of; there is a disagreement also mentioned by Miles-Páez et al. (2019) and I don't think it's ever been conclusively agreed on why there is that discrepancy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
    There is a bit of discussion at arXiv:1711.02676 but I don't think it settled the question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
    I think that's more citable than the original papers. As far as I can see it gives the 1.40 and 3.30 day periods, suggests a mechanism for the discrepancy (p. 3 of the arXiv pdf), and ends up supporting the K2 rate, citing other work casting doubt on the reliability of photometric determination of rotation rates for M dwarfs. I would cite this instead of the earlier two papers; it gives all the necessary details and as a review of the earlier data is a better source (and citing it will have the side benefit of removing some of the ugly mid-sentence footnotes). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
    Applied a rewrite, but I think its wording can be improved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
  • "The rotation axis of TRAPPIST-1 might be slightly offset from that of its planets." The source gives no more details than this, but cites Hirano, T., Krishnamurthy, V., Gaidos, E., et al. 2020b, ApJL, 899, L13. Do you have access to this?
    Yes, and they mixed their references up - Hirano 2020b is about Pi Mensae not TRAPPIST-1 - it's instead Hirano 2020a arXiv:2002.05892. It doesn't have much information beyond that the offset isn't large, and also mentions the rotation period discrepancy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm trying to pull up the papers cited for the rotation section, but for FN 33, Gillon/Jehin/ et al., I get a PDS with pages numbered 1-38 via arXiv, and with pages number 1-26 via ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. The pages given in the source citation are 221-224 in Nature, and the footnote says p. 221. I don't know how you can resolve this, but I think the reader has to have a way to find the page you're citing. Similarly for the next citation you give p. 4025 but the PDF on arXiv has no similar numbering.
    Yeah, I by default use the original source (linked through the DOI) and never the arXiv. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Assuming I've found the right source text, what FN 45 says is "The short rotation period of TRAPPIST-1 is typical among the subset of late M dwarfs which are rapidly rotating" which is not quite the same as "typical period for M dwarfs", which is what you have in the article. Given the qualification, I'm not sure this is useful; as far as I can tell the paper is talking about what M dwarfs are suitable for a particularly observational technique, and not making a general statement about M dwarfs.
    Would it more useful if it did specify late M dwarfs? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
    Fixed by someone else. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

More to come; still reading the papers for this section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  • "TRAPPIST-1 is a red dwarf[h][31] with spectral class[i] M8.0±0.5,[33] meaning that it is small and cold." I know this has come up in your FACs before; citing short phrases within a sentence is technically accurate but very distracting for a reader. I think this is harmless for longer sentences -- e.g. "Weird Tales' subtitle was "The Unique Magazine", and Wright's story selections were as varied as the subtitle promised;[3] he was willing to print strange or bizarre stories with no hint of the fantastic if they were unusual enough to fit in the magazine.[76]" from an article I wrote -- but when the density of footnotes approaches that of the text it really impacts the reader experience. I would suggest moving both the footnotes and explanatory notes to the end where the sentence is reasonably short -- here that would look like "TRAPPIST-1 is a red dwarf with spectral class M8.0±0.5, meaning that it is small and cold.[h][31][33]", with [h] including explanations of both "red dwarf" and "spectral class".

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Activity

I've done some edits here, one thing I wonder is whether the flares thing from the atmospheric stability section would be better off here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, I have lost track of where the previous conversation was posted, so this is a reminder that I am happy, RL and WP commitments permitting, to copy edit this if and when you would like me to. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Greetings, Gog the Mild, it was originally on my talk page. Yes, I would appreciate such a copyedit, as folks have noted there are still prose issues and I don't trust myself to find them all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I shall get started. Feel free to revert anything. I won't care and won't be watchlisting. Feel free to query here anything you don't understand. Similarly I shall post any queries here. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Copy edit queries
  • "The star has a strong magnetic field[61] with a mean intensity of about 600 gauss." Is there anything which a reader may be familiar with which could be used as a comparator, to give some context?
  • "TRAPPIST-1 is orbited by seven planets". You are entirely confident that this doesn't need to be 'seven known planets' or 'at least seven planets'?

