Talk:Planet/Archive 1

message: How do we incorporate information about the youngest planet recently discovered? :) --Hemanshu 20:01, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: youngest planet

message: I deleted the cute sayings or mnemonics. Just a silly vandalism magnet. -Vsmith 03:45, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The great Vandal attractors

message: What means 13 Tm (the paragraph about Sedna)? Tm is abbreviation for what?
:It's supposed to mean "terameters" (SI units).  I think this could be considered a bit confusing or unusual, would prefer meters with scientific notation  (M × 10N m). -- Curps 18:46, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tm

message: The definition at the beginning of the article (while beeing quite sensible) wouldn't be conseidered correct by many scientists. We won't find a better one, simply because the definition of what a planet actually is, is very much disputed.
Shouldn't that be mentioned and an additional definition be given as a possible example?
There's a seperate article on the ambiguities inherent in defining a planet; the link is at the bottom of the page. 157.140.6.143 11:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: definition

message: Not sure if this is the right place for this, but I couldn't think of anywhere else, so I'll just put it here.  I noticed that there's a schism among the naming of planetary articles.  Uranus, Mars, Venus, and Jupiter are direct links to the planet pages, while Mercury, Saturn, Neptune and Pluto are all disambiguation pages (I'm not including Earth because it's kind of an exception).  Can we standardize on one of these?  If no one has any objections (like... if there's some Martian out there who thinks it will be a gauntlet to the cheek to make Mars a disambiguation page), we can set up a Wikipedia:Survey to get consensus on this.  Any preliminary thoughts/ideas? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:54, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
:Two items: (1) Mercury is a special case because of the existence of a third important meaning, the chemical element; this makes it very different from the others; (2) Venus was recently on Requested Moves to "Venus (disambiguation)" and it was resoundingly defeated, so likely the choice should be to put the planets as primary meaning. 
:Let's put Saturn (planet), Neptune (planet), and Pluto (planet) on Requested Moves but leave Mercury where it is. —Wahoofive (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (I saw the note you left on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation.)  I don't think you can really standardise this just because they're all planets.  I mean, you could pick this out for any topic — say, for instance, that all Roman(?) gods have to be on primary topics (stupid poor useless example, but you get the idea).  I think the rules for disambiguation must take precedence, even if it creates intra-category inconsistency, just because that's how the system goes.  I don't really think saying they're all planets is grounds to change that.  (If all the planets are actually primary topics because they're actually more common, and in my view they are, then that's a different story.)  Neonumbers 12:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

text: My observation (by doing dab cleanup) is that the planet references outweigh the mythology references 10 to 1 on all the planets (but there are at least as many chemical references to Mercury).—Wahoofive (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I have now put Saturn, Neptune, and Pluto on WP:RM. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming

message: Still holding at nine. See the IAU's  (August 16, 2004):
«
Definition of a Planet
The IAU notes the very rapid pace of discovery of bodies within the Solar system over the last decade and so our understanding of the Trans-Neptunian Region is therefore still evolving very rapidly.   This is in serious contrast to the situation when Pluto was discovered. As a consequence, The IAU has established a Working Group to consider the definition of a minimum size for a Planet. Until the report of this Working Group is received, all objects discovered at a distance from the Sun greater than 40 AU will continue to be regarded as part of the Trans-Neptunian population.
»
Urhixidur 22:51, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
Someone rather annoyingly edited the opening paragraph to say that the IAU claimed there were ten planets. Just re-edited it, but keep an eye out if someone else makes that error again. Sometimes the media have a lot to answer for. Serendipitus 14:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Planet count

message: I trimmed this paragraph down to a nub saying that the IAU had not yet defined the term "planet"
"Such objects are not considered "extrasolar planets", however, since the International Astronomical Union has ruled that "Objects with true masses below the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium (currently calculated to be 13 Jupiter masses for objects of solar metallicity) that orbit stars or stellar remnants are "planets" (no matter how they formed)." In other words, planets must orbit stars."
The problem with this was that the conclusion does not follow from the premise. The IAU was ruling that brown dwarfs are not planets and took no position on whether planets must orbit stars, only that if the mass is less than a brown dwarf but large enough to be detected over interstellar distances and the body DOES orbit a star, then it is an extrasolar planet. The IAU has not taken a position on the lower size limit for a planet nor, so far as I know, has it taken a position on whether planetary-mass objects not bound to a star system are to be called planets. Since no such bodies have yet been discovered I would expect the IAU has not yet ruled on the matter. Enon 21:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Interstellar, brown dwarfs.

