Talk:Planet/Archive 3

message: Yahoo news just ran the following story that mentioned the Pluto controversy in regards to truthiness.  I thought it was interesting, perhaps ironic.  Of course it really doesn't change our discussion, but it humored me anyway.  — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pluto Randomness 

message: How do Trojan Asteroids orbiting at the Lagrange-4 and Lagrange-5 points of a planet's orbit around the sun square with the definition of a planet that says that the planet has cleared its orbit? Banaticus 05:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The small body is not in the planet's orbit. An orbit, in the pure sense is a simple 2 body ellipse, and this is what the planet must dominate and "clear". The small body at the lagrange L4 is not orbiting in that strict sense. Its path is different to the planet's, and there are two bodies acting on it. I know about this 09:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Clearing its orbit"

message: It seems to me that the Definition section could be cleaned up to clarify when it's referring to the four-point definition in the intro of the article, and when it's referring to the three-point definition in the Definition section.  It tags the 'clearing the neighborhood' point as item (c), which it is in Definition though it's (d) in the intro.  There seems to be a transition in this section at 'This resolution adds to a proposal...' where it's going to insert the fusion point, but it once again references 'clearing the neighborhood/orbit' as point (c), even though the intro inserts fusion at point (c).
--Don Branson 12:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Three-point versus four-point definition?

message: If you can find another officially sanctioned definition, then fine. But don't just invent one off the top of your head. You're unlikely to come up with a definition that deals with all ambiguities anyway. Serendipodous 12:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Guys, coming up with your own definition is original research

message: It is secondhand research, which is encyclopedic. Controversies stemming from religions have been handled quite well, so why not controversies between scientists and the general public?  —  Rickyrab | Talk 22:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're going to give something as a second hand research it needs referencing. Besides, you're acting like the general public is in widespread opposition against the IAU, which is plainly not the case besides a few jokes by Stephen Colbert.192.17.229.43 00:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Guys, coming up with your own definition on the basis of official and widely known unofficial definitions is NOT original research 

message: The overlap between them is growing by the day. It may be time to reconsider merging them. Serendipodous 17:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree I think that the planet article should be more about the nature/cultural impact of the planets rather than a terminology dispute. The basics should be covered here but another article is needed to cover the full controversy.70.225.161.247 04:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I think this article and "[[Definition of planet]]" are gradually becoming the same article

message: This term does not mean what you think it means.  Insofar as it is used at all, it refers to any of a number of icy bodies in trans-Neptunian space; it does not refer to a class of "dwarf planet".  That is, it is a popular synonym for TNO.  No term has yet been settled on for the class of "Pluto-like" object (in fact, none has been suggested since "Pluton" and "Plutonian object" were rejected).
Neither the term "ice dwarf" nor "Plutonian object" belong in this article.  
RandomCritic 13:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, "TNO" is a locational term, whereas "ice dwarf" is a compositional one. It's like the difference between "terrestrial planets" and "inner planets" - although the list may be the same they are *not* synonyms. Besides, I believe there are various rocky bodies out beyond Neptune that would not qualify as ice dwarfs. You are correct that there are "ice dwarfs" that are not dwarf planets, and I will modify the page accordingly. However, the term belongs in this article as much as "gas giant" (which also is not defined by the IAU).The Enlightened 23:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Ice dwarf]]

message: I haven't followed closely enough this dispute over the "separate definitions" and "merged definition" to have much of an opinion about it, but I do object to mass reverts which delete contributions that other editors have made that have nothing to do with it.  At the very least the reverter should have the courtesy to make sure that only the parts of the article he intends to revert are affected. RandomCritic 21:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm sorry. I had intended to go back and change those bits but forgot. I apologise. 192.17.229.43 21:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Objection

message: Correct me if I'm wrong, but if they're not orbiting a star then they do not satisfy the first criterion.  Or is this supposed to mean the planemos are orbiting star clusters (and therefore orbiting many stars)?  If so, it's worded badly.  Either way, it's far too technical for an introductory paragraph. I'm removing it. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 22:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to have been a very badly worded addition. I'll try to add the same information under criterion 1.The Enlightened 23:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free-floating planemos 

