Talk:IAU definition of planet/Archive 2

message: Here's a good link, which others might think worthy of inclusion: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060816_planet_qanda.html
According to that site, "dwarf planet" is not an IAU definition.  This article erroneously leaves the impression that it is.  
UTC, apparently Charon and Pluto rotate around each other.  Put another way, the center of Charon's orbit is not within the body of Pluto.  By contrast, the center of Earth's Moon's orbit is within the Earth, the center of Ganymede's orbit is within Jupiter, etc.
--Turtle Falcon 21:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Binary planet

message: Would everyone please keep in mind that this is merely a proposed definition being put to wider IAU vote, and not yet an accepted definition.  Dragons flight 19:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future event 

message: Can someone write in an explination of "has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces".  My guess in my own feeble mind is that it has to contain enough mass for its gravity to force itself to become spherical.  Is this the case? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.45.168.113 (talk • contribs).
:That's an excellent suggestion. I was thinking that the article may lean to the too-technical side language-wise. --Elliskev 22:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your own "feeble mind" had done an admirable job of inferring the correct meaning from the text. I think this shows that the passage explains itself very well. -- MiguelMunoz 08:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: My guess in my own feeble mind is that it has to contain enough mass for its gravity to force itself to become spherical.  That's more-or-less correct.  There's a slight caviat, in that the planet's rotation causes the equilibrium shape to be slightly non-spherical, but the difference is (usually) minor. Bluap 04:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition question 

message: Am I just missing it? There are links to double planets and dwarf planets but not to plain planets.  --hydnjo talk 22:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I fixed that problem quite nicely. --Brandon Dilbeck 23:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to [[Planet]]

message: Is this really a "redefinition"? There is no formal scientific definition to speak of. SYSS Mouse 01:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say, I agree that this is a redefinition of the word Planet. The previous definition was: ...heavenly bodies that orbit a star... So if this definition has changed at all it should be known as a redefinition.
Also, the suggestion made to merge this article with definition of planet is a very good idea. Though, since at the current time it is news, I suggest the article remain a seperate article till the definition is accepted around the globe, when it is no longer news.
456 16:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you repeat your last sentences at the appropriate place? Thanks. Nick Mks 16:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree. Why perpetuate a myth that makes this move look capricious? It's not a redefinition; it's just a definition. Keesey 19:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Redefinition"? 

message: Couldn't one aruge that Jupiter (or any Gas Giant) isn't a planet because with out its atmosphere, it's nothing more than a few asteroids and comets? user:mustang6172
**I'm assuiming Jupiter has a core and the enormous amount of gravity that it has that this core is rounded nicely.  :p  --Firebird 05:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One couldn't really argue that Jupiter, or any Gas giant rather. They satisfy both requirements of planets, and as well do not have sufficient mass to undergo hydrogen fusion. As to it being nothing but atmosphere, the proposed definition does not distinguish the composition of the planet. It can be made of silly putty and it'll be a planet. Echternacht 00:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That astronomer is wrong. Mass is mass, it doesn't matter what it's made from. Frozen Methane wouldn't be atmosphere anyway, it's solid.Eccentricned 03:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Metallic hydrogen drives Jupiter's field, not iron.  Dragons flight 03:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The large magnetosphere of Jupiter is not just caused by an internal property, read. Echternacht 04:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I believe you'd be paring away the layers of an onion. The liquid and solid inner layers are there because of the weight of the gas above them. As soon as you strip off everything above a certain layer, that layer would no longer be under as much pressure and would volatilize, driving the new boundary layer inward and eliminating some more mass from the core. Eventually, you'd strip all of the "atmosphere" away, and there'd be nothing left. Or so my intuition tells me.... :) -- Eliyahu S Talk 08:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think if it were a binary system, the other planets would have to oribt the Sun and Jupiter.Mustang6172 22:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jupiter

