| Revision as of 03:25, 4 May 2021 editGenQuest (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers63,602 edits →top: add archive link(s)← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:36, 4 May 2021 edit undoGenQuest (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers63,602 edits Refactor and close: MergeNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| {{Archive bar}} | {{Archive bar}} | ||
| == |
==Merge talk== | ||
| {{Archive top |result = ''Agree to merging of the article(s) as per ] and ]. Argument that this should become SOP for the discovery of this and other sub-stellar objects makes sense, not just here, but project-wide, except for the few notable planets out there. No reason not to merge, '' ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC) <small>Non-Administrative closure</small> |status = closed}} | |||
| === No === | |||
| I do not think we should merge ]. Other planets that turned out to be non-planets have articles too, like ]. ] ] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added 00:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | I do not think we should merge ]. Other planets that turned out to be non-planets have articles too, like ]. ] ] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added 00:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
| == Where's the merge proposal? == | == Where's the merge proposal? == | ||
| If you will not add in the proposal then I will delete the merge template. ] ] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added 00:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | If you will not add in the proposal then I will delete the merge template. ] ] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added 00:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
| :That would be unwise. The merge has been proposed and now should be discussed. How about we consider this section to be the merge discussion. It would be ideal if {{ping|SevenSpheresCelestia}} gave the rationale for the merge so we don't go off making things up on our own. I'll wait on giving my opinion until then. ] (]) 15:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC) | :That would be unwise. The merge has been proposed and now should be discussed. How about we consider this section to be the merge discussion. It would be ideal if {{ping|SevenSpheresCelestia}} gave the rationale for the merge so we don't go off making things up on our own. I'll wait on giving my opinion until then. ] (]) 15:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC) | ||
| Line 14: | Line 15: | ||
| :::Might be good. Not essential, but it gives people a starting point to discuss and even if nobody comments then its something to point to later. ] (]) 21:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC) | :::Might be good. Not essential, but it gives people a starting point to discuss and even if nobody comments then its something to point to later. ] (]) 21:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC) | ||
| ::* '''Merge/redirect''': per nom. There are several papers about the object, or about it and a small number of others, but we would only have a separate article about a minor component of a stellar system in exceptional circumstances (eg. ]). In this case, there is nothing especially notable about the substellar companion. Even as an exoplanet its only real claim to notoriety is all the discussion about how massive it is. ] already included discussion of this object and I hopefully clarified this in the light of the recent paper (peer-reviewed publication not yet reflected in the citation, but doi assigned and being published January 2021). ] (]) 21:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC) | ::* '''Merge/redirect''': per nom. There are several papers about the object, or about it and a small number of others, but we would only have a separate article about a minor component of a stellar system in exceptional circumstances (eg. ]). In this case, there is nothing especially notable about the substellar companion. Even as an exoplanet its only real claim to notoriety is all the discussion about how massive it is. ] already included discussion of this object and I hopefully clarified this in the light of the recent paper (peer-reviewed publication not yet reflected in the citation, but doi assigned and being published January 2021). ] (]) 21:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC) | ||
| {{Archive bottom}} | |||
Revision as of 03:36, 4 May 2021
.jpg){kind=small} | Astronomy: Astronomical objects Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Merge talk
CLOSED Agree to merging of the article(s) as per weak consensus and Notability. Argument that this should become SOP for the discovery of this and other sub-stellar objects makes sense, not just here, but project-wide, except for the few notable planets out there. No reason not to merge, GenQuest 03:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Non-Administrative closureThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No
I do not think we should merge 30 Arietis Bb. Other planets that turned out to be non-planets have articles too, like HD 114762 b. Kepler-1229b talk — Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Where's the merge proposal?
If you will not add in the proposal then I will delete the merge template. Kepler-1229b talk — Preceding undated comment added 00:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- That would be unwise. The merge has been proposed and now should be discussed. How about we consider this section to be the merge discussion. It would be ideal if @SevenSpheresCelestia: gave the rationale for the merge so we don't go off making things up on our own. I'll wait on giving my opinion until then. Lithopsian (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- k then Kepler-1229b talk — Preceding undated comment added 19:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- I proposed merging this, and some other articles on planet candidates now known to be stars, since Misplaced Pages (with a few exceptions) doesn't have separate articles on stellar components of a star system. If you want I can create merge proposal sections on the relevant talk pages. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Might be good. Not essential, but it gives people a starting point to discuss and even if nobody comments then its something to point to later. Lithopsian (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Merge/redirect: per nom. There are several papers about the object, or about it and a small number of others, but we would only have a separate article about a minor component of a stellar system in exceptional circumstances (eg. Proxima Centauri). In this case, there is nothing especially notable about the substellar companion. Even as an exoplanet its only real claim to notoriety is all the discussion about how massive it is. 30 Arietis already included discussion of this object and I hopefully clarified this in the light of the recent paper (peer-reviewed publication not yet reflected in the citation, but doi assigned and being published January 2021). Lithopsian (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)