message: From []
"Pluto has an envelope of gas that surrounds it that grows as it approaches the sun and shrinks as it moves farther away, just as a comet's coma does. This is what is referred to as its "atmosphere."
From []
"Pluto's atmosphere... is extremely tenuous, the surface pressure being only a few microbars. Pluto's atmosphere may exist as a gas only when Pluto is near its perihelion; for the majority of Pluto's long year, the atmospheric gases are frozen into ice."
Seeing that for the majority of its year it is in solid form, and the same applies to comets, I think this qualifies as "no atmosphere" for table purposes.192.17.228.233 23:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please reference your claims and sign your comments. "I disagree" written anonymously isn't enough I'm afraid. 192.17.228.233 02:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pluto's atmosphere 

message: Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 00:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there was a GA dispute open on this page anyway :/. Homestarmy 13:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

message: As per the GA review opened on this article, it has been delisted, for a combination of organizational issues, and because two sections have no references at all, namely, the history and the attributes of planets sections are pretty much not referenced. Review archived at Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 6. Homestarmy 13:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delisted GA Review

message: I've just reworked the history section to make it flow a little better. I actually think we've all done a really great job on this page, even it got delisted as a good article. Let's see if we can improve the references and do anything else that is needed to get it back on the list. The Enlightened 01:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How's it looking?

message: From the American Heritage Dictionary:
solar system
n. 
:1) (often Solar System) The sun together with the nine planets and all other celestial bodies that orbit the sun. 
:2) A system of planets or other bodies orbiting another star. 
Thus using the term "The Solar System" is unclear when we are also discussing other solar systems also. 144.32.196.4 20:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure whats the correct term, but can the people that believe we should only use "solar system" to refer to the one we're in please argue their case here? The Enlightened 01:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Solar" is an adjective used to refer to the Sun.  It is based on the Latin name for the Sun, "Sol".  Both "Sol" and "Sun" are names for the star which Earth revolves around.  Other systems of stars and planets would be called after the name of the star; the "Barnard system", the "Alpha Centauri system", etc. (not to say there are necessarily planets around those stars). Generically, it is called a planetary system.  The term extrasolar planet makes it clear that it is not Solar. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 13:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'm convinced. What's the generic name for a set of objects that orbit a star then? "Stellar system" and "star system" both refer to a set of stars in a cluster. The Enlightened 13:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Planetary system (which I always thought referred to a planet and its satellites, but apparently it does not). └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 13:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, that isn't true. "Planetary system" only applies to the substellar material in orbit around a star, not to the star and the planetary system together. There is, as yet, no agreed generic term for what we call a "solar system." Serendipodous 10:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Solar system"

message: I have a question. Do you know what causes planets to rotate?
:This page is for discussing improvements to the wikipedia article, not for homework questions. You'd be best off searching on google for "planet rotation" or something similar. Thanks. The Enlightened 13:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy tiger. He has a point. Should we mention it? Serendipodous 14:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely worth mentioning somewhere - if it's too specific for this article, it could certainly go in Planet or another similar article. (That way, we can suggest that people search Wikipedia for the answer...) --Ckatzchatspy 18:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, this is Planet. Serendipodous 18:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm... just testing to see if you're paying attention? Oh good, you are, you pass, hooray, way to go, sheepish grin, thanks for catching that... thought I was at Solar System! --Ckatzchatspy 22:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  planet rotation 

message: Can we have a joint effort to go through the article and place references in? I'm going to try and do this over the next few days but help would be much appreciated! The Enlightened 03:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I believe it should be stated in the article more forcefully that non creationist are highly speculative and do not have a very good track record.  I cite the following in support: “... most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.” Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr who was proposing a new planetary formation model, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605.   I also cite the following: “We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186.   136.183.154.15 02:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nice. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 02:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a scientific article. It deals with the scientific models. Creationism is not scientific, ergo, it doesn't belong in this article. If you wish to drag this argument out further by demanding a definition of "scientific," I'd suggest you look it up first. Serendipodous 03:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would remind Serendipodous that 5% of American scientist are creationist.  Although creationism is a minority view a number of respected scientist adhere to it. 136.183.154.15 03:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Creationism invokes the miraculous. Miracles, by definition, cannot be measured, quantified or analysed. The world could very well have been created ten thousand years ago (or, for that matter, ten seconds ago) by a miraculous act, and anyone, including a scientist, is free to believe that if he or she wishes,  but there is absolutely no way anyone could possibly prove or disprove it. Since miracles can do anything, they can explain any evidence at all, positive or negative. Science goes where the evidence leads, and the evidence, so far, has led science in the direction outlined in this article. Since this is, as I said above, a scientific article, it describes the scientifically derived theory for planetary formation. Discussion of non-scientific ideas belongs in articles on philosophy or theology, not science. Serendipodous 03:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ignore the troll, Serendipodous. This will go nowhere. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Joseph, I would appreciate it if you could be more polite.  Expressing a minority view is not trolling. Plus I believe the quote by Scott Tremaine demonstrates that past planet formation models by non creationist have a very poor track record. 136.183.154.15 03:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scientific models may be speculative, but they are still scientific, based on the observed physical evidence. That they may be speculative is no reason to place them on par with non-scientific concepts. Serendipodous 03:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non Creationist planet formation models are highly speculative 