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Orders of magnitude (magnetic field) shows Earth's magnetic field at about 1/1000th and a refrigerator's at slightly less than one tenth. I'll need to check for sources to use. Yes, I think everybody currently assumes it's only 7 planets. There was a sentence before about the properties of a hypothetical 8th planet but editors thought it was superfluous. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Any chance of a brief in line explanation of "volatile compound"?
  • "note that heating in the outer planets could be". Is that tidal heating? If so, perhaps say so?
  • "Tidal phenomena can influence the masses of the planets observed from Earth". I don't understand what this means. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Think I got these issues resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
  • "Tides can also occur in the planetary atmospheres". Are you talking in general terms or about the TRAPPIST-1 planets? If the latter, perhaps "can" → 'may'?
  • "The lack of giant impacts". Maybe a brief explanation of what causes these/why they might have been expected? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
    In general terms, for the first. For the second, put a parenthetical in but a better word than "pre-planetary" is probably needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
  • "Impact events would be particularly important in the outer planets because they can both add and remove volatiles". So this is not the case for TRAPPIST-1's inner planets?
  • "the planets' formation conditions would give them large initial quantities of volatile materials". Just checking that that "would" shouldn't be a 'could'. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
    No; impact velocities there are higher; I think that means that more mass is removed than added. It's "would", yes; volatile-poor planets can only form beyond the snowline if the disk has an unphysical chemical composition. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
  • "It is likely too distant from its host star to sustain liquid water, instead forming an entirely glaciated snowball planet. Moderate quantities of CO2 could warm TRAPPIST-1f to temperatures adequate for liquid water to exist." These two consecutive sentences seem to contradict each other. And then "it could thus be an ocean planet". I understand that "could" doesn't overwrite "likely", but it could be written a little more clearly for a lay reader.
  • "is considerably less than that of Earth." I am not sure that this means anything. Surely the chance of life on Earth is 1? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
    The first is a bit of disagreement between sources - it's unlikely that it has liquid water, and IF it has liquid water, then due to a thick CO2-rich atmosphere. The thing about ocean planets is that they don't have to have surface water - even if TRAPPIST-1f has no surface water, it can have an ocean under an ice shell. For the second, it means that based on theoretical considerations, odds of an Earth-like planet developing life are much higher than of a TRAPPIST-1f-like planet developing life. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
  • "The star has been subject of detailed studies of its various aspects, including the possible effects of vegetation ..." I am a bit lost with this sentence. I assume that we are still discussing TRAPPIST-1? It reads as if there may be vegetation on it, or as if vegetation may effect the star - I assume I am misreading somewhere? And "the possibility of the detection of an ocean using starlight reflected off its surface"; starlight reflected off a star - do I have that right?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gog the Mild (talk • contribs)
    Yes, rewrote that a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Second run through (Just skimming)
  • "The lack of giant impacts". A reader still isn't told what this means, nor just what is impacting what.
    Tried to fix the issue. The problem I have here is that there isn't an easily understood term for "smaller-than-planet, larger-than-asteroid" bodies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
  • "Impact events would be particularly important in the outer planets because they can both add and remove volatiles; addition is likely dominant in the outermost planets where impact velocities are slower." You say "would be" and "is likely" about the same thing in the same sentence. Which is it?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

And that is all I have. Good look with the FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Thanks. Now only SandyGeorgia's comments are still outstanding. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Jo-Jo, I should be able to get to this Monday or Tuesday ... should I forget, do not hesitate to poke me on my talk page :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

SG review

Jo-Jo, so sorry for the delay; I am starting in after breakfast. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Planetary system

Potential planetary atmospheres

List of planets

Possible life

Research history and reception

Lead

My suggestions:

Current Suggestions
TRAPPIST-1 is a cold dwarf star, with a surface temperature of about 2,566 K (2,293 °C; 4,159 °F), in the constellation Aquarius. It has a planetary system of seven known planets. TRAPPIST-1 is slightly larger than Jupiter and has a mass of about 9% of that of the Sun. Located 40.7 light-years (12.47 parsecs) away it is estimated to be 7.6 billion years old, making it older than the Solar System.

It was discovered in 2000. Observations in 2016 from the Transiting Planets and Planetesimals Small Telescope (TRAPPIST) at La Silla Observatory in Chile and numerous other telescopes led to the discovery of two terrestrial planets in orbit around TRAPPIST-1. In 2017, further analysis of the original observations identified five more planets. These seven planets take between about 1.5 days and 19 days to orbit around the star. The planets are likely tidally locked to TRAPPIST-1, which would mean that one side of each planet permanently faced the star, leading to permanent day on one side and permanent night on the other.

As many as four of the planets – designated d, e, f and g – orbit at distances where temperatures are suitable for the existence of liquid water, and are thus potentially hospitable to life. There is no evidence any of the planets have an atmosphere and it is unclear whether they could retain one, due to radiation emission from TRAPPIST-1. The planets have low densities; they may consist of large amounts of volatile materials. 		TRAPPIST-1 is a cold dwarf star in the constellation Aquarius, with a surface temperature of about 2,566 K (2,293 °C; 4,159 °F). Discovered in 2000, it is slightly larger than Jupiter and has a mass of about 9% of that of the Sun. Located 40.7 light-years (12.47 parsecs) from the Sun, it is estimated to be 7.6 billion years old, making it older than the Solar System.

The star has a planetary system of seven known planets. Observations in 2016 from the Transiting Planets and Planetesimals Small Telescope (TRAPPIST) at La Silla Observatory in Chile and numerous other telescopes led to the discovery of two terrestrial planets in orbit around TRAPPIST-1. In 2017, further analysis of the original observations identified five more planets. These seven planets take between about 1.5 days and 19 days to orbit around the star. The planets are likely tidally locked to TRAPPIST-1, such that one side of each planet always faces the star, leading to permanent day on one side and permanent night on the other.

As many as four of the planets – designated d, e, f and g – orbit at distances where temperatures are suitable for the existence of liquid water, and are thus potentially hospitable to life. There is no evidence of an atmosphere on any of the planets and it is unclear whether radiation emissions from TRAPPIST-1 would allow for one. The planets have low densities; they may consist of large amounts of volatile materials.

Done; so sorry again for the delay. Revert any damage I did, and ignore anything stupid :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems OK; swapped it in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus there are a few stragglers above that may have been missed; otherwise, looks FAC ready to me! Kudos for hanging in over such a long haul with this difficult material!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
PS, here are my cumulative changes from today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus looks good, good luck at FAC! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

HarvRef errors

(You can install User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js for detecting HarvRef errors): SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Landau, Elizabeth (20 February 2018). "10 Things: All About TRAPPIST-1". NASA. Retrieved 7 February 2023. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFLandau2018.
  • Boss, Alan P.; Weinberger, Alycia J.; Keiser, Sandra A.; Astraatmadja, Tri L.; et al. (23 August 2017). "Astrometric Constraints on the Masses of Long-period Gas Giant Planets in the TRAPPIST-1 Planetary System". The Astronomical Journal. 154 (3): 103. arXiv:1708.02200. Bibcode:2017AJ....154..103B. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa84b5. S2CID 118912154. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBossWeinbergerKeiserAstraatmadja2017.
  • Pineda, J. Sebastian; Hallinan, Gregg (24 October 2018). "A Deep Radio Limit for the TRAPPIST-1 System". The Astrophysical Journal. 866 (2): 155. arXiv:1806.00480. Bibcode:2018ApJ...866..155P. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae078. S2CID 119209821. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFPinedaHallinan2018.
  • Huang, Shuo; Ormel, Chris W (22 February 2022). "The dynamics of the TRAPPIST-1 system in the context of its formation". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 511 (3): 3814–3831. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac288. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFHuangOrmel2022.
    Removed some and used others. I wonder if {{sfn|Pineda|Hallinan|2018}}'s point about TRAPPIST-1 having a Sun-like coronal rather than a Jupiter-like auroral emission is worth adding. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

No atmosphere for planet b

NASA's Webb Measures the Temperature of a Rocky Exoplanet; arXiv:2303.14849 SevenSpheres (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. As per usual, I am inclined to wait until the article is properly published and it's time for the yearly update. Mostly because press releases tend to omit key information and are oversimplified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
and now a similar result for planet c - Webb Rules Out Thick Carbon Dioxide Atmosphere for Rocky Exoplanet SevenSpheres (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk). Self-nominated at 09:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/TRAPPIST-1; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Valereee (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, ALT1 would be fine with me. Valereee (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
@Valereee: Is there anything missing? QPQ is linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Approving with ALT1, thanks all! Valereee (talk) 11:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing of the table

The table produced by this edit from Sandbh has its sources a bit spread out. Are we OK or do we want to standardize? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:TRAPPIST-1/Archive_2&oldid=1190326634"