message: Jupiter would be a planet no matter what you did to its atmosphere. Its iron-silicate core is about 15 Earth masses; this can be calculated from the planet's oblateness and rotation rate (1). This core is surrounded by liquid metallic hydrogen, then liquid molecular hydrogen, which reaches up to the base of the gaseous hydrogen-helium atmosphere (about 20,000 km below the cloudtops) (1), (2). I had heard speculation that Jupiter may contain large amounts of compressed carbon in the form of diamond, but I started looking into it and the reality is even more interesting: Jupiter may contain "liquid diamond". According to a paper simply called "Phase diagram of carbon at high pressures and temperatures" by Matthew P. Grumbach and Ricard M. Martin, 8 Nov 1996. (journal not known), carbon in Jupiter remains liquid because though the pressures are plenty high for the solid diamond-phase to exist, the temperatures are far *too* high. The carbon melt would be a mixture of two-, three-, and four-fold coordinated atoms depending on the local pressure & temperature (3)pdf. So, if you started vaporizing the outer layers of atmosphere, assuming the internal temperature stayed the same, I suppose you'd get a bunch of amorphous glassy carbon or, if you did it slowly enough for a lattice to form, you'd get graphite. Of course, this would be a tiny amount compared with all the hydrogen and helium, but it'd still be enough to wreak havoc on the pencil industry and you'd have plenty of other wierd phase changes going on in the ammonia and methane component of the atmosphere. If you kept stripping the atmosphere then eventually, the surface pressures would decrease until the various liquid hydrogen phases become gaseous and, finally, the rocky surface would be exposed with further stripping. According to (1), Jupiter radiates lots of excess of heat thought to be leftover from its formation, which suggests to me that the planet we're left with would be highly tectonic. This would be further aggrevated by the release of its atomspheric overburden, probably causing rapid liquification of previously solid silicates in the outer crust, so the end result would be a giant ball of rock with lots of volcanoes. Without knowing the radius of this "core" we can't calculate the surface gravity, but at 15 Me, it would certainly be extreme. Okay, that's the end of my semi-off-topic speculation. --Aelffin 12:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You all are looking at the wrong question.  What does "clearing out the orbital neighborhood mean"?  Jupiter by this definition is not a planet.  Trojan asteroids are in the orbital neighbourhood of Jupiter. Hopquick 00:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Clearing out the orbital neighborhood" does not mean that every single thing has been swept up or ejected. What it means is that any small body in the neighborhood has either been ejected, swept up, or coralled into an orbit controled by the larger body. All objects in Jupiter's path are either forced into position by Jupiter, or they're in the process of being ejected or swept up by Jupiter. Thus, there is *no* ambiguity. Jupiter is a planet. --Aelffin 15:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It just means there are no other objects of similar size in the same orbit.  Different language that has been thrown around for the last several years to express the same criterion is "comprising more than half the mass of all objects in the orbit."  Pluto loses out because it's in an overlapping orbit with Neptune, and Neptune is unambiguously most of the mass in the orbit. 64.122.41.167 03:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true, but it couldn't be in an overlapping orbit with Neptune if it weren't in a resonant orbit. We're saying basically the same thing. --Aelffin 18:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Aelfinn! That was much more fun than just metallic hydrogen volatilizing to gas and being "stripped" away with the rest. :) It also makes the sci-fi concept of "scoop-mining" for hydrogen as a near-term replacement for our current petroleum-based economy more politically viable. Even if we mined ALL of the hydrogen over the coming centuries (and the way we humans accelerate our energy consumption I doubt it would take millennia) we could argue that there would still be a substantial planet left in orbit that dwarfs the inner rock balls, so why worry? ;) ("Environmental impact study? We don't need no stinkin' environmental impact study!") Well, it's been fun, but now I have to earn my paycheck. :( --Eliyahu S Talk 6:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, Eli. It was fun to write. Of course, I'm putting my money on the existence of a jovian biosphere so I'll be requesting that environmental impact study after all. Too bad for the graphite dealers. --Aelffin 14:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stripping Jupiter 

message: I removed this image because it is inaccurate. Not only is it jpeg, and therfore pixilated, artifacted and limited in resolution; but it states an unusual number of planets - only 1 asteroid and fourty three kuiper belt objects, rather than 4 asteroids and 11 kuiper belt objects (as the article discusses). Also, it groups the first four planets as a confusing ring, and ceres seems to occupy a similar ring. Conclusion; a bad image - Jack (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is not the "current" system of 12 planets (which, whatever the outcome of the IAU congress, isn't likely to survive August 25), nor the dozen "candidate planets," but the total number of possible planets that currently exist within our solar system IF the "roundness" definition is adhered to. The solar system is very big; this necessitates a certain amount of compression when trying to describe all of it. Ceres is part of a ring because it is part of a ring; the asteroid belt. The image is of the solar system from the asteroid belt outwards; since no new planets exist between the Sun and the asteroid belt, the terrestrials don't need to be in the image.  Serendipodous 17:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Inaccurate?  The linked source explains all.  I concur with Serendipodous:  the image is informative.  Please put it back, but use an accurate tagline.  mdf 17:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no quarrel with the statement "current nine planets", this is accurate, but the way they are depicted is not up to standard. As for the compression issue, a large SVG image would solve that. I feel as a newbie may be checking out this page (as is to be assumed), the other nine planets should be shown accurately as people have come to understand them, if only to provide a simple source of reference. But thats not the main issue - what's up with the numbers?! - Jack (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the direct reference that the image sources.  mdf 17:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I second the removal of the image. Nick Mks 19:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: As far as I know, the IAU is considering the definition of a planet, not a "12 planet system with an additional 12 candidate planets".  The current proposal is written in what appears to be plain, simple, English lacking little (if any) wiggle room re: "interpretation".  Brown has taken this proposal, combined estimates based on best knowledge and reasonable inferences, and published his results.  And far from being what he thinks is the "new planetary configuration", Brown notes that this is merely a reasonable consequence ... and is just the beginning.  And heck, he isn't the only one saying this either.  I'm not sure what the NPOV has to do with this either, since we aren't talking about whether corn tastes better than peas, but trivial deductions from a clearly written definition.  Even if his estimates are off wildly, there are likely tens of thousands of other objects awaiting discovery, and if even .5% of them qualify, we still obtain Brown's conclusions.  Can you cite a refutation of his analysis?  Honestly, are there other "interpretations" at all?   mdf 20:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The IAU press release says 12 now and 12 current candidates: .  Dragons flight 20:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. We get that. But is the purpose of objectivity the slavish adherence to one interpretation because it happens to be the official one? Have they explained or justified their decision in keeping the solar system down to a maximum of 24 planets, when quite obviously dozens more would fit the definition they gave? Serendipodous 20:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not obvious what fits the definition since they don't say what is "round enough" (and propose creating a committee to decide).  For all we know, round enough will end up excluding most of the candidate planets.  I don't mind mentioning his views, but his view shouldn't be the only image about what a new planetary system looks like.  Better no image than a single image representing only one point of view.  Dragons flight 20:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I third the removal of the image. Including the image would mean that the article would lose its neutral point of view. It does not show any possible outcome of the ongoing events, and so adds nothing to the article other than bias. Readro 20:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: On his website, he points out that 800 km is the approximate diameter for rocky bodies like Ceres to attain hydrostatic equilibrium, but that icy bodies attain this point far more easily than rocky bodies do, and thus they are likely to be round at 400 km. Serendipodous 20:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image removal rationale 