message: Frankly, this is simply wrong: You'd have to add at least 5 Astraea to the list as well, and it would be very difficult to say for certain where you should stop adding asteroids. Adam Cuerden talk 00:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stating that the information listed is "simply wrong" without sources is quite the assertion. In First Steps to Astronomy and Geography (1828) by Hatchard & Son the first four asteroids are clearly listed as planets. Astronomers were aware these objects were somewhat different than the standard planets but still listed them as such. However, when more started turning up again in the 1840s (including Astraea) none of the new objects were fully listed as such. In the Berliner Astronomisches Jahrbuch of 1854 the asteroids Astraea through Eunomia were listed separately to the pre-1810 planets. It wasn't til 1867 that Ceres through Vesta were listed separately. The rest of the asteroids were not accepted any more than Eris was. i.e. Their status was left on hold while the definition of terms were cleared up. The Enlightened 21:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical Planet Table

message: (Seems kind of weird for the article not to mention Bode or Planetary spacing.)
There are no good, generally accepted explanations for the spacing of the planets in the solar system.
The Titius-Bode law (0.4 + 0.3 * 2(n-2) AU) works amazingly well, up through Neptune.  It is empirical, an exercise in trying to come up with a simple formula dating back to about 1750, without much of a theoretical basis.
If the goal is a rough mental model of the planet spacing, there are two sets of planets:
 The Inner Planets
 Mercury Venus Earth Mars
 0.4  0.7  1.0  1.5
   
 The Outer Planets
 Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptune (Pluto)
 5  10  19  30  39
Each set is spaced quite evenly.  The inner planets are spaced at about 0.3 astronomical units.  The outer planets are spaced at about 10 AU.  The key mental concept is that the four inner planets are closely spaced, and the outer planets are spaced about 30 times farther apart.
Planet 	Titius-Bodeprediction	Realdistance	Simplementalmodel
Mercury	0.4                  	0.39        	0.4
Venus  	0.7                  	0.72        	0.7
Earth  	1.0                  	1.00        	1.0
Mars   	1.6                  	1.52        	(1.3)
(Ceres)	2.8                  	2.77        	asteroids
Jupiter	5.2                  	5.20        	(--)
Saturn 	10.0                 	9.54        	10
Uranus 	19.6                 	19.2        	20
Neptune	(38.8)               	30.06       	30
(Pluto)	(77.2)               	39.44       	40
:::The Titus-Bode law is not really respected in astrophysics. There is no explanational basis for it, and very little evidence that it works. The success of a scientific model is dependent on its predictions beyond what is already known - where the titus-bode "law" falls down. Any half-competent mathematician could come up for a formula that fits a set of eight known numbers. It's not worthy of inclusion in this article. The Enlightened 00:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are three problems with Bode's Law. First, there's no scientific theory which explains it, second, it doesn't work for either Neptune or Eris, and third, there's no evidence that any analogous law applies to other systems. Serendipodous 09:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Planetary spacing

