Supernova(e)
| Main page | Articles |
Supernova
|
Type Ia ·
Type Ib and Ic ·
Type II ·
History of observations |
- major contributor: RJHall
These go with a bang! Nergaal ( talk) 04:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment This looks pretty good, but I have a concern. With History of observations being included in the topic, the scope of the topic seems to exceed just the different types of supernovae. Because of that, Supernova nucleosynthesis and Supernova remnant should also probably be included in the topic. I suggest removing the History of observations article to keep the scope focused on just the different types of supernovae for now and maybe later expanding the scope of the topic once the other articles are ready. One more minor point, I think the topic title should just be "Supernova" without the "(e)." I understand what it means, but I think some people would just be confused by it. Rreagan007 ( talk) 14:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- the point of the history article was to have some kind of listings. also, the two article you list here do not overalp at all with the history one. what do other think? Nergaal ( talk) 14:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose- I agree with Rreagan007, and would also point to Hypernova and Pair-instability supernova. Additionally, I see no attempt to consult RJHall before nominating - or am I missing something? rst20xx ( talk) 16:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)- Comment—I have no issue with this proposal or the inclusion of the history; the latter is a fork from the Supernova page. But you I do agree with the proposed additions. In fact I'd go so far as to propose an expansion of scope to include all Cataclysmic variable stars. But tht's just a notion.— RJH ( talk) 16:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: ok, how about without the history section? Nergaal ( talk) 19:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support The topic covers all the basic types of supernovae. Rreagan007 ( talk) 23:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I might consider supporting if the topic was renamed to the narrower "Types of Supernova". This is still a bit iffy as if I understand things right, some of the articles excluded would be types in the broader sense of the word, but not in terms of the Type numbering system. However I would probably be willing to accept this (provided you created a general navbox for all the supernova articles!) -
rst20xx (
talk)
00:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- or "Classes of supernovae"?
Nergaal (
talk)
- OK - rst20xx ( talk) 18:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- or "Classes of supernovae"?
Nergaal (
talk)
- Support - consider me appeased - rst20xx ( talk) 01:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 02:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support ~~ C o m p u t e r G u y 17:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Z gin der 2008-11-02T19:45Z ( UTC)
- Close as consensus to promote -- Arctic Gnome ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Supernova(e)
| Main page | Articles |
|
Supernova
|
Type Ia ·
Type Ib and Ic ·
Type II ·
History of observations |
- major contributor: RJHall
These go with a bang! Nergaal ( talk) 04:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment This looks pretty good, but I have a concern. With History of observations being included in the topic, the scope of the topic seems to exceed just the different types of supernovae. Because of that, Supernova nucleosynthesis and Supernova remnant should also probably be included in the topic. I suggest removing the History of observations article to keep the scope focused on just the different types of supernovae for now and maybe later expanding the scope of the topic once the other articles are ready. One more minor point, I think the topic title should just be "Supernova" without the "(e)." I understand what it means, but I think some people would just be confused by it. Rreagan007 ( talk) 14:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- the point of the history article was to have some kind of listings. also, the two article you list here do not overalp at all with the history one. what do other think? Nergaal ( talk) 14:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose- I agree with Rreagan007, and would also point to Hypernova and Pair-instability supernova. Additionally, I see no attempt to consult RJHall before nominating - or am I missing something? rst20xx ( talk) 16:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)- Comment—I have no issue with this proposal or the inclusion of the history; the latter is a fork from the Supernova page. But you I do agree with the proposed additions. In fact I'd go so far as to propose an expansion of scope to include all Cataclysmic variable stars. But tht's just a notion.— RJH ( talk) 16:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: ok, how about without the history section? Nergaal ( talk) 19:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support The topic covers all the basic types of supernovae. Rreagan007 ( talk) 23:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I might consider supporting if the topic was renamed to the narrower "Types of Supernova". This is still a bit iffy as if I understand things right, some of the articles excluded would be types in the broader sense of the word, but not in terms of the Type numbering system. However I would probably be willing to accept this (provided you created a general navbox for all the supernova articles!) -
rst20xx (
talk)
00:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- or "Classes of supernovae"?
Nergaal (
talk)
- OK - rst20xx ( talk) 18:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- or "Classes of supernovae"?
Nergaal (
talk)
- Support - consider me appeased - rst20xx ( talk) 01:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 02:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support ~~ C o m p u t e r G u y 17:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Z gin der 2008-11-02T19:45Z ( UTC)
- Close as consensus to promote -- Arctic Gnome ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)