Talk:XO-6b

XO-6 was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 10 March 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into XO-6b. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Splitting of XO-6[edit]

It’s been a year since the host star’s article has been merged into the planet. Even thought it’s just an ordinary planetary star, it has been catalogued for a good 100 years now.

The older version was me trying to make the article without citing anything. This most likely won’t happen, but I’d like to see your rebuttals or comments below. Speed doesn't always mean quality. 400Weir (talk)

There's only really a need for separate star and planet articles if there's sufficient coverage of both the star or planetary system and individual planet(s) to write a detailed article for each. In most cases (such as this one) it would be better to have a single article on a planetary system. Ideally that article should be at "XO-6" instead of "XO-6b" but that's not what was decided in the AfD. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SevenSpheresCelestia Sorry I'm late, but going back now, it seems like XO-6b should've been merged with XO-6 because the only thing it has going is that it is a highly inflated hot Jupiter (around 2 R_J). I was considering to recreate the host stars article and then merge it back to said page, but I'm not sure if that's even logical. Speed doesn't always mean quality. 400Weir (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You want to merge the other way? I note that someone (you?) just attempted to unmerge XO-6. Might be best at this point to just move the article we have and copyedit to make it primarily about the star. That would maintain the history in one place. Needs discussion first, though. There was an AfD and we should check that there is consensus to overturn that decision. Lithopsian (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that I wanted it to merge the other way. To clarify, I was not the one who attempted to unmerge XO-6; the IP address user who did so reverted it back to an old edit that I did two years ago, yikes! Right now though, I do not want to discuss the issue. Speed doesn't always mean quality 400Weir (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]