message: * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titius-Bode_law
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet
* Bode's law - with some modifications for the outer planets
* The Original Solar System - Theory that the solar system had many more planets
---
What is the best simple mental model of the planet sizes?
Mercury, Venus and Mars are "a little smaller" than Earth (0.4 to .95 diameter).  Jupiter and Saturn are "about ten times" (11 and 9 times dia).  Uranus and Neptune are 4 times bigger.  Pluto is one-fifth dia.  (The difference in masses is greater than the difference in diameters.)  The Sun is 100 times the dia of Earth.  The distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 100 times the dia of the Sun.  The solar system is almost all empty space -- the sun is small compared to the distances between, and everything else is extremely small.--69.87.199.195 14:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are three problems with Bode's Law. First, there's no scientific theory which explains it, second, it doesn't work for either Neptune or Eris, and third, there's no evidence that any analogous law applies to other systems. Serendipodous 09:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Resources 

message: This article seems to have gone into hibernation but it (and a number of other solar system articles) have been rotting in limbo for months. This is an important topic and needs to be addressed. So I thought I might bang some heads together and ask, what needs to be done? Serendipodous 14:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this is indeed an important topic, and it could use some improvement. As to what, exactly, needs to be done... I think we should proofread this and correct all the grammatical and/or spelling errors we find, especcially ones that confuse and distract. Also, I think it might be a good idea to add some more information about the individual planets. And perhaps we should change the main title to "planets" instead of "planet"? Because it seems to me that this article refers more to multiple planets and to the definition of a planet rather than to one single planet. Any thoughts? Vsst 05:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What needs to be done to get this article up to spec?

message: I have rearranged and rewritten the second paragraph in this article, and moved and edited a sentance from the first paragraph 
to the second. The second paragraph was confusing; although you could interpret what it meant. My rewrite is, I think, an improvement, but it is nowhere near perfect, obviously. I think this article could do with some more information and explaination about the topic covered in the second paragraph. Vsst 03:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I don't get your edit. The 2006 definition doesn't actually do anything about the 200 extrasolar planets. It only applies to our solar system. I'm reverting it. Serendipodous 06:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I just reread my original edit and the current version of the paragraph. I agree with you, the 2006 only applies to our solar system. The current version is much better. Vsst 02:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit 

message: A while back, an Indian wrote a comment on how the planets are named in India. I asked for a citation and today got this: . Now I don't know the first thing about Indian astronomy, but that doesn't look like a historical description; it looks more like the ideas of one astrologer. What do you think? Serendipodous 16:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about the validity; however, in the interim, I have updated the text with internal links (and removed the external link in the process.) --Ckatzchatspy 17:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: your tweaks - better. Thanks. --Ckatzchatspy 18:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the thanks :). My problem with this, and it's one I've had for a long time, is that India is a multilingual and multicultural society and I'm not entirely sure that the Vedic traditions hold even for the majority of Indians. I've tried to get a straight answer out of some of the Indian contributors to this forum on this issue but it's just too complex. Serendipodous 18:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Indian planets

message: I've removed the paragraph regarding the disproven/disputed planet HD 188753Ab.  While a discussion of the claim and subsequent debunking of that planet is interesting, it hardly deserves its own paragraph (or even sentence) in the "planet" article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Enfolder (talk • contribs) 01:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a good edit.  Gnixon 03:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HD 188753 Ab has been shown to not exist (see wiki entry) 

message: I've added a small para on planetary interiors, but it needs a more informed description of the mechanism behind rotating magnetic fields, and why some planets have them, and some don't. Serendipodous 20:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Planetary interiors

message: I just noticed a tag on Wandering star suggesting that it be merged with the Planets#Etymology section.--mikeu 11:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't seem particularly relevant to the planet article; I don't see where the allusions could be worked in, for example. That article badly needs some citations and a little more meat on its skeleton, but no I don't think it should be merged with this one. Naked eye planet would be a far better fit. Serendipodous 11:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wandering star]] merge 

message: Regarding the last two paragraphs in the opening section, I believe there is a tendency in wikipedia to sort things in a chronological fashion. I think this is a tempting, but lazy, way to organise information, especially in an article introduction. We should mainly be focusing on what the current status of things is; disagreements and controversies should be listed last. Thus we should first describe how a planet is currently defined and then follow it up with the fact that this view is contested, not list the introduction as a narrative. The Enlightened 20:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Openening section (again) 