message: Is there a reason why this article does not quote the full text of the IAU's proposed resolution? If this is because of a copyright issue, shouldn't there at least be a prominent link to the entire resolution? --Nebular110 17:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  full draft resolution 

message: Cyde threw material he didn't like here into an archive1 which has entries dated later than the earliest entries on this page. Now we're getting our archiving messed up by these people who are going militant over "relevance" in Talk space... Wish I had the time and energy to really fight this trend (I'm very ill). Anyone out there up for it? It would involve identifying editors and admins (like Cyde) who go wayyyy overboard with their notion of what is proper for a Talk page and who have taken to wholesale blowing away of comments that don't match these notions. They need to be stopped administratively. Maybe informal mediation would do it, but you should be prepared for RFC. Anyone? JDG 00:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there's no point in having the archive really since it's all irrelevant discussion that should have simply been deleted. Deleting the archive would solve the problem. In any case, I doubt you'll get much support from the admins for using this page as a discussion forum. It was twice as long when it included the irrelevant banter.  -- Run!  07:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me you are now using this talk page as a discussion forum.  And looking over most of the other entries here, I can probably remove about half of them on "irrelevant" grounds by appeal to the standard you are setting up.  Will you support me in this action?  Rhetorical question of course, since I actually agree with JDG -- but not to the point of taking on an administrator (which, at this point in Wikipedia's development, is as useful as taking legal action against a police officer, even if you have an egregious, undeniable case) -- in that the so-called "irrelevant" discussions can indeed help focus participants.  Take, as an example, the current blather over the Mike Brown image of the solar system to be.  Arguably, it would make sense, to help other editors understand Brown's point, to dissect the current proposal, explain why it is over-broad and likely to lead to as much use as the 55mph speed limit was on the interstates.  Part of this discussion would indeed involve raising and commenting on counter-proposals, why they would be better or worse, and general guidelines about how such proposals can be structured in the first place.  Without question, none of this discussion could enter the article directly, but can obviously serve as "mental triggers" for readers to find material which can be included.  mdf 12:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Article discussion pages are about the article.  It gets archived in a manner that editors can easily view and understand past discussions.  If discussion edges into personal exchange, then that sort of discussion can easily go to one user's User page, or to another's.  This keeps the article discussion page appropriate to the article, reduces clutter, etc. Terryeo 07:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the discussion removed was personal, trollish, inflammatory, or generally detrimental to the community or even Wikipedia as a whole.  I have personally removed material from other talk pages that satisfy these conditions.  And I mean "removed", not just left little notes about "please don't reply to the following" and other sanctimonious wimp-outs.  There is no doubt a high pile of policy and guideline about talk pages.  However, the general intent of said wikilaw is to improve the article.  If "irrelevant" discussion can do this, then it is, ipso facto, not irrelevant for this purpose.  mdf 12:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improper Archive 

message: Two of the source cited here are blogs.  Strict, literal, obeyance of Official Wikipedia Holy Script says we can take the people who added these sources outside and whack their peepee's with a lead pipe ;-).  Arguably, even Brown's reference is in the same situation as it appears to be self-published.  I recommend nothing actually be done (since the arguments offered at all sources are sound), but if better sources are known they should be used instead, lest some under-employed admin stomp in, gun drawn.  mdf 13:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, I'm aware of that. But I felt it was best to "Ignore all Rules" on this since there isn't anything official yet as this is still at an early stage. The blogs aren't being used to describe anything other than the writers opinions, so turning a blind eye to this violation until better sources arise is my view. Jefffire 13:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Few would contend Brown's authority in this matter. Just like if Hawking writes something new two of the sources are Hawking's texts, it gets recorded. According to the above mentioned WP:RS, Self-published sources: "Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym." Brown is totally in the clear. McKay 15:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of the redefinition

message: It would be cool if 195.137.85.173, or someone else, could document this section's provenance.  mdf 15:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Advantages

message: As opposed to the Prague 27 miles southwest of Walla Walla, Washington? Really I think we can rely on our readers to have at least a vague notion of geography. Serendipodous 22:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly? Often, when I mention Prague, the reaction I get is "Oh, you've been to Czechoslovakia?" And that's the smart ones. Aelffin 22:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Oh you've from the Soviet Republic of Yugoslavia?" is what I usually get (the smart ones are interested in my proficiency in the Czechoslovakian language), so I say keep the republic in. +Hexagon1 (t) 13:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers to that. Or should I say.... Nádraží! :P --Aelffin 17:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor quibble but, "Prague in the Czech Republic"?

message: I disagree the idea that this article should be merged with Definition of a planet. Think to the situation in 5 years time. The article "Definition of a planet" is where people would look to find the current agreed definition. The article might mention, in a brief section, the fact that back in 2006 it was changed and formalised and the debate that this created but would not go into much detail. The section woudl then refer people to this article, which would haev all the details of the historical debate, effect of the change and so on. Hence wikipedia should still have two articles.
Does that make sense? AndrewRT - Talk 14:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This article is about the debate (maybe it could be renamed "2006 planet definition debate"), and the definition page is about the final decision. --Age234 16:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose the merge as well for concuring reasons. Definition of a planet should be an article about what it is then and has been. This article is (and should be) more like a news article on a slow moving story. Jon 18:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose Merge 

