Talk:Small Solar System body

message: The idea is a good one, get rid of the confusing concept of 'Minor Planet' for floating rocks.  But the name is a bit long-winded, nine sylables.  Some shortening needed.
--GwydionM 19:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, a reasonable idea! So it will never be taken! Now, the SSSB:s include (of course) CCBO:s (carbon chemistry based organisms) on the SBRP (silicon based rock planet) Earth (RTH), which of course includes SSD:s (solar system dynamicists), and they will never accept any idea that follows the rules of English, or makes any sense. Said: Rursus ☻ 10:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Smassbos?

message: * Small Solar System body - because many people capitalize Solar System. 132.205.93.19 02:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. Should remain Wikipedia standard. But i could probably be convinced after a quick google search. Maybe this item should be discussed more fully? --Exodio 02:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think confusion - he meant redirect from SSSb, not redirect Sssb to SSSb; not changing the capitalisation, just adding a caps redirect (because there's a lot of variations)... Shimgray | talk | 08:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The actual spelling used in the resolution text was "Small Solar-System Bodies".  Whether there is any technical relevance to either the capitalization or the hyphen I do not know. RandomCritic 08:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect required

message: I wonder what term should be used for extrasolar equivalents to this class... Does anyone know of a term preferred by the IAU? 132.205.93.19 02:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suppose that it would be just the same in another solar system.  it is also likely to be decades before we can spot even Dwarf Planets in other solar systems.  --GwydionM 17:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We've actaully already spotted one a few years ago. PSR B1257+12 has an object (D) around it that is less than 1000km across, projected size. Perhaps it's a minor planet, dwarf planet or (major) planet. It is not known to have not cleared its neighborhood, in the upper mass range, it certainly could be rounded... If it's not round (which would mean it falls into the lower portion of its estimated mass range) it would be an extrasolar small solar system body -equivalent. There do not seem to be indications that there is anything else in its orbital zone... so it would be a major planet if its in its upper estimated mass range. But it's so small at the upper limit of that range, that it's many times smaller than Pluto ... 132.205.45.148 22:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  D remains unconfirmed, and is likely located in a some sort of asteroid belt according to its discoverer. If we generalize the definition to cover extrasolar planets, planet D may indeed be an extrasolar dwarf planet and the planet A, which is less massive than Moon, would become the smallest known planet (unless it is located in an undetected asteroid belt).--JyriL talk 15:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Extrasolar bodies

message: If the formatting of and assertion made in the opening words of the article ("A Small Solar System Body (SSSB) is a term defined in 2006 by the [IAU]...") are correct, should the article's name be Small Solar System Body (i.e. "body" also capitaliz/sed)...?  Unsure, David Kernow (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but see the discussion about "Redirect" above. Tom Peters 15:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Small Solar System body" is not a proper noun and thus, except for "Solar System", should not be capitalized. It is very common, when introducing a term that has an acronym together with its acronym, to capitalize the letters that are in the acronym, just to show how the acronym was derived from the term (e.g., Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)). In fact, this is entirely unnecessary, because usually the origin of the acronym is quite obvious. Doing so is also dangerous in Wikipedia (and elsewhere), because many people do not understand the concept of a proper noun and will believe if they see a term capitalized once that it should always be in title case. Unless the IAU has formally stated that "Small Solar System Bodies" should always be printed in title case and given some sort of explanation as to why this practice should be followed, it must be assumed that the use of title case in the quoted definition is related to the existence of the acronym "SSSB". Notice that in the quoted passage they also incorrectly used title case for trans-Neptunian object. WolfmanSF (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why must it "be assumed that the use of title case in the quoted definition is related to the existence of the acronym "SSSB""? Why assume anything? --JorisvS (talk) 09:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Because use of title case for common noun terms that have acronyms is common, and as far as I am aware, the IAU made no attempt to explain or justify their use of title case in a situation where it is formally incorrect. Lots of people are sloppy in their use of title vs. sentence case. I don't think Wikipedia needs to track down the reason for every deviation from the norm, or to perpetuate mistakes that are made. WolfmanSF (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, no good reason to capitalise 'body'. Rothorpe (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: is it possible to add links to all small solar system body pages?
JPL has a databse of these objects, accessible at small-body database browser which takes paramaters, ie. http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=xxxx where xxxx is the number of the minor planet etc. i don't know what the status of the data is, but it ought to be feasible to automatically add a link in the shared templatye's footer? it would require translating underscore characters to spaces before putting the page name in as the paramater or extracting the minor planet number and using that alone. 
m3tainfo 19:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footer 

message: The article title and body starts:
Noting that:
 