message: oc:Planeta . Thank you very much, [[:oc:Utilizaire:Joao Xavier|João Xavier
I'm afraid we cannot do so since we would then be compelled to add links to the planet articles in all the different wikipedias, which would take up a considerable amount of space. Also, I don't really see why we would link to the oc:PLaneta page, as anyone interested in it could find it simply by doing a search in the Occitan wikipedia. Vsst 02:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added.  Vsst, it is absolutely important to include links to the same article in other language wikipedias when possible.  Click edit and have a look on the bottom of article; the links are what inform the link in the "in other languages" box and don't take up a "considerable amount of space." siafu 02:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please add the link to the Occitan Wikipedia

message: The following paper appears as though it will present some interesting insights regarding the relation between metallicity and planet formation:
: 
Here's a related news release:
: 
— RJH (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metallicity issue 

message: I'm a little confused by the part that says "Today, most people in the western world know the planets by names derived from the Greek pantheon of gods." This is followed by "they are known by their Roman (or Latin) names, rather than the Greek." How does is this different from saying (more concisely) "Today, most people in the western world know the planets by names derived from the Roman pantheon of gods." Perhaps those first two sentences could be replaced with:
Today, most people in the western world know the planets by names derived from the Roman pantheon of gods, rather than by their Greek counterparts, because of the influence of the Roman Empire and, later, the Catholic Church.
Thoughts? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main issue is to distinguish between the Greek names for the planets, such as Phainon and Stilbon, and the Greek gods' names, such as Kronos and Ares, which are the ones we now use, though in Roman guise. Perhaps changing "Greek" to "Olympian" would be a good idea. Serendipodous 14:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks. I like your changes. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Regarding the recent "discussion" about whether those planets are in increasing order of their distance from the Sun or Earth, objectively they are most definitely in increasing order of their distance from the Sun. If you want to present it in a Heliocentric framework, the order of the planets should also be changed to Venus, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn. (Actually, I'm not sure about Mars and Mercury as they're both very close in their average distance from the Earth. Using the Bode's law shortcut of 4, 7, 10, 16, 28, etc., you'll see that Earth (10) is equidistant from Mercury (4) and Mars (16).) So, either it needs to be changed back to/left as "Sun" or the order needs to be changed (and someone needs to figure out the correct order). Alternatively, it could be worded to mention that it's in order of their period of "orbit", but then you have to calculate the synodic period from the Earth. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 12:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the text "Earth" as both the reference (#11) and the article geocentric model appear to outline that order. (While your points about the actual relative distances are valid, keep in mind that the text is referring to what they believed way back then.) Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 17:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read the source and found what you're talking about. The order they provide (although they do it in reverse order) is: Venus, Mercury, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn. I'll update the page accordingly. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Specifically:For the Stella (Star) that is called Saturnus’, the Greek name for which is Phaenon (the shiner), which is the farthest away from the earth, completes its orbit in about thirty years, in the course of which is passes through a number of remarkable phases, at one time accelerating and at another time retarding its velocity, now disappearing in the evening, then reappearing in the morning, yet without varying in the least degree throughout all the ages of eternity, but always doing the same things at the same times.Below this and nearer to the earth moves the Stella of Jupiter, called Phaethon (the blazing), which completes the same circuit of the twelve signs of the zodiac in twelve years, and makes the same variations during its course as the star of Saturnus.The orbit next below is that of Pyroeis (the fiery), which is called the Stella of Mars, and this covers the same orbit as the two planets above it in twenty-four months all but (I think) six days.Below this in turn is the Stella of Mercurius, called by the Greeks Stilbon (the gleaming), which completes the circuit of the zodiac in about the period of a year, and is never distant from the sun more than the space of a single sign, though it sometimes precedes the sun and sometimes follows it.Lowest of the five Stellae and nearest to the earth is the star of Venus, called in Greek Phosphoros (the light-bringer) and in Latin Lucifer when it precedes the sun, but when it follows it Hesperos; this planet completes its orbit in a year, traversing the zodiac with a zigzag movement as do the Stellae above it, and never distant more than the space of two signs from the sun, though sometimes in front of it and sometimes behind it.Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting - I missed that part, and left the order intact based on this drawing: :Image:Ptolemaicsystem-small.png (It conflicts with the text information as it has Mercury closest to Earth.) Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 17:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no set order to the cis-Solar planets (the inferior planets, as they were called) in Graeco-Roman cosmology. Some put Mercury first, some put Venus first. If I remember rightly, Ptolemy put Mercury first. Since both conceptions were wrong, it ultimately didn't matter much. Serendipodous 18:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict)I saw that - Plato (4th century BC) used Venus-Mercury-etc. while Ptolemy (2nd century AD) changed it to Mercury-Venus-etc. I've restored that version, since the text explicitly mentions Ptolemy. --Ckatzchatspy 18:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look again at that Ptolemaic figure. Those are in order based on their distance from the Sun. (The object with flames licking out of it that surrounds the Earth.) That makes sense if you consider the epicycle model. The Sun orbits the Earth with the other objects orbiting the Sun (sort of). Well, maybe not, I don't really know, as that puts the Moon going around the Sun, too. Still, I don't know that you can draw the conclusion you're drawing from that figure. I think Ptolemy was smarter than that. If you insist on keeping that order and them going around Earth, please consider adding something like "(according to Ptolemy)" so that naïve readers don't think this is the actual order of planets in their distance from Earth. If there are any experts in ancient astronomy, I'd sure appreciate hearing from them about what Ptolemy did and did not believe! Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmph. After a little more research, I take it back. Maybe Ptolemy wasn't so smart. :P Still, I'd like to request the phrase "(according to Ptolemy" to make it clear that this is not the proper order of planets in their distance from the Earth. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but there was no "proper" order of the planets in the geocentric model. Since the universe is not geocentric, it doesn't really matter which order one used, it would still be wrong. If there ever was such a thing as the "official" description of the geocentric universe, it would be Ptolemy, since he superceded and supplanted all earlier thinkers on the subject. Most of the material we have about cosmologists earlier than Ptolemy comes from Ptolemy, since after Ptolemy no one saw fit to refer to them again. Serendipodous 19:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mathematically, a geocentric model of the solar system (or universe) can be constructed just as rigorously as a heliocentric model. It's just more complicated, doesn't explain the "how", and therefore fails Occam's Razor. My point is that as the sentence reads - "in increasing order from Earth" - there is a correct order. Venus is most definitely closer (on average, and for an overwhelming fraction of the time) to the Earth than Mercury. That said, Ptolemy evidently wasn't aware of this (although it appears that astronomers of prior generations were). In case you haven't figured it out already, it's hard for me to drop an argument - I hope you're not at all annoyed by that. :) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one was aware of that. While it is possible to discern with the naked eye when Venus and Mercury are in conjunction, because Venus is so bright, it is impossible to tell which is in front of which. Indeed, I'm not entirely sure it's possible to tell where any planet is in relation to the others (though the Sun and the Moon are fairly easy). I think the superior planets were simply ordered according to their orbital periods. The fact that this was the correct order was, if I remember correctly, coincidental. Serendipodous 19:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you order based on synodic period alone (the geocentric way), you would get the order Mercury (115.8 d), Saturn (378.1 d), Jupiter (398.9 d), Venus (583.9 d), and, finally Mars (780.0 d). Note that the superior planets are in exactly reverse order that way. If you separate inferior from superior (by putting inferior first) and order them in the reverse synodic period order (which would be appropriate, if you understand the synodic calculation, which they arguably might not have), you get Venus, Mercury, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. :D Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 22:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's times like this that I wish the Almagest was available in online translation. In truth I don't know why it isn't; it's been translated into English for at least a century, surely some editions are in the public domain by now. Serendipodous 06:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, no such luck. I tried Project Gutenberg, and then just Google. What I did find was this:Stevenson, Edward Luther. Trans. and ed. 1932. Claudius Ptolemy: The Geography. New York Public Library. Reprint: Dover, 1991. (This is the only complete English translation of Ptolemy's most famous work. Unfortunately, it is marred by numerous mistakes and the placenames are given in Latinised forms, rather than in the original Greek).So, less than a century, identified as the only complete English translation, very possibly still under copyright, and of inferior quality. :PBen Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geocentric/Heliocentric 

message: I've been trying to work this section into a form that is comprehensible (it does tend to bombard the reader with unfamiliar information) and have found that the simplest compromise, to avoid the confusion mentioned above, is to employ the term "Olympian" to describe the pantheon of the Greeks and the Romans together, thus allowing me to circumvent the term "Graeco-Roman", since that would require me to bring the Romans into the article earlier. The problem, as one editor pointed out in invisotext, is that Saturn (Kronos) was not an Olympian, but a Titan. I've attempted to make the distinction clear in the text, but I doubt anyone unfamiliar with the topic will notice it. Is this bit of misinformation an acceptible fudge, or is a more fundamental rewrite in order? Serendipodous 18:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the author of the "invisotext", I'd like to say that I think it's an acceptable fudge. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: OK, while this is getting attention

