Talk:Goldilocks planet

Merge from Hot europa into Goldilocks planet
I suggest that Hot europa be merged into this article, since a "hot europa" orbits a gas giant Goldilocks planet.

76.66.193.224 (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose The Goldilocks planet article itself has merge tags, I do not think it would be sensible to merge into an article which itself requires merging. Rather find a suitable stable article where the information can go. Polyamorph (talk) 11:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed the merge template. Do not re-add it, this article already has two merge discussions it is not constructive to add another. Polyamorph (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: if anything, Hot europa should be merged with Extrasolar moon. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Slightly Oversized
How big is "slightly oversized"? Is that relative to earth mars and venus? Mech Aaron (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge
I'm at a loss trying to understand why this article exists outside of habitable zone. Viriditas (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The term is well known but I agree that there is not enough extra content to warrant a seperate article. Any worthy information should be merged into habitable zone and this page made into a redirect to that article. Polyamorph (talk) 08:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I created this article on 2 April 2009. I believe my idea was that the term "Goldilocks planet" was becoming better known in mainstream news articles, and habitable zone had only a passing mention of Goldilocks zone in the lead section. The latter was obviously trivial to fix, but I think I was expecting a well-documented focus on planets (including lists) to grow rapidly. Separate articles would allow Habitable zone to remain focused on the criteria, while Goldilocks planet could be devoted to the discovered targets.


 * However, checking right now, I find that Google Book Search still has nearly two orders of magnitude greater references to HZ (7650) than to GP (145). Furthermore, if people are finding it tedious to update both articles with the same information, and the sizes of the articles allow it, a merge might make more sense.


 * In any case, I'll let you more-active editors decide. I'm not wedded to this as a separate article, and if my idea is useful in the future, it can always be re-split. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This article seems fine. It's got good neutrality and sources. Wethar555 (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good content, but with already a vast amount of articles on the topic (Habitable zone, Planetary habitability, Terrestrial planet, List of potentially habitable exoplanets, List of nearest terrestrial exoplanet candidates...), another one is redundant. Thus, I'll start a merge to habitable zone now. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The merge is done now, but besides an explanation for the term itself, I found no referenced material that wasn't already mentioned in any of the articles above. Feel free to search the historical version of this article for more information to save, in case I forgot anything. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

New Kepler Finds
Is it too soon to add the planets around Kepler11 yet? I know we're supposed to be bold, but I'm naturally timid... Quietmarc (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)