Talk:Candidate planets

POV?

Isn't this page just a bit POV? There are candidate planets outside of the solar system (unconfirmed extrasolar planets) 70.51.10.212 13:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is becaause because it has Mike Brown's POV, he has this POV for obvious reasons... --Pedro 12:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not POV, Mike Brown's or otherwise. It is the official list of twelve bodies that the IAU released with their 2006 redefinition of planet.195.137.85.173 21:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- please read the article (2nd paragraph).--Pedro 21:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm aware of the paragraph as I actually wrote it. User 70.51.10.212 was referring to the list of candidate planets as a POV thing, which is not the case.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 01:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RENAME: to List of dwarf planet candidates from candidate planets

Rename this page because the IAU is considering these for dwarf planet membership and not planet. 132.205.45.148 00:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Oppose Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _talk _contrib 21:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to somewhere instead, best into Dwarf planet. Duja 09:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Although I agree that this article shouldn't be at candidate planets (hopefully it will get merged elsewhere), it is apparently referring to hypothetical candidates for true planet status whose candidature would have been effected if the IAU's draft proposed redefinition of planet as of 2006-08-16 had been passed. It seems clear to me that this esoteric concept does not deserve its own article.

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _talk _contrib 21:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. It's a list only of relevance to the "12-planet draft"; whilst the IAU does have a list of potential dwarfs, this isn't it. Shimgray | talk | 09:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge Suggestions

I think this should be merged into 2006 redefinition of "planet" (with a mention added to dwarf planet); and replaced with an article (or list) mentioning all objects that have, at some point in the past, been, or are currently being, considered by some astronomers as candidates for planet status (including objects that are currently considered planets if they had what could be considered a candidature in the past), and the history of their candidature. The new article could of course include some of the contents of this one as well as linking to the relevant section of 2006 redefinition of "planet". Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _talk _contrib 21:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing vote at Talk:Dwarf_planet#mergefrom_Candidate_planet.
Another ongoing vote at Talk:2006_redefinition_of_planet#mergefrom_Candidate_planet. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 02:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]