Talk:Kapteyn's Star

message: I have been scanning to see whether any know stars orbit the galaxy retrograde.  Might this direction mean that this star is a captured intergalactic wanderer?  Or could other mechanisms (ejection from trinary systems) explain the phenomenon?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.223.141.143 (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes (likely exogalactic origin). 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retrograde?! 

message: Does this belong in here?
: "The announcement of the planetary system was accompanied by a science-fiction short-story, "Sad Kapteyn", written by writer Alastair Reynolds.[21]"
: Seems to me that someone is taking advantage of Wikipedia to promote his writings. Kortoso (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does belong, according to Wikipedia policy, so long as it remains in a separate section, or sub-section, within the article that clearly states that it is discussing works of science fiction related to the star. 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, seeing as we now have a separate article (Stars and Planetary Systems in Fiction) linked to the article, under which 'Sad Kapteyn' also appears, having it also in the article now seems redundant, so its been removed. There's no need to have it appear in both this article and the other one... unless, of course, someone was just trying to get exposure after all... 155.143.112.133 (talk) 07:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That listy article is not a great way to present information. Prefer relevant material to be on the one page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science fiction in article? 

message: At least Kapteyn c, and possibly also Kapteyn b, should be merged to this article. Both proposed planets were refuted in 2021, and the Kapteyn c article is a short stub. There may be some argument for keeping the Kapteyn b article - while editing it to make it more clear that the planet likely doesn't exist - since it has a fair amount of content and the planet has been described as potentially habitable, so people may be attached to it. SevenSpheres (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge: Merge 'em both.   One of the problems with having separate articles for the planets is that a lot of info like distance and the star's characteristics have to be repeated in each article (and occatioanlly updated).   If these planet articles were merged into the Kapteyn's Star article, and all the redundant information was removed, the resulting article would only grow by a couple of paragraphs.PopePompus (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

text: Merge The planet was refuted in 2021, and most of the article is still out of date. Also, most of the nontrivial information in this case is probably WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.We had similar problems with the articles about Planck units containing mostly information that was redundant to the main article, not getting corrected when the main article was, or attracting OR (and fringe POV's, as is common in quantum gravity). Those articles were all deleted or merged into the main, with all relevant information that is accepted by mainstream physics fitting in at most a few paragraphs per unit. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

text: Merge: in this case a merger makes the most sense for maintenance reasons. A big chunk of those articles are redundant. Praemonitus (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

text: Merge I don't see why they should be separate from Kapteyn's Star article now that these planets are refuted. MarioJump83 (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal