Talk:Gliese 436

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gliese 436 article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to astronomy, and WikiProject Astronomical Objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Merger proposal: Gliese 436 c

Since the planet Gliese 436 c has been retracted, it seems like overkill to have an entire article dedicated to the properties of a planet that is not currently thought to exist: the matter could be more concisely addressed on this page (Gliese 436). 131.111.8.104 (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep Article: Not that I am stating that "planet c" 100% exists, I do believe it should keep its article. Even though this planet has been retracted, the ideas of it should still be explained and shown. This can be a similar story to Epsilon Eridani c (witch is not confirmed, but still has an article). As long as there is information to back up the claims of this planet, there is really no problems with this article remaining an article. — NuclearVacuum 22:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that with Eps Eri c the data indicates that a planet might be there, though not good enough to state it for certain. Note that Eps Eri c has not yet been disproven or retracted. Since the authors have retracted Gliese 436 c (plus other studies have put severe limits on the existence of such a planet [1]), it seems that the evidence isn't even good enough to claim that there might be a planet there. 131.111.8.96 (talk) 11:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

OK then, what about the article "Upsilon Andromedae e"? — NuclearVacuum 19:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Another article ripe for a merger methinks. 131.111.8.104 (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge: On second thought, let's merge the pages. I believe I can do it for you all. Just give me a few minutes and it should be done. If it isn't right, then change it back. — NuclearVacuum 23:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge this is not an overly notable planet in the first place, a retraction would make it a footnote for the star. Few retracted exoplanets are notable. Perhaps the pulsar planet that preceded the first discovered planets that was retracted would have such notability. (PSR 1829-10)70.55.84.228 (talk) 05:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge of a summary should be sufficient. I don't think I'd hang on to the infobox.—RJH (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)