message: I think this article is GA-worthy now. Is anybody going to go for it? — RJH (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Needs a few more citations. Also I think the "In the Solar System" section has a few too many subsections. Perhaps the "Attributes" section could be reworded to suggest that, as these attributes apply to our Solar System's planets, they could also apply to other systems. There is already some information about weather systems on extrasolar planets, and we do know their orbital elements pretty well. Serendipodous 13:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Issue that has resulted from this: do we know if all extrasolar planets, like the planets in our solar system, orbit in line with their star's rotation? Serendipodous 12:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to say no, for the reason that astronomers don't always know a star's axis of rotation, nor the planet's orbital plane. But wouldn't it seem a reasonable conjecture to say that in many cases they are closely aligned since they formed from the same rotating disk of material? — RJH (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an assumption based on the hypothesis that all planets orbit in prograde directions. If we don't know that, we can't make that statement. That's why I asked. Serendipodous 08:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thus planetary science is essential not only to comprehend the structure of the universe, but also to better understand the development of life, and to aid the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. Additionally, the planets visible from Earth have played a vital role in the shaping of human culture, religion and philosophy in numerous civilisations. Even today, many people continue to believe the movement of the planets affects their lives, although such a causation is rejected by the scientific community.
The lead is supposed to be an overview of the article, but nowhere else do I see life or extraterrestrial intelligence discussed in more detail. Nor is there a discussion of cultural, religious or philosophical effects, or a coverage of astrology. Shouldn't this either be covered in the article or else removed? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Peers said the lead should be expanded, and that's what an editor came up with to do it. Serendipodous 09:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any objection to the removal of that input? Or is the preference to expand the article so as to cover those topics? — RJH (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only objection I would have is what to replace it with. Serendipodous 19:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well frankly the lead is not a summary of the article, and that would provide an an objection during a FAC. So my suggestion would be to re-write it. — RJH (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it summarises the article now, but is it long enough? Serendipodous 21:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It still seems a little weak on the coverage of the Attributes section. In particular it should at least mention that most planets have elliptical orbits, axial tilt and rotation. The length seems fine, however. WP:LEAD recommends 3-4 paragraphs for articles over 30,000 characters. — RJH (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've expanded the lead a bit. Do you think that the Atributes section should be cited? Serendipodous 18:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've arrived at this discussion late, and I entirely oppose the changes that have been made. The lead section before was agreed upon by many editors and widely accepted. This is also notable, from the lead section page: '"Get the lead right first. Construct an introduction for the article as if it were a good encyclopedia page, even if it has not yet arrived at that point. The lead is the first thing the readers sees and, sometimes, all that they read."' The lead section should summarise the main points, not be a summary of the article, section by section, which will just cause it to be badly written. The Enlightened 09:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to argue though that the old lead didn't introduce facts and statements the article doesn't cover. Serendipodous 10:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then that's a problem with the article as it stands, and those bits need to be added to the article. The WP for lead section quite clearly states the intro should explain why the topic is important. The fact that planets are widely considered the most feasible environment for life is probably the most important fact on the whole subject - certainly far more notable than the tilt of orbits! The astrology mention is also important, with the tie-in to the more appropriate articles, and we should also have a section discussing the culture of the planets in Europe, India, China and other regions of the world.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Enlightened (talk • contribs) 15:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA-worthy? 

message: This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write.  This is how the article, as of October 4, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: I would consider refocusing the lead: Yes, a brief mention of how planets were considered and the 2006 IAU decision are warrented, but I think the emphasis on history is a little heavy.  Rest of the article is fine, with the only questionable part would be the need for the "Former Planets" section, since you basically have identified these already in the prose.
:2. Factually accurate?: No apparent problems
:3. Broad in coverage?: Good coverage, no apparent problems
:4. Neutral point of view?: Seems fine to me
:5. Article stability? Ignoring recent vandalism, looks fine
:6. Images?: Check these; a few seem to lack any copyright notice (definitely the first picture on the page is missing info).
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved.  After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again.  If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice.  Thank you for your work so far. 
— MASEM 04:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead image is an alternate version of this NASA image. I've added a link to the original image and noted that it was NASA-created. All the other images are public domain. Serendipodous 08:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You still need to include licensing (even if it remains PD after the modification) on the image, and a summary for the modification.  Nothing too difficult, just to prevent the image from being misunderstood as a possible non-free work. --MASEM 12:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK How's that? Serendipodous 14:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me.  I'm still up in the air about the lead and "Former Planets" section, trying to think how that could be improved otherwise --MASEM 23:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article nomination on hold

