Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Solar System/addition9

Solar System (9th supplementary nomination)

This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Solar System for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:

Main page	Articles
Solar System	Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars, Asteroid belt, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Planets beyond Neptune, Dwarf planets, Kuiper belt, Scattered disc, Oort cloud, Formation and evolution

These articles mark the first step for this topic from specific bodies into broader, Solar System related topics. Now that the subtopics are underway, this article should focus on the Solar System entire. Serendi ^pod ous 08:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If this is supposed to focus on the "Solar System entire", why is List of Solar System objects not included? Pagra shtak 12:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, because that's just a list of links? Serendi ^pod ous 13:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, a stand-alone list "usually consist[s] of links to articles in a particular subject area". I don't see how that makes it not a gap. I'm sorry, but I don't see why this topic should include Planets beyond Neptune but not Trans-Neptunian object, or why we have Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons but not Timeline of Solar System exploration. Perhaps if you stated the intended definition I could get a better handle on this. "Solar System entire" is clearly beyond the scope of what we have presented. Pagra shtak 20:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get me a team of helpers willing to work 24-7, and I can get all those articles up to standard. As it stands I am only one person, working with (perhaps) six other people on this topic. Besides, if this topic were to be considered invalid until EVERY SINGLE Solar System-related article were ready for inclusion, it would contain more than a hundred entries. And where would we stop? If someone created an article called Sexual positions named after Solar System objects, would that need to be included too? By the way, as far as we know, there ARE no planets beyond Neptune. Planets beyond Neptune is a historical article dealing with Solar System exploration, not a article on an actual part of the Solar System. "Trans-Neptunian object" is covered by Kuiper belt, Scattered disc, and Oort cloud.Serendi ^pod ous 20:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you saying that if a team working 24-7 had improved those article to FA you would have included them? I'll ask again—please state the intended topic definition so I can tell what's supposed to be included and what's not. Pagra shtak 16:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was an attempt I made a while back to sketch out the scope of this topic and what it could eventually cover. Now the article's scope is expanding into subtopics. Really I don't see what the problem is. The whole point of the featured topics system is to get articles featured, and no topic's got more articles featured than this one. Serendi ^pod ous 16:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that I get the impression that you have selected these articles because they are featured, and not because they make a logical topic with no gaps. In other words, cherry picking. This is a violation of criterion 1d. The link you provide shows the "ultimate scope of this topic"—I don't care about that right now, I want to know the definition that includes exactly these nineteen articles and excludes all others. Pagra shtak 20:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support but I do think Pagrashtak has a point, and that the next thing you should work on is some lists, as they're starting to look like a gap to me. See also the Asteroid belt nom - rst20xx (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think these 2 articles fit nicely into the topic and help to pull it together. I also agree that a list would be a nice addition to the topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per nom ErikvDijk (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - The most important thing to consider in supplementary nominations is completeness of the topic with and without the additions. The current topic is complete. I see the article Planets beyond Neptune as an article to supplement the planet artilces, it answers the question "Are there more planets?". Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons does not make a gap at Timeline of Solar System exploration, because the former is about when objects became known, while the later is about attemts to know more. Z gin der 2008-09-12T21:16Z (UTC)
Support per nom. Nergaal (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but somebody should go through Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons and add access dates to the references. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. You can strike the timeline. I've decided to make it part of a subtopic instead. Serendi ^pod ous 17:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that's probably for the best, as upon further searching I have found History of Solar System formation and evolution hypotheses, which is kind of a cross between the other two history articles and hence would have been a gap - rst20xx (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. That's a good idea for an article serendipodous! Just kidding! LOL Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I feel that Planets beyond Neptune would form a good addition to a possible History of Solar System science topic, but it's rather out of place in the main Solar System topic. Bluap (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, maybe there should be two history subtopics, the formation and evolution history headed by Formation and evolution of the Solar System and the discovery and exploration history headed by Discovery and exploration of the Solar System - rst20xx (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support the article fits well into the topic, and even if in the future it might be moved into a subtopic, it should be here until then. Plus, who know when that topic might be ready? Nergaal (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just split the main article off from Solar System, and before I do anything I have to get that article to FA status. Which is going to take a while. Serendi ^pod ous 10:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the current plans here would see Planets beyond Neptune in a Discovery and exploration of the Solar System subtopic, and not in the main topic. In light of this, do you still want to go ahead with this addition? rst20xx (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. Close it. God, this just keeps getting harder. Serendi ^pod ous 07:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn following request by nominator - Sorry, lol - rst20xx (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]