Talk:Terrestrial planet

message: Judging by its low density (2.0g/cm3, Ceres should really be called an ice dwarf and not a terrestrial (dwarf) planet.
That density is much lower than that of the Moon, or Jupiter's inner large moons Io and Europa. If Ceres is a terrestrial (dwarf) planet, what about the Moon, Io and Europa??
luokehao
:This distinction is now in the article. :) Although the line between rocky and icy is not as clear as might be hoped. Eris is actually denser than Ganymede! Double sharp (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Ceres a terrestrial body? 

message: Is there a maximum size (allowing for density, composition etc) which a terrestial planet can be? If so what would happen as the limit is reached (assuming that this is smaller than that required to produce a black hole? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A terrestrial planet cannot be larger than about 10 Earth masses (or ≈2.2 Earth radii) according to current thinking. Above this limit (maybe earlier) it will attract enough hydrogen to turn into a gas giant planet. But that's still far below the size needed for a black hole, it's not even enough to form a star. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And according to newer research, likely the limit is about 2 Earth masses only in general. And then indeed a hydrogen envelope should form, although the result would be more ice giant (like Uranus and Neptune) than gas giant. Exception would be those planets so close to their stars that they cannot form this envelope. But Roentgenium111's point stands, of course. Double sharp (talk) 09:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Terrestial planet size

message: What exactly is the purpose of that? I replaced it with the exact same picture, minus the moon and ceres, with a much shorter caption where we dont have to explain that the moon and ceres are in fact not planets. The one minus those two is superior and less confusing. Cadiomals (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Others may agree with you, but I happen to think it's more interesting to have a couple of smaller bodies for contrast, and the caption is perfectly clear. Rothorpe (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's about what certain people deem to be interesting. One man's trash is another man's treasure. Images in Wikipedia are meant not just to be interesting but to educate and convey facts. Eliminating these two non-planetary bodies would eliminate the need for a long caption explaining that these bodies are in fact not considered planets. If you don't mind I would like to replace that picture with an alternate minus those two, as it is more crystal clear than any caption could be. Cadiomals (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the moon and Ceres are excellent examples of what small "terrestrial" planet-like-bodies look like, I think it is better with them included. -- Kheider (talk) 11:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

text: I tend to agree with Cadiomals; the lede image of the article should stick closely to the subject, and Moon and Ceres are no terrestrial planets, not being planets. I think I wouldn't even call Ceres a "terrestrial" object, since it has such a large proportion (~25%) of water ice. (Vesta is presumably more "terrestrial" than Ceres.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's likely that Ceres will turn out to be not very terrestrial, but it's a commonly given example.  Both it and Luna are "planets" according to Stern, though that's a small-minority position.  — kwami (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why have the Moon and Ceres in the lead picture? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Terrestrial planet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110309132609/http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/03/08/exclusive-most-earth-like-exoplanet-gets-major-demotion%e2%80%94it-isnt-habitable/ to http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/03/08/exclusive-most-earth-like-exoplanet-gets-major-demotion%e2%80%94it-isnt-habitable/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)