Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Dwarf planets

Dwarf planets

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)

• 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)
• Support. - 75% of the topic is featured-quality, easily meets WP:FT?. Cirt (talk) 06:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• 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)

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. Serendi^podous 21:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note - Hydrostatic equilibrium I believe is much like Cleared the neighbourhood as a potential addition - rst20xx (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support - Well done. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) ^{Review me!} 23:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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, 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. Nergaal (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• 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)