message: First para of article says: 18 for the draft proposal, 50 against, then referring to reference 16, "Pluto May Get Demoted After All." Space.com. 18 August, 2006.. But that article says the votes where c:a 50-50, not 18-50!
/spake, Tomas S. Kindahl (tomas.kindahl@comhem.se) 20:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see any actual stat of 50-50 in the article, I think that's just a header to give an idea of what was going on.  The 18-50 refers to the actual poll: Today, a subgroup of the IAU met to discuss the proposal. A straw vote was held in which only about 18 astronomers favored the proposal, according to Alan Boss, a planet-formation theorist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington. Another 20 or so said it should be reworked. And about 50 favored an alternate proposal put forth by Julio Angel Fernandez, an astronomer from Uruguay. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060818_planet_newprop.html --Age234 14:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative proposal - 50-50 split - not 18-50 split 

message: Anybody get a chance to see the planet naming presentation the IAU webcast this morning? Aelffin 12:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a video of the discussion:  (scroll down to bottom). This was a mess, but there were lots of reasonable objections (IMHO) though the chair seemed to be overly defensive and a lot of the comments were too heated I think it's possible to get an idea of how this is going to go. They're holding another discussion session tonight at 5:30 Central Europe Standard Time. Aelffin 13:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found this link discussing ther goings-on: http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Astronomers_divided_over_planet_def_08222006.html .  One interesting thing is that the word "pluton" is now apparently gone from the proposal. Daveharr 17:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And this: http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn9817-battle-of-the-planet-definitions-heats-up.html . The author's sense is that the proposal is likely going down to defeat. Daveharr 17:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pluton was removed quite quickly after geologists protested that the term was already in widespread usage in their field. The possibility then arose that a planetary geologist would have to talk about plutons on a pluton and clearly this was not tenable. 213.78.235.176 17:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, "pluton" was a poorly-considered choice. From the mood of the video, it seems like the IAU overstepped their authority in the minds of most astronomers. I've rarely seen scientists so agitated and humorless. I'd give about 2% chance Resolution 5 or 6 will pass. It's too bad; both camps behaved in a rather embarrasing manner. This "War of the World-Definitions" is likely to drag on for a long time--then again, it's just the upset people who speak up, so maybe we've got a sampling problem here. --Aelffin 17:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Woah. I'm watching this right now. I never knew scientists could be so  vociferous. Is this going in the article? Serendipodous 18:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WOW  this is like Science CSPAN...Love it!!!Dr. Guillermo A. Sanz-Berney 21:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "...like Science CSPAN" And the Plebians did look upon this phrase; and some did shiver with glee, whilst others did shiver with fear. Aelffin 13:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: A good watch, and a unique event to behold.  Will add something to the article. --Ross UK 03:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planet Naming Presentation 

message: :The roundness factor generally results in the need for a mass atleast 5 x 1020 kg, or diameter atleast 800 km in size. 
Do Nature's sums work? 132.205.93.195 04:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why aren't orbital dynamics valid criteria for defining planethood? Though I agree with you; ideally, we should have a nomenclature for orbital mechanics and a separate nomenclature for composition and/or gravitational effects, as you say. So, a gravitational spheroid that orbits a center of mass located within a larger body would be a "sattelite planemo" and an irregularly shaped one would be an "asteroidal sattelite" perhaps, and one that orbited a star would be a "planetary planemo" or a "sub-planetary asteroid" or something like that. I guess the debate is over which criteria should take precedence. --Aelffin 01:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  general minima 

message: Is the introductory text quoted in the "final draft", namely
: The IAU...resolves that planets and other bodies in our Solar System be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:
present in the final definition (or the text accompanying the final definition)?  I would imagine it or something like it must be, but it's not shown here.  It's critical, though, because it specifies that the definition applies only our own solar system.
:The footnote in the version passed contains "The eight planets are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune" - which means, yes, this ruling only applies to our own solar system (but will probably be treated as precedent in twenty years when we find something small enough elsewhere). Shimgray | talk | 16:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already told in about (seems in the "22 Aug" sub-topic) that astronomers agree that this redefinition only concerns solar system objects.210.17.128.146 05:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory text 

message: The listed final proposal is uncited. Serendipodous 09:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The cite's at the end of the preceding text. Shimgray | talk | 13:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation for final proposal

message: Wow, I didn't expect this to make front page news everywhere, but it did.  Here are some articles that could go into the article as references:
*
*
*
By the way, I think this has now established enough notability, and there's enough we can say on the subject, that it shouldn't be merged into Definition of planet.  --Cyde Weys 14:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it the soap opera that is notable or is it the definition itself?  If the former, then this article needs to be renamed.  If the latter, then this article needs to be merged.  mdf 14:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that both are notable, and both have generated enough verifiable information to justify a separate article. I think that the article should be renamed to something more precise and neutral, like IAU definition of planet, mainly because it is difficult to judge whether or not the IAU will succeed in changing the meaning of "planet" in modern use. Melchoir 15:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some references 

message: Comments are welcome.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 14:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal idea for planet definition has been relocated to my homepage. 

message: Shouldn't this article be in International date (dd/mm/yyyy) format?  Rather than American (mm/dd/yyyy)? A little bit of a nitpick with the article in so much flux, but right now the majority of the dates are in American, but there are a few internaional formats scattered around. Figured it'd be a good idea to get the format nailed down now to avoid a mixing of formats for readers that don't have preferences set yet. --Bobblehead 14:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The subject is neither American nor British, so both notations are considered acceptable. Not changing it is the most accepted way to go in these cases. Edits just to change date format are not appreciated by some editors and might lead to an unwanted series of reversions. Everybody understands what date is meant, so why bother... Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date format 

message: The IAU also created the overall term "small solar system body", to replace "minor planet" et. al. - I've created a very brief stub. Contributions welcome. Shimgray | talk | 16:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's not just planets 

message: I am going to translate this to spanish so we have other points of view in the discussion.Dr. Guillermo A. Sanz-Berney 17:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation

message: Now that the designation "minor planet" has been abandoned, we have a lot of work to do to update all of the asteroid articles to change from "minor planet" to "small solar system body".  One example of an article that needs to be updated is 991 McDonalda.  I suppose the What links here on minor planet will be of good use.  --Cyde Weys 19:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is hardly a job for humans:  tell some robot to s/minor planet/small solar system body/ over all the articles.  But before any of this is done, consider the plain fact that there are literally decades (and probably terabytes) of published research that use "asteroid", "minor planet" and so forth, but probably zero that use the new name.  Would it not be better for Wikipedia to be conformant with extant literature and usage, particularly for those WP articles that quote from these sources?  Furthermore, for all we know, astronomers will rapidly tire of a 23-character, 4 word name and just continue with 2-words, 11 characters (or 1 word, 8 letters)?  It wouldn't be the first time the pronouncements of a standards body are simply ignored.  mdf 19:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Asteroid is still a perfectly good scientific word.  The IAU even used it in their definition of small solar system body.Derek Balsam 19:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, so why do some articles label things "minor planets" that are clearly asteroids?  Asteroid is a subset of minor planet, so using the term asteroid should be more specific.  --Cyde Weys 19:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they are assigned names and numbers by an IAU sanctioned agency called the "Minor Planet Center"?  That the vast, overwhelming majority (if not all) of the "minor planets" are asteroids -- ie, its effectively a synonym?  And, somewhat irrelevantly, is Brian Marsden, right now, on a ladder ripping off the old neon sign and installing a more power efficient LED one that reads "Small Solar System Body Center"?  ;-)  mdf 19:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Building up the sssb page would seem the smart initial move, and figuring out exactly how the term is going to be used before mass-alteration of articles is probably advisable. We don't yet know how much currency the term is going to gain, and a note on minor planet etc is probably enough for now. Shimgray | talk | 20:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Come to think of it, now might be a good time to sit down and figure out how best to handle all our solar-system-bodies articles... Shimgray | talk | 20:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We have a lot more work to do 

message: Shouldn't Charon also be a dwarf planet now? Charon doesn't orbit around Pluto, they orbit each other... Does anyone have an explanation for why Pluto is a dwarf planet but Charon isn't? —Nightstallion (?) 19:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The IAU has publicly named only 3 bodies as dwarf planets. They have a dwarf planet watchlist which is not public, yet.Derek Balsam 19:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charon and Pluto 

message: Supposely there is petition for astronomers to overturn this redefinition of a planet.  The reason is that only a small percentage of astronomers actually voted on the resolutions.  See the "A farce" section of following news article.   --Daniel Schibuk 19:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The IAU's bylaws have, as I understand it, long accepted that a vote of the General Assembly is binding. "Overturning" this isn't going to happen, in the unlikely event that that many astronomers cared. Shimgray | talk | 20:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, someone gets unhappy with the result and think the whole thing needs to be reverted, simple as that. Don't waste time on this. -- G.S.K.Lee 20:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd've hoped those of the "about 10,000 professional astronomers" who had an interest in the outcome of the vote (1) would've voted, arranged to vote or been represented; and (2) would accept the outcome. Then again, I guess they're human... allegedly... Chuckle, David Kernow 21:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that's exactly what happened. The IAU executive committee proposed a definition that included lots of junk that nobody considered planets. About 2400 astronomers showed up to listen to what they had to say. Most of those thought it was ridiculous, so they re-wrote the definition. The new definition fits the way they've been using the term "planet" for decades. This definition will please most astronomers, and it will displease those who are unfamiliar with astronomy. So what. --Aelffin 16:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Mike Brown's take on this whole thing is right here. (Remember, this is guy who started this whole thing with the discovery of "X"). A nice layman's explanation, if anyone's confused.--Planetary 00:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petition 

message: Someone might want to take a look at Candidate planets - it can probably be dropped into the original proposals section here quite easily, but it really doesn't seem to need to be a seperate page any more. Shimgray | talk | 20:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obsolete page needing merged 

message: Now that the dust has settled at the IAU conference, I'd like to point out how completely in the wrong Cyde and others who lambasted speculations about the deficiencies of the original planetary redefinitions were. I'm not trying to say "na na nana na naa", I'm trying to get them to see the error of their ways in enforcing their overly narrow views on "relevance" in Talk pages. The people who were predicting an overturn of the original redefinition were portrayed by Cyde and others as distractions who were wasting space with their own predilections. Cyde even took a big chunk of these writings and threw then into a premature archive with the rude warning: "IMPORTANT NOTE: Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. These talk pages are for discussions on the article only, not the issue in general. Do not add to any of the archived comments below and do not post any new ones like them." Another in the Cyde camp insisted, "You are welcome to disagree, but that doesn't alter the fact that you are wrong. It is hardly "censorship" to request that people keep discussions on topic. You seem to be under the misapprehension that Wikipedia talk pages are chatrooms; they are not, they are places for discussing articles. Therefore it is utterly pointless for us to discuss matters like whether we think the IAU's definition of a planet is meaningful or not, because we cannot put our opinions of such matters into the article, per WP:NOR."
Well, as we all know now, those who were recording their dissatisfactions with the original IAU redefinition were spot on, and if their analyses had been paid more heed to, there would have been more investigation of the competing redefinition which eventually won over the committee, and therefore more 100% relevant material on those dissenters in the ARTICLE. Let this be a lesson to all would-be Talk Page Relevance Police. Stand down and let people simply Talk. This isn't article space, so just chill out. That has been the environment since the start of Wikipedia and a bunch of over-confident people who came to the project in `05 won't be changing it. JDG 20:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, as long as such speculation is kept in the talk pages. --Aelffin 16:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repressed Talk material could not have been more relevant 

