Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Dwarf planets

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dwarf planets[edit]

Main page Articles
Dwarf planet Ceres (dwarf planet) · Pluto · Eris (dwarf planet) · Makemake (dwarf planet) · Plutoid · Definition of planet · 2006 definition of planet
Note: I've crossed out the definition one but I still think the 2006 one should remain. Nergaal (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Major contributors to the articles involved: User:Ruslik0, User:Ckatz,User:Serendipodous, and me, and a few other members of the WP:Solar System. Nergaal (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The topic should be furfillng all criteria. The only articles that might need to be added in the future are Cleared the neighbourhood and (136108) 2003 EL61. Nergaal (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - The articles seem to cover the concept of a dwarf planet very well, and the two the could be added are a criteria of what makes a dwarf planet, so not required for this first nomination, and the second is a potential dwarf planet. So, full support! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. - 75% of the topic is featured-quality, easily meets WP:FT?. Cirt (talk) 06:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this topic would set an interesting precedent as it has a very large overlap with another existing topic; it is almost a subset of it. I guess the reason you're not proposing simply adding Plutoid, Definition of planet and 2006 definition of planet to the Solar Systems topic is that if you did so, this would lead to obvious and notable gaps in that topic. Am I to understand that when the Solar System topic eventually grows to be large enough to have these 3 articles added to it, this topic would cease to exist, but would instead be folded into that one? rst20xx (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Plutoid and Definition of planet apply as much to extrasolar planets as to our Solar System, so don't really belong in it. Eventually, I think the Solar System featured topic could be broken up, and this could be the first step, but much more is needed. Serendipodous 21:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Hydrostatic equilibrium I believe is much like Cleared the neighbourhood as a potential addition - rst20xx (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This should organize them well, we need to sort out the other ft into smaller chunks as well. --LordSunday 13:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Well done. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) Review me! 23:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose due to precedent technicalities — It's a good topic, but based on president of past topics, I don't think that you need to have Definition of planet nor 2006 definition of planet in the topic. As has been said above, this topic is kind of a sub-topic of planets in general, and we decided not to put higher-importance articles within subtopics (this debate happened when we were discussing whether to put the article about a musician in the topic about one of their albums). The relevant information about the definition of a planet should be included in the main article and links therein. Those two articles are clearly relevant, but they don't match the technical setup of topics as they currently exist. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While the Definition of planet would might not necessarly be a part of the topic, the 2006 definition one should definately be a part of the topic since it was then when the term was laid down. Nergaal (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - per comments made by Arctic.gnome - a definite need for the others to, well, make sense. Weak support - I'm supporting by Nergaal's comment, but I feel the topic doesn't need the article.Mitch32(UP) 17:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced by this guys - was the conclusion of that discussion that we needn't include the main article, or that we shouldn't? And additionally I'm not convinced that Definition of planet and 2006 definition of planet do represent such articles anyway, I would more consider them a side-step than an up-step, with their mutual parent being Solar System or Table of the largest objects in the Solar System. However, I may as well mention here that I'm still hoping for an answer to my above question Nergaal... rst20xx (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I missed your question; my impression was that the SS as it stands now looks a little loose and that rather than bulkying it up some more, it might be better to redefine the topic exactly and attach to it different subtopics. Also I think that the second article does not fit that well into a SS topic. To be sincere, I would much rather have the SS contain only the Sun, the 8 planets, dwarf planets, asteroids/minor planets, and Oort cloud only, and attached to this big topic, subtopics for each of these 11 entries or so. This way the subtopics could be increased separately, perhaps one at a time, and not have to worry instead about gaps. Ah, another potential inclusion could be List of plutoid candidates. Nergaal (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In order to attach topics together, you need to have a main article for the subtopics in the main topic. What would the main articles be? And are you proposing a permanent overlap of 4+ dwarf planet articles? rst20xx (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(reset) Big suggestion here, maybe it's what you had in mind though! (especially with the "11" comment which didn't make sense to me before but does now): You could in this case potentially use Dwarf planet in the main FT and remove the actual dwarf planet articles