message: I've added the two new moons of Pluto to the list in the article. I've added them in as just S/2005 P 1 and S/2005 P 2. Am I right to assume that they have been confimed now however?
Bennity 23:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New moons of Pluto.

message: I've just taken out some of the candidates as I don't think they qualify as rounded. These are
Ixion, , Varuna, , , , . Some of these are dead links and I can't even find any reliable source to show that (for example) 2002 TC302 actually exists. Debates? Questions? Suggestions?130.126.76.27 23:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Planetary candidates

message: Query: In this planets article, the number of moons listed adds up to 155. However, in solar system, the number mentioned is 158. And in natural satellite, it says only “at least 140.” Does anyone know which is more accurate? Or is the number changing so fast that we can't keep up?
::It very much depends on our definition of "moons" both in the scientific and structural sense.
I would say that the number is just changing so fast we can't keep up. In the last decade, there's been dozens of new moons discovered. Tuvas 17:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of moons? 

message: This section is poorly written and uncited, looks more like a list of definitions rather than a discussion - also, have the terms "phoenix planet" and "zombie planet" actually been used? Chaos syndrome 11:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extrasolar description names 

message: It was my understanding that the IAU had confirmed the veritable existence of a tenth planet. The press went public with this story earlier this year proclaiming that there are now ten planets. 14:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And that's why you should never pay attention to the news :-). Yes, a lot of organizations, including JPL, rather oddly, proclaimed immediately that there was a tenth planet. In fact what really happenned was that the IAU was thrown into a tailspin. They've been shoving this issue under the carpet since 1992, and now it's finally caught up with them. They haven't officially released a statement yet, but they will in September. They've remained tight-lipped but from the rumours going round it looks like there are going to be dozens of planets in the solar system, not ten. Serendipodous 14:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A tenth planet

message: I think Nasa is working on the definition of a planet right now. So maybe put that thing on the article that says it's a current event and may change rapidly as time etc.....
*NASA doesn't have the authority to define what a planet is or is not.  The IAU is responsible for that.  Tachyon01 23:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like Ceres, Xena, and Charon get upgraded to planets!  Added a CURRENT marker to this article. Hopquick 05:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The part of "IAU Resolution 5 for GA-XXVI" that describes the planet definition, states "A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet." Member of the Planet Definition Committee, Richard Binzel says: "Our goal was to find a scientific basis for a new definition of planet and we chose gravity as the determining factor. Nature decides whether or not an object is a planet."Hopquick 05:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: But according to that defintion, there should be at least 25 planets, possibly more, not 12! Even our own Moon would qualify, and certainly if Charon does. Serendipodous 06:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article I'm reading right now [] says that the new ruling "suggests retaining Pluto and immediately adding" the above three, with "perhaps dozens" more to follow, pending further study/discussion/debate I assume...  It should be noted though, that this isn't an IAE ruling, it's the suggestion of an "international panel formed to devise a scientific definition of a planet," and that "a vote of the union's general assembly is scheduled for Aug. 24 at a conference underway in Prague."  So I guess we have a few days till it's official.  -- MyrddinEmrys 09:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The Moon won't qualify, as it orbits a planet, not a star. The same goes for the gas planet moons (some of which are larger than Mercurius). The proposed number of 12 is certainly a low number... I can easily think of three more asteroids which would qualify for re-admission to planethood, and then there are a lot more round large rocks beyond Uranus... or plutons. -- Jordi·✆ 13:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There are reports that as many as 40 more objects would be added as "planets".- Loadmaster 14:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Charon is being considered because it is the only "moon" who's baricenter is "above" the surface of the planet.  Ergo, the statement "Pluto orbits Charon" is as true as saying "Charon orbits Pluto", thus making it a binary planet.  This is not true of the Earth-Luna system, even though other methods of classifying binaries would imply that it could be. Hopquick 15:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that technically, one shouldn't say that body A orbits body B. Rather bodies A and B orbit their common barycenter. This is true of all bodies, but in many systems one body is so much more massive that the barycenter is only a miniscule distance from the center of the larger body. We tend to say one body orbits another for the sake of convenience, but it's not exactly correct. --Aelffin 04:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of a planet 