message: ...has just been created, and was until a couple of minutes ago an explanation that it meant "clearing all other objects out of an orbit" and some weird theory about Neptune Isn't Really A Planet, See...
I've replaced it with something that's a little less wrong, but still crap (I'm terrible at explaining this) - could someone else have a go at it? Cyde? Shimgray | talk | 21:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Clearing the neighborhood" is such a pain in the neck cause rather than adding 3 planets, it downgraded my favorite planet, Pluto to nothing but a dwarf planet. Gosh, that dosen't have to do with anything about the term, planet. Alastor Moody (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't look upon it as losing a planet, but rather as gaining a Kuiper Belt. --Aelffin 16:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If people cared about KBOs that'd be okay. Mostly it means Pluto will become a meaningless rock as obscure to most of the world as 1 Ceres. I think that's part of the explanation for the reaction. For some it's like taking away a part of people's childhood or making them feel like they've been lied to their whole life. Science might be ever changing and progressing, but humans are not like that. They like to be able to have things they can hold onto. For most people alive today the planets are apart of that. If you look at the history of 1 Ceres you'll see that asteroids of similar size were discovered within ten years of it. There was a gradual phasing out in many respects. This was sort of a "boom", for most folk, after 70 years. (Because in reality no KBO of similar size was found until 2002. The earlier ones were smaller and it was just a theory there'd be more as in many ways it still is)--T. Anthony 10:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit, I was excited about the idea of getting dozens of new planets, so I supported the original IAU proposal at first. Then I learned that astronomers didn't like this proposal for a good reason: Pluto's orbit is controlled by resonance with Neptune. Furthermore, there's a whole family of KBOs that are also controlled by exactly the same orbital resonance; they're called plutinos. We can't call one plutino a planet and not call the others planets. That would be silly and confusing. --Aelffin 13:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Clear the neighbourhood]] 

message: The current image used to illustrate the 8 planets is not ideal, since it also shows Luna, a comet, asteroids, and the Sun. We should substitute another image, if one can be found, that only shows the 8 planets (and maybe the Sun as well). Kaldari 23:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that really UB313 in the image?  The one that compares several dwarf planets to Earth?  It has the reddish color of Pluto, but UB313 has a substantially higher albedo than pluto's and is probably white as snow.  For example, see http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/2006-16-d-print.jpg/225px-2006-16-d-print.jpg Jstenberg 16:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need better image 

message: "Other planetary satellites (for example, in the Earth and Moon system) might be in hydrostatic equilibrium," 
Is this what we mean here?
Hydrostatic equilibrium refers to the planet itself not its relationship eith other celestial objects. Dr. Guillermo A. Sanz-Berney 03:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hydrostatic equilibrium

message: "(3) All other objects [3] except satellites orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as "Small Solar System Bodies"."
What satellites orbiting the sun does that mean? artificial satellites? moons of the planets? there's no 4th category for any other objects.
SpookyMulder 11:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have an article on that: Small solar system body. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That "except satellites" keeps creeping in; is it in the actual definition? Shimgray | talk | 13:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've sourced the exact text as voted on and removed "except satellites". Someone keeps trying to add it in, presumably in an attempt to simplify... Shimgray | talk | 13:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, 'someone' is not; I have put it there because it is in the final definition but not in the version which was published when the Assembly session began.  It was inserted during the debate so as to prevent satellites (including large bodies such as Ganymede and Callisto) from being classified as SSSBs, which they ought not to be. --Ross UK 21:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: from the final defn

message: By a similar logic should the Indian subcontinent now be just be called a continent in schools? It seems like maybe it would make even more sense to do so. India has its own plate and was separate from Asia for millions of years. Is there a geological teaching body to deal with this?--T. Anthony 12:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should bring it up at the IGU (International Geological Union) Assembly...DrCito 15:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the IUGS, which I believe (wisely) leaves such matters as the definition of continents alone. --Aelffin 16:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The IUGS has the advantage that they can just ignore it - after all, no-one's going to discover a new continent tomorrow. Astronomers need to look towards the future a little more... Shimgray | talk | 16:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not tomorrow, but eventually, we will discover new continents, most probably on other planets (whatever that word means).  I guess the IUGS are smart to avoid this discussion because a clear definition would not really help anybody just like the so called new "clear" definition of a planet didn't help anybody either. 206.47.141.21 16:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, this could concievably become an issue once we start looking more closely at the crustal dynamics of Venus and Mars, as well as the icy satellites of the outer solar system. Sure, we don't use the unqualified term "continent" much, but we do talk about tectonic plates, etc. These may have to be reconceptualized in terms of the planets in the not-too-distant future. I once read a paper that described the Venusian crust in terms of "ice pack tectonics" as opposed to the conveyor belt analogy we use on Earth. So, does Venus have tectonic plates or not? That may eventually come down to a vote. But clarifying the definition could be extremely valuable. I think the "new" definition of planet (which is actually the same as astronomers have been saying all along) has in fact clarified the public's understanding of what scientist meant when they said "planet" in the past. --Aelffin 16:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually I was trying to be a smart ass... and I came out with a similar acronym for a geological agency, go figure. lol.DrCito 17:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The continents?

