Talk:IAU definition of planet/Archive 1

message: I, just like everyone else read this new definition of a planet and had somewhat of a reaction against it becuase it wasn't what I wanted. I know we all have our varying opinions. And I said further up on this page and I am no IAU by any means. But, does anyone like my idea? (just for kicks):
(1) There is a problem with Pluto being a planet becuase scientists might like to call it simply a KBO. Just like Ceres was a planet for fourty years, and then an Asteroid. 
(2) The new definion proposes 12 planets now. And maybe as much as 53 later. Many peoplke don't like 12, much less 53. 
(3) My personal idea: Classifications: (partially adapted from Mike Brown's website, www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/ ) Let's have differnt names for the same thing:
(4) We see this pattern in our solar systems of "fours". Four terristrial planets, and asteriod belt; the largest four asteriods were once considered planets, four gas-giants, and our ever-growing Kuiper-Edgeworth belt family.
(5) My suggestion:   Let's have sixteen planets. 
How, You Might Ask?
Four terrestial planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars (all very similar in composition)
Four Asteroid-belt planets: Ceres, Juno, Pallas and Vesta (all very similar in composition)         
Four Gas-giants: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune (all very similar in composition)
Four Trans-Neptunian planets: UB313, Pluto, and whatever two come to be the next larest. (all very similar in compositon)
There, sixteen planets. A Nice, even number, not too many, but also not eight. 
      
For the asteriod belt and trans-Neptunian, just take the largest four and call them planets. It may not be likely that we'll discover KBO's bigger than UB313 and Pluto, since we haven't discovered them in all this time, (famous last words of course), call it the: Largest Four resultion, saying what ever four are the largest at the time, they will be called offical planets unless something larger is discovered, then bumping down the smallest one of the current largest four, and agree to do that
Why?
Becuase then classifications are the easiest, Pluto remains a planet, UB313 becomes a planet, and everybody wins, including teh nineteenth century astronomers who wanted to call the four largest Asteroids planets. 
What do people think of my idea???
Keep in mind I just wrote this out of wishful thinking and I'm not trying to rebuttle any proposition made that hasn't been voted on yet for the moment. In fact, I like the new proposition. I just wanted to share my idea. Omnibus Progression 23:53 PST 16 August 2006.
:Yours is too arbitrary. It also cuts out many objects that may be out there that are the size of or nearly the size of pluto. And how about other star systems? 24.76.102.248 08:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we all have our comments, questions, and complaints, but please keep in mind that the IAU is the official place where they name celestial bodies. If you don't like it (for any reason), just ignore it. Also, we are not all professional asteronmers (unless if you were an ameteur astronomer) so please don't be very cross. Alastor Moody (talk) 08:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the IAU will get such a heated reaction against their draft they'll be back to the drawing board before going home. They went wrong in one fundamental area: the implied minimum size of a body meriting the label "planet". They forgot the availability of words like "planetoid", "planetesimal", "planetule" and "planetkin". They are trying to dissociate a word from all its built-up definition and make it mean what they want. But as it is, in the end, just a matter of what people "want" for the word, they will be overuled in the court of private opinion. Yes-- private, as in individual astronomers... Here's my definition: "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, (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet, and (c) has a diameter of 3,500 kilometers or more." Yes, condition (c) is pretty much arbitary, but word-labels like "planet" are always arbitrary anyway. It's a word, not a datapoint. JDG 13:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to be arbitrary though once you pass (b), since we can still fall back on dynamics to further qualify matters.  So instead of a minimum size, a mass sufficient to make a significant mark on the dynamical evolution of the orbit of other objects.  Are the discussions at the IAU behind closed doors?  It would be interesting to know what they have dropped on the floor and why.  mdf 15:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I Just Want to Post My Subjective Idea

message: Since the IAU is now redefining the term "planet", I wonder if they may reclassify Jupiter as a sub-brown dwarf. Alastor Moody (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sub-brown dwarf

message: Clyde, with all due respect, please reclaim your head from the wave of anti-OR fanaticism sweeping Wikipedia and leave people's innocent and interesting Talk page contributions alone. I've been here far longer than you, and many's the time such Talk page discussion, however far afield it roamed, ended up helping the article by  deeply defining the real issues for the editors, who were then in a position not just to collect sourced material but to collect good sourced material... Plus, your harsh deletions could easily alienate new contributors, as perhaps Omnibus is. We want people to feel they are taken seriously, not summarily deleted. JDG 15:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will not choose sides in this confrontation, but I do wish to say the following: as a scientist closely concerned to the article's subject, I try to keep it as good and readable as possible. This also goes for talk pages. I will exert all of Wikipedia's options to prevent this article degrading over childish behaviour, if that should be impeding. Nick Mks 15:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You will notice that we are tussling over Talk page material, which is a whole `nother beast than the article itself. I don't know if user Omnibus would have a lot of solid, sourced material for the article, but what if he is getting his feet wet by participating in Talk? To summarily throw out his words is almost like saying "Get lost!". It just shouldn't be done... You say "...I try to keep it as good and readable as possible. This also goes for talk pages." I would take issue with that. Neither you nor Cyde, Admin or not, has the right to alienate good faith editors outside of article space.  JDG 15:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't get into what you intend by saying that I don't have the right to do things I didn't do, but everybody does have the right (and obligation) to follow WP:REFACTOR. Nick Mks 16:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are authorized to refactor under Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable, and none of the comments deleted by Cyde fall under the behavior described there. So if you're keen to make the same deletions Cyde did, you'll be just as in the wrong. JDG 16:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you assume that I'm keen to make the same deletions Cyde did, knowing that my first sentence was I will not choose sides in this confrontation? Nick Mks 16:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with JDG. I'm not a big fan of superfluous talk page comments like predictions and personal views, but many times these comments provide insight into alternative points-of-view or open a discussion about the clarity of something in the article. If a comment is outright out-of-place, say so POLITELY with an assumption of good faith. Summarily deleting a comment is rude and counterproductive to increasing the pool of contributors. --Elliskev 16:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop the Talk page deletions 

message: This redefinition is going to cause main to millions of schoolchildren everywhere as they have to learn tons of new planets in addition to the traditional nine.
*If there's too many small new planets to learn, then the children will be taught the primary 8 and only a few important smaller planets.  How many schoolchildren learn to name all the moons in the solar system? User:mustang6172
This also reminds me of when they wanted to redefine Great Lake to include Lake Champlaign (a mere fraction the size of Lake Erie) so the people of New Hampshire could get Federal funding for whatever they wanted. 172.137.205.222 01:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Xena is applying for federal funding? 24.76.102.248 08:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well maybe it could be frusterating to schoolchildren, but the IAU is the official place where they name celestial bodies. When they decide something and say yes to whatever they're thinking, its official and we must accept it. And also believe it or not, I'm a middle-school student and I don't care about the "pain" cause I know a lot of other kupier-belt, Oort cloud, asteriods, and extrasolar planets objects, but I'm no astronomer or a Super-genius. Alastor Moody (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Un-necessary pain 

message: There are 9 planets damn it
Soon there could be over 50 if this definition goes though.  Althought I hope this one doesn't becuase it will needlessly inflate teh number as most astronmers think that there are more objects taht are the size of 2003 UB 313 or bigger. Æon Insane Ward 05:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you can't say that minors should know about minor planets cause Wikipedia dosen't say anything about age. The IAU name celestial bodies and why is it so maddening all over just because of the redefinition of the term "planet(s)"? Actually, I a kid myself and know many kupier-belt objects and asteriods. Alastor Moody (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is so stupid