message: I've deleted a paragraph referring to the "Titius-Bode" law because it seems to violate the prohibition against original research (or at least NPOV).  The IAU is the widely-recognized authority on definitions of planets, etc., and neither their traditional definition of the planets nor their proposed new definition of 12 planets makes any reference to Titius-Bode.  Perhaps a brief reference would be appropriate later in the article.  Gnixon 04:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be aware that PlanetCeres is trolling multiple articles and talk pages with his periodicity theory. Check his contributions and those of anonymous IP 71.215.54.11 for details. Nick Mks 09:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Titius-Bode

message: Here's my recommendation for the new table. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attributes table 

message: Hurrah!  I see someone has already updated the intro and fixed the title of a table.  More work needs to be done later in the article for it to conform with the new definition. Gnixon 15:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 8 Planets

message: Why did this happen? it's stupid. Pluto is a planet and so are many others. I don't care what the whatever says they are wrong. 154.20.174.31 18:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're free to call it a planet if you like, but astronomers do not and have not for a long time. The "new" IAU definition just enshrines the current thinking among astronomers. Anyway, the new definition clarifies the relationship among the bodies of the solar system, grouping Pluto with the Kuiper Belt Objects since it has much more in common with them than it does with the real planets. That being said...I'll miss Pluto too. But life goes on. --Aelffin 18:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pluto has been erased althogether from the article. Surely the article should mention that from 1930 (or whatever it's discovery year was) until today it was considered a planet? Alexj2002 22:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's here: Planet#Historical planets. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 22:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ugh. 

message: I was researching (in a lazy way) the origin of the word dwarf, expecting to find that it refers to some sort of disorder, but this is not true.
It has a rich history and mythology all it's own, parallel to the sort used to name planets. So why not start naming the new dwarf planets accordingly?..There are only 7 well known dwarfs, but a large number of other less well known ones.I know about this 08:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  And what about Snow White? 

message: According to the new definition of "planet" Neptune may no longer qualify as a planet since it has not cleared its orbit of Pluto.  This would also cast doubt on Jupiter since Jupiter's orbit is full of asteroids.  Now what?  
BTW, logically speaking anything called a "dwarf planet" is still a "planet".  You have to call it something else if it is not a "planet". If it is a "planet", then you have to list it with the other "planets". --Britcom 08:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, what about the trojans asteroids in the exact same orbit as Neptune? Bryan27 15:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh oh!  You've caught those pesky astronomers up!  You're right, Neptune must not be a planet, because it has trojan asteroids.   Oh, look, so does Jupiter! And Mars!  Ha ha!  They're not planets either. Wow, what a shambles. Those astronomers are so much stupider than us Wikipedians.  Seriously, though: technically, only Jupiter has "trojan" asteroids, although the term is loosely used for asteroids at the Langrangian points of other planets. More importantly, though, objects which are at Lagrangian points are completely controlled by the dominant body in a 1:1 orbital resonance. That is part of the very definition of "Clearing the neighbourhood", which I recommend you read.Derek Balsam 15:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was only asking a question. Thanks for answering it.Bryan27 20:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I was being snarky.  My snarkiness was due to the heading "Neptune crisis" and the comment about "casting doubt on Jupiter", rather than your question specifically, though.  Sorry.Derek Balsam 20:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neptune crisis 

message: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5283956.stm
The BBC says it all. I no longer respect an organization that waits till only 424 members were left to vote on the diffination of a Planet . Since the other members had left, they should had waited till the next meeting to call a vote then. I can understand their want to get this over with, but only voting with 4% of the membership, thats just wrong. Opinion by Magnum Serpentine user:MagnumSerpentine 8-26-06
:: just wanted to add this quote from the BBC article, I think it says it all: [quote]Alan Stern agreed: "I was not allowed to vote because I was not in a room in Prague on Thursday 24th. Of 10,000 astronomers, 4% were in that room - you can't even claim consensus.[/quote] Magnum Serpentine8-28-06
:This whole thing just disturbs me.  I personally don't care what definition is used, but if this article is to be beleived, there is evidence that the voted on definition does not even meet proper scientific peer review!  That to me is a serious charge against the IAU's definition being official at all, or even that the IAU is official.  This could take some time to resolve, and in the meantime we have to deal with it here.  I mean from my perspective, you could have taken any of the draft proposals and made this article reflect their content. The vote by the minority of members (18% of those attending the assembly, 4% of those in the IAU) is not sufficient for consensus.  Granted I think the article in its current form is decent, but I still maintain that the definition is arbitrary and complicated by the fact that I believe there is still no settled scientific definition. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion: IAU, A respected organization???