message: Can someone who understands what the changes are please make edits to the Earth article to bring it upto date --Gnangarra 01:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tell you what "clear the neighbourhood" means. A big tornado runs through the town and leaves almost nothing but a handful of toilets and basements behind, that's "clear the neighbourhood", even if not all of your neighbours were sucked away. Put Earth or Neptune into the place of tornado and you get it. And as I understand, the orbit of Pluto is in resonance with Neptune's, which means Neptune has effectively "cleared its neighbourhood", and Pluto is the lucky toilet which managed to move into a resonance orbit and avoided being eaten by Neptune. -- G.S.K.Lee 13:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pluto is not in Neptune's orbit as it orbits at an angle so there is no way for it to be gobbled up by it. Still I'll withdrawal my insulting post and I hope you withdrawal any insult on me.--T. Anthony 13:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, here is an article that contains more details which you need to read and eliminate the misconception. -- G.S.K.Lee 16:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it then you don't withdrawal being personally insulting to me even though I withdrew a post which was simply sarcastic and not aimed at you. Citing a Wikipedia article says almost nothing to me. In many respects I know and understand why it was demoted. However people are treating this like it can't be discussed, as if 300 astronomers can undo 76 years of history without any argument. Even the Big Bang theory didn't go down like that and it's based on solid observational standing. Pluto being or not being a planet is being treated, by some, like an immutable reality when it's only a matter of classification. Classifications change. The example of continents is relevant there and has been mentioned by geologists. At the very least it seems fair to give people time to complain and adjust to this.--T. Anthony 00:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what you are talking about. Insults? This is the first and only thread of discussions I am directing towards you directly. Apparently you messed me up with someone else. Either you calm yourself down or I am not going to waste anymore time on one that cannot recognize the names properly. -- G.S.K.Lee 08:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Pluto does not have to pass "through" Neptune's orbit to be influenced by it.DrCito 15:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Better point, let me think on that.--T. Anthony 00:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Earth]] article 

message: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v131/selfbiased/pluto.jpg
doktorb wordsdeeds 14:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was looking forward to seing what this was, but it appears the URL is bad. If it's not just me being a moron, can you repost? Stoneice02 07:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You needed to remove the spaces in the URL. Done. kwami 14:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some slight humour on the subject 

message: Seems like the sentence Of course, the IAU decision does not change Pluto's physical characteristics; Pluto has been small, distant, eccentric in orbit, and in close quarters with other spatial bodies throughout human history. is unnecessary for two reasons. One, do we really expect anyone to read the article and think to themselves, "Hmmm... so Pluto is no longer a -insert Pluto's physical attributes-"? IMHO, it would be like adding a statement in a country's entry that the birth of the country did not result in actual lines being drawn on the ground to signify the border. Second, this article is about the redefinition (although I agree it should be the definition since no original definition was ever formalized) of a planet... not so much about Pluto itself. Information on Pluto's history and physical characteristics, except to point out how they differ from the definition of a planet, should be left to Pluto's article. Hope that all made sense. Stoneice02 07:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the first sentence. Twas unnecessary indeed. Marskell 09:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unnecessary Sentence?

message: :Someone keeps changing sentence 3 from 
::All other objects [3] orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as Small Solar System Bodies
:to
::All other objects [3] except satellites orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as Small Solar System Bodies
:I've had to fix this a few times now, on various pages. Whoever it is, could they please not do this? "Except satellites" may make it appear to be more clear, but it's just confusing in the long run, not to mention the fact it's misrepresenting what the final definition was (see fn.31) Shimgray | talk | 08:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition as accepted by the GA does include the words "except satellites"  (Your link refers to the draft put to vote). The words were added as a clarification after a comment from the plenary during the voting session. --Scan 12:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, god, of course! I feel a right idiot now, I'd forgotten that drafting amendment and I was watching the damn thing... Shimgray | talk | 12:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is indeed true, as I said above.  No bother though. --Ross UK 20:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phrasing of final definition 

message: I'm really bad at this stuff, but is there any way the font on the images could be made a bit bigger? I find it really hard to make out a lot of the writing on the diagrams illustrating the different definitions. They're a great idea, but I can't read them. Nice work here otherwise. Skittle 09:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: "According to point (1) the eight classical planets discovered before 1900"
: Good point.  Can we get a visual timeline of when each planet was discovered?  Was Pluto much later than the rest?  — Omegatron 00:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Off the top of my head, five antiquity, Uranus 1780, minor planets 1800-1850 before downclassed, Neptune 1840, Pluto 1930. So, yes, Pluto was the only "modern" planet, where I'm making the sweeping definition of "modern astronomy started with photographs"... Shimgray | talk | 10:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I suspected. — Omegatron 13:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: As of this writing the intro is incredibly weak. Why is one of the planetary criteria given as if it's the only one, or the ascendant one? Why go on about difficulties with the vote and such? If this stuff merits being in the article at all, it should be in its own section near the end. Where is the summary of the original redefinition (the one that was eventually defeated) and the summary of the finally adopted one? Those, stated as briefly as possible, should be in the intro w/o doubt. JDG 06:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've modified the intro to add all the concpets of the new definition not just the clearing the neighborhood part. I also agree the voting issue is not essentail for the intro, if at all. DrCito 07:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed, it needs more work. --Ross UK 18:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really weak intro 

message: We need to watch developments here closely. Dr. Alan Stern doesn't seem to be fully versed in the new definition, and Earth clearly qualifies as a planet. His count of the number of near-Earth asteroids is already covered by the new definition. I'm not sure if this paragraph even belongs in the article. I'm also not sure how to say this in the article without it looking like it's taking sides. -- MiguelMunoz 07:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Stern was not there, he just sums up the votes cast wrt. resolution 6A (see in ) and assumes this is the number of people present who had the right to vote also earlier in the session. This is a pretty fishy interpretation anyway. The Austrian astronomer Guenther Wuchterl, who was present during the GA, for instance reports about only 30 votes cast in favour of 5B vs. 800 voting people in total . NASA, btw, has already declared to respect the decision , and ESO will for sure do the same (remember the incoming IAU president is the DG of ESO) --Scan 02:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, that part was not a mistake; they decided explicitly NOT to try to make a definition that would cover extrasolar planets, since it was being hard enough to get people to agree on how to use the word in our own star system. I agree with you about the phrasing of the definition in general, though. The worst part is the terribly ungrammatical "An IAU process will be established to assign borderline objects into either dwarf planet and other categories." DanielCristofani 02:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Final Draft 