*The note is confusing because common nouns are never capitalized in sentence case, and because what "this instance" means is unclear, and for other reasons I won't get into here.
*MOS:CAPS#Celestial bodies want's to capitalize our Solar System, like the IAU does, when talking about Pluto, but the MOS also says "Solar System... not capitalized.. when used in a general sense", and it says "In the case of compounds with generic terms such as comet and galaxy (but not star or planet), follow the International Astronomical Union's (IAU's) recommended style and include the generic as part of the name and capitalize it." (The categorization of the MOS "comet and galaxy (but not star or planet)" is another confusing issue I won't bring up here.)  "Generic" and "general" just don't apply to 'Pluto as one of our Solar System's small Solar System body's'.
*The MOS:CAPS#Celestial bodies says WP:SOURCES that are WP:INDEPENDENT dictate what is a proper name and that: 'most capitalization is for proper names or for acronyms and initialisms. Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia but that otherwise Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. "Small Solar System body" is entirely unnecessary in my opinion.
*So what if the WP IAU policy seems (wrongly) to decide that "There are three new terms adopted as official definitions by the IAU. The terms are: planet, dwarf planet and small Solar System body" in their article about Pluto.  The IAU was not acting WP:INDEPENDENTly in this terminology, but specifically about the why and how of "Pluto is not a planet" (there's other objects bigger than Pluto.) (I stretch the truth for our sake.) We need more input about the capitalization from scholars and professors and researchers, and Google search "small+solar+system+body"+journal shows other WP:INDEPENDENTs using the term 'small solar system bodies'.  Since Pluto is of our Solar System, the term 'solar system' was capitalized, but not in [other IAU publications: the IAU uses the term small solar system body five times saying for instance
:Q: What new terms are used in the official IAU definition?
:A: There are three new terms adopted as official definitions by the IAU. The terms are: “planet”, “dwarf planet”, and “small solar system body.”  Sources including the IAU are using the term 'small solar systm body'. Minor planet said to use the term "small Solar System body" citing the IAU Resolution 5A, but there are two things wrong with that: (1)the term used there is "small Solar-System body" with a dash, and (2) the General Assembly was called concerning Pluto:
*Now, per Astronomy: "Astronomy is a natural science... the formation and development of the universe." and in its Use of terms section the terms "astronomy" and "astrophysics" are said to be practically almost merged.  Well, physics describes universal laws, general laws, and generic terms should be used in Astronomy. Physically, "there are solar systems in our Milky Way that have comets and small solar system bodies like dwarf planets such as our Pluto."
— CpiralCpiral 00:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point is that other solar systems must have SSSBs so we should use lower case, small solar system bodies? Rothorpe (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. And next I'll link at those three or four other discussions, to here, where I finally landed. — CpiralCpiral 02:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

text: The term  "small Solar System body" is defined in the article as referring to bodies within our own Solar System, so MOS:CAPS stipulates that "Solar System" be treated as a proper noun. If an article about the equivalent bodies of other planetary systems is ever written, we can worry about the appropriate terminology/typography then. Note that "small Solar System body" is not an example of "compounds with generic terms", it is a generic term. WolfmanSF (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the article, indeed it is all about the Solar System, and not about any other solar system.  I stand corrected. — CpiralCpiral 02:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universal commons 

message: I'm having some trouble understanding this sentence: "This encompasses all comets and all minor planets other than those that are dwarf planets, i.e. the classical asteroids with the exception of Ceres, the trojans, and the centaurs and the trans-Neptunian objects with the exception of Pluto, Haumea, Makemake and Eris and others that will turn out to be dwarf planets."
I'm not exactly sure how to correct it and maintain the proper science, though. It would be awesome if someone could make this a little more clear! Thanks! Sir Ian (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Which part don't you understand? Do you understand "This encompasses all comets and all minor planets other than those that are dwarf planets."? Do you understand "The classical asteroids with the exception of Ceres, the trojans, and the centaurs and the trans-Neptunian objects with the exception of Pluto, Haumea, Makemake and Eris and others that will turn out to be dwarf planets."?--JorisvS (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, there ought to be a break after Ceres. I suggest "i.e. the classical asteroids with the exception of Ceres; and the trojans, centaurs and trans-Neptunian objects with the exceptions of Pluto, Haumea, Makemake and Eris and others that will turn out to be dwarf planets" would be an improvement. Rothorpe (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That breaks the logic in the wrong place. Logically, it is supposed to be "[the classical asteroids with the exception of Ceres], [the trojans], [(the centaurs+TNOs) with the exception of ... and those that will turn out DPs]". Hence, the ";" in your suggestion breaks the logic of the sentence, unless you can point to trojans that are DP candidates. --JorisvS (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Another semicolon, then: "the classical asteroids with the exception of Ceres; the trojans; and centaurs and trans-Neptunian objects with the exceptions of Pluto, Haumea, Makemake and Eris and others that will turn out to be dwarf planets". Rothorpe (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That could work. Incidentally, do the ";"s in the sentence look weird for the casual reader, or is it just me thinking that? I'm fine with using them, because it makes the logic clear; I'd just like to avoid readers coming here complaining or asking about the ";"s.--JorisvS (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the change. We'll see... Rothorpe (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar questions...?

message: The diagram needs updating to reflect that Dwarf Planets are not SSSBs 109.170.181.75 (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Euler Diagram