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
#:a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: 
On the 1b, I still think there might be something better as the WP:LEAD, not that what's there is bad or unpassable, but the rest of the article seems fine.  Good job! --MASEM 23:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Passed

message: is a credible source that states the first recorded observation of a moving planet. I believe this to be the Babylonian Venus tables, but I have not been able to establish that. If I can get ahold of a source that shows that the Babylonians were the first people to recognize the motions of the planets (other than the Sun and Moon, of course) then I can tie it to astrology, which would link the rest of the article more firmly to the lead. Serendipodous 07:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They may be the first recorded people, but it's highly doubtful they were the first. The movement of the planets is just too obvious to be ignored by anyone who watches the sky. kwami 10:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well obviously. But since history is reliant on records, the first recorded mention will have to do. Serendipodous 21:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What I would like for this article

message: The article doesn't say what the biggest known planet is :-(  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.118.190 (talk) 08:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Info added. Though the question is not as simple as it seems. :-) Serendipodous 09:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  a simple question not answered by the article 

message: The historical part of this article discusses the five planets, suggesting that the inclusion of the Sun and Moon was something of an anomaly.  As I understand the sources, in ancient uses the term planet normally meant the seven planets, including the Sun and the Moon, but occasionally ancient writers such as Ptolemy speak of the Five planets (Penta planetoi).  This restrictive term was used to exclude the Sun and Moon which were normally included in the unrestricted term, planet.
Does anyone object to a rewrite to incorporate this historical understanding into what is principally a scientific article?  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Definition of planet Serendipodous 22:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it should be in there. After all, that's why we have a seven-day week. kwami (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Five or Seven Ancient Planets? 

message: This section needs a clear and concise statement of why Neptune is considered to have "cleared its neighbourhood", in spite of the presence of Pluto - the absence undermines the whole new-definition arguement. 82.10.108.49 (talk) 13:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the table in Cleared the neighbourhood.  Neptune has a Stern-Levinson parameter of 2.7×105, and a planetary descriminant of 2.5×104.  The former measures the theoretical capability of the planet to clear its neighbourhood (the least effective planet is Mars at 915; the most effective dwarf planet is Eris at 0.005); the latter measures the actual extent at which the neighbourhood has been cleared (the least effective planet is Neptune at 2.4×104; the most effective dwarf planet is Ceres at 0.33).  There is a huge gulf in the values between the planets and the dwarf planets.  I'm not sure whether Pluto counts as being in the neighbourhood of Neptune, but if it does, then consider both that Neptune is enormously massive than Pluto, and also the fact that Pluto is locked in an orbital resonance with Neptune.  No planet is able to 100% clear its neighbourhood - there will always be stable positions locked in orbital resonance with the planet (e.g. the Trojan asteroids in Jupiter's orbit. Bluap (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Neptune DOMINATES Pluto. Pluto gets closer to Uranus (11AU) than it does Neptune (17AU).  Back in the 1960's Pluto was only 15AU from Uranus. -- Kheider (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clearing the neighbourhood 

message: According to the cited IAU resolution passed in Prague, a planet must orbit the Sun - it is not extended to objects orbiting other stars. This restriction is possibly due to the difficulty in determining whether an object orbiting another star has satisfied the "clearing its orbit" criterion. Secondly, the IAU does not say that the orbit clearing criterion is limited to "planetessimals" nor does it say "region". Specifically, resolution 5A states that a planet "has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit". Bassesq (talk) 07:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition up top combines two separate IAU declarations, one made in 2006, which deals with planets in our Solar System, and one made in 2003, which deals with extrasolar planets. The two compliment each other and don't really interfere, so they can be combined without too much trouble. Serendipodous 10:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error