message: Stuff about the supposed voting controversy should really be taken out of the introduction.  By the way, I don't see what the controversy is; if people don't attend the GA it is their own affair, but they should not whinge afterwards.  Likewise, if people who do attend the conference cannot be bothered to wait until it ends before leaving they can have no complaint.  As to the timing of the vote, this is how things always seem to be done: resolutions are determined upon on the final day, shortly before the closing ceremony.  So what is the problem?  Incidentally, I speak as someone who was disappointed by the result reached. --Ross UK 23:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, Stern knows precisely what it means, he was even the one defining the Λ-Paramater used by Soter to quantify the concept. Soter actually shows that, invoking this parameter the "planet" regime differs from the "dwarf planet" regime by about five orders of magnitude. Stern just chooses to ignore what he knows to be able to throw more PR-mud. --Scan 02:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I didn't realize Stern was being so scumbaggish.  I expect this kind of behavior in politics, not in science.  Would there be a way to include this in the article as a refutation under the criticism section?  It surely is relevant that Stern is accusing planets of not "clearing their zones" when he knows exactly what that actually means, and that they have actually cleared their zones.  --Cyde Weys 05:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Stern actually used the Λ parameter to distinguish between what he called “überplanets” and “unterplanets”.  By his own definition, Pluto was an unterplanet. Not much diff between "unterplanet" and "dwarfplanet"...Derek Balsam 17:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Not to justify his actions, but nowadays with funding for science dwindilling, politics is the way to get the atention of the funding agencies.. sad but true. DrCito 15:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That's gross hyperbole. Science disputes can be vicious but rarely as vicious as religious disputes. Political disputes, it's, well, disputable :) DanielCristofani 02:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering political disputes kill more people than anything except financial ones I think science disputes are low on the list. It's more in line with other academic disputes. Anyway here's something on the backlash--T. Anthony 16:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Nah, in a religious dispute they end up ignoring each other and in a political dispute they end up going to war, so it's much less vitriolic.  Scientists have to fight epic flamewars with each other in order to settle things precisely because they deal in knowledge instead of superstition or real power. Kensai Max 17:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote 'controversy'

message: Re-inserted text about a planets mass that was removed.
I think this is an important point as object may be round for other reasons.
Also changed the link to point at the IAU web page with the definition to act as verification of the definition. myork 12:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit to Planet definition 

message: If you're going to remove Pluto, you may as well add the Kuiper belt, since that image already includes the asteroid belt. Serendipodous 14:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Modified solar system image up top

message: Should we redirect Candidate planets here?
===Support===
*Yes. It's a miniscule article that really should be here. Serendipodous 12:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  mergefrom Candidate planet 

message: *Yes. It's a miniscule article that really should be here. Serendipodous 12:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: I oppose the merge. What was originally at "candidate_planet" probably should be merged with this article, but  we also have what I gather are a growing number of extrasolar candidate planets out there. -- KarlHallowell 03:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: Where do future candidates, particularly extrasolar planemos, fit in? "Candidate planets" without a date sounds pretty open-ended. Assuming that IAU eventually settles on a definition for extra-solar planets like the one presented here, then to demonstrate something is a planet, you need to have a good idea of the dynamics of that stellar system. That means IMHO that there will eventually be a growing list of objects (if the IAU came up with the definition today, they'd have one or two hundred candidates right away), that could be planets, but for which the observations necessary to satisfy the dynamics criteria haven't been completed. Long term, I think it would be a bad idea to have "Candidate Planets" redirect to the 2006 debate. If the year "2006" is appended to the subject, then that deals with my concern. -- KarlHallowell 23:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: 2006 redefinition of planet
Could there be somthing better for this article like.  The "IAU deffention of a planet" or somthing.  I'm getting tried of these articles about current events not having proper names.---Scott3 Talk Contributions  Count: 950+  01:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is so wrong with it, exactly? It is about the IAU's 2006 (re)definition. You could change it to that, if you'd like. Otherwise, I don't really see a problem with it. Explain, please? Disinclination 01:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better name? 

message: Lots of sources offer the criticism that only 424 votes were case on the resolution (out of about 8000 qualified voters).  But I haven't seen anything reporting the actual vote count on the final resolution.  How many yays and nays were there?  I think adding this could be important.  If the vote was close it would add weight to the argument of critics that the procedure was flawed, but if it was heavily in favor it would tend to detract from such criticisms.  Can this info be added? Jacob1207 22:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The rest of the 8000 voters didnt even turn up to vote... they forfeited their votes by doing so. -- Nbound 23:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the resolution was valid, but I feel you misrepresent those voters.  A flight to Prague is not always cheap and often trips to conferences come out of personal pocket.  Changing a plane ticket is also not a minor thing and they may not have realized that there was such a strong reason to stay until the end of the conference instead of bypassing the normal minor politics and motions.  --Aranae 03:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It was known for years before that that was when the resolution would be weighed up. -- Nbound 23:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will there be any consequences will this debate again at the next meeting or earlier? --134.147.63.42 02:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: There may likely be amendments... or the possibility of including the dwarves as fully fledged planets but i highly doubt it, wont rule it out but -- Nbound 02:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote Count?