from there. That would solve the overlap and main article problems. However it wouldn't solve gap issues entirely as dwarf planets are more notable than moons, so having moons and not dwarf planets in the main topic would cause a gap. But you could I suppose also remove the 6 moons (leaving obviously The Moon), under the fact that 4 of the 6 can be included in the Galilean FT anyway, and then this only leaves 2 articles losing out (for the time being) completely, and ties the whole lot up quite nicely :) What say ye? :P - rst20xx (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I'm becoming increasingly convinced that this is what you're planning. If it is, I wish you'd made it clearer! Only thing though is you need to get the articles removed from the main topic post-haste, I guess this would be done via a supplementary nomination that actually would see articles removed, not added (new ground being broken there!) - rst20xx (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
see proposal, and no, I was not planing for this. The idea came during this nomination. Nergaal (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overlapping is not forbidden by the Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria. In fact the suggestion #4 alludes to splitting. Nergaal (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It deals with splitting, yes, but big overlaps, no. You're right, the criteria doesn't cover large overlaps, though if you think about it it's quite easy to construct examples of where you could get ridiculous overlaps that clearly wouldn't be on. So I'm not sure if this would be a valid oppose. Well at any rate, I'd like to see you decide how to proceed on the splits before I'll support, and while you're not sure what you're doing, I feel I have to oppose - rst20xx (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment made me think of the following comparison: Ceres is a part of dwarf planet topic vs Ceres is a part of Solar System topic. Which argument sounds stronger? Nergaal (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(reset) The former. Okay, let me represent my argument because I think I've done a poor job. The 80% overlap annoys me, but people are right, it's not a valid oppose. However, the rules above state that "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the articles of the topic should consult regular editors of the articles prior to nomination". This does not seem to have happened, as otherwise, the conversation here would have been resolved.
What you're trying to do is to remove the moons/dwarf planets from the main topic in favour of these subtopics, and this is a move I'd support. But I'd rather see you do the removals first, or at the same time, as I feel that if you had come to consensus properly before bringing these noms then you WOULD be doing this first/at the same time. So therefore, I oppose until the removal candidate is done, as in the meantime I don't feel consensus has been properly reached on the future of this topic, and therefore on whether these noms are the best way to go - rst20xx (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying anything. I just think that these (dwarf planets and galilean moons) are valid topics. The problem emerged during the nom that they overlap with another topic and then I realized that it would make sense to go the way I've just said. As for the rules: I've been talking with serendipious for a long time about the dwarf planets topic, while the galilean moons idea is taken actually from the topic:SS talkpage. Nergaal (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support fulfills WP:FT? and is nicely self-contained. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 00:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support I'd say drop the two definitions, but I will support this as is. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 21:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Neutral I don't think the 2 planet definition articles belong here because this topic is about dwarf planets, not planets. If you did a separate featured topic for planets, then they would be fine there, but the dwarf planet article does a good job of explaining the distinction between a planet and dwarf planet, as well as explaining the 2006 decision. If you removed the 2 definition articles I would support. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I agree with not adding the Definition one, but I still think that the 2006 one should be here... Nergaal (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the dwarf planet article explains the 2006 distinction between a planet and a dwarf planet well enough to make the 2006 definition page unnecessary, but I have changed my position to neutral. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question What happens if some users agree only on part of the topic? The topic gets failed, or it is promoted only with the agreed part? Nergaal (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's happened in the past is that the nominator has withdrawn the part of the nom causing trouble and then the rest has passed - rst20xx (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, how do I withdraw the definition of planet. Nergaal (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just cross it out, and then put a note in down here to say you've done so. It'll be up to Arctic Gnome to decide whether this invalidates any existing votes, and he'll work out whether to then promote or close based on the end discussion - rst20xx (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary nominations[edit]

  1. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Dwarf planets/addition1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_and_good_topic_candidates/Dwarf_planets&oldid=1142603623"