# Talk:Pulsar planet

"Pulsar planets would be entirely incapable of supporting any form of life as we know it due to the colossal amounts of electromagnetic radiation emitted by pulsars."  I think this line is poorly phrased: all radiation is electromagnetic radiation, including light, and pulsars put out a lot less total energy than, say, main-sequence stars.  Perhaps the statements refers to very strong magnetic fields, or particles accelerated along those fields? --Keflavich 03:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

EM radiation isn't the only kind of radiation there is - the magnetically accelerated particles you're speaking of would be a good example of non-EM radiation. You are right, however, that the total energy output isn't the problem with pulsar planet habitability - it's the kinds of radiation emitted, such as x-rays and energetic subatomic particles, that are troublesome. Orcoteuthis (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a problem here. If a pulsar planet has an atmosphere dense enough, X-rays are absorbed in the upper layers of it and converted into light. This may give energy for a biosphere like ours. --Inmodus (talk) 14:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pulsar planet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110914234539/http://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/public/pr/pr-pulsar-august2011-en.html to http://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/public/pr/pr-pulsar-august2011-en.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Whether to only use the NASA Exoplanet Archive, or whether to also include the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd generally consider NEA the better source of the two. In terms of pulsar planets, the main difference is that EPE includes many "black widow" systems (pulsars with former stellar companions eroded to substellar masses), with companion masses up to the brown dwarf range, while NEA only includes the two least massive such companions. SevenSpheres (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristieBot (talk • contribs) 01:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/adb1a8 SevenSpheres (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Good. I saw it before, it is a good addition to this page. 21 Andromedae (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Interesting. Anyone who wants to add it? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I propose we changing the current citation format, based on {{sfn}}, to CS1 or CS2. Particularly, i see no advantage using it, it is disfavoured by our automatic citation format (which generate only CS1 citations), is hard to use, and make additions to this page very difficult. Also, the generated citations just show the first names of the authors and a page, while CS1/CS2 show the whole lot. Furthermore, it is barely used on astronomy articles. It requires the editor to have advanced knowledge of the citation format, which is undesired to anyone. 21 Andromedae (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

That would make it extremely difficult to use or interpret multi-page sources, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

If this article is published, add it instead of the preprint per WP:PREPRINT. Courtesy notice to Meli thev. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:10, 10 September 2025 (UTC)