Misplaced Pages

Talk:30 Arietis

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GenQuest (talk | contribs) at 03:25, 4 May 2021 (→top: add archive link(s)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:25, 4 May 2021 by GenQuest (talk | contribs) (→top: add archive link(s))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconAstronomy: Astronomical objects Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

Template:Archive bar

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)
Categories: