Talk:Free-floating planet

I have suggested a three-way merger between this article, rogue planet, and sub-brown dwarf. See the rogue planet talk page for discussion. Kevin Nelson (talk) 10:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I am very much inclined to do a three-way merger between free-floating planet, rogue planet, and sub-brown dwarf. I don't see a lot of astronomers emphasizing the distinction between the latter two categories of object, and observationally they have enough in common that it seems reasonable for them to be treated in the same article. I will wait a while to see what others have to say, and if there are no objections then I will be bold and make the merger myself. Kevin Nelson (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would Rogue planet be the destination article for this merge, appears to be the most developed article of the lot. SkyMachine (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was thinking of free-floating planet as being the destination, since it has rogue planets and sub-brown dwarfs as subcategories of free-floating planets. I agree that Rogue planet is the best developed article, but if they're all put together we'll be left with an article that keeps that development. Kevin Nelson (talk) 10:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather oppose merging "Sub-brown dwarf" with either of the other articles, since sub-brown dwarfs are not usually considered planets AFAIK; they're usually considered as "substellar objects", and often not distinguished from brown dwarfs. I'd support merging the other two articles - I think "free-floating" and "rogue" are usually used synonymously, actually.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

+1, I also think it's not a great idea to merge the later two articles for at least two reasons.

The rogue planet and the sub-brown dwarf emphasize a fundamental difference between the two objects, namely their origin, since the rogue or free-floating planet is an object that started being created as a planet around a star and left this area, on the other hand the sub-brown dwarf is essentially a failed star, and these have impacts on everything from their mass range to their possible composition and age, through it's not easy now to distinguish the two.
From an editorial viewpoint, it's a very bad tendency in last year' Wikipedia to create large, hard-to-read through and hard-to-edit articles rather than more smaller ones. Again, it's wise not to merge the two different ideas.

Of the two candidates, I support rouge planet for subjective reasons (and a separate sub-brown dwarf), but it's worth of having a small survey which is used more (interestingly, at first sight, Rogue planet wins in Google 389.000 hits against Free-floating planet's 60.800 hits, a surprise). --KGyST (talk) 11:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But seeing that Free-floating planet and Rogue planet covers a different concept, I oppose merging any of these three artices. --KGyST (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the idea that "Free-floating planet" and "Rogue planet" ought to be merged (presumably with the name of "Rogue planet" as that is more commonly used), however, it seems as if a "Sub-brown dwarf" is slightly different to the others given that it is more like a star, whereas the other two seem to be normal planets that were ejected from their system. Cliff12345 (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since no-one else seems to have posted in quite a while, if nobody posts any objections on here or my talk page within two weeks, I will merge "Free-floating planet" and "Rogue planet" under the name of "Rogue planet", and leave "Sub-brown dwarf" alone for the reasons I have given in my previous post. Cliff12345 (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will merge now due to no objections or posts in over a month. Cliff12345 (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]