Talk:Planet

message: Why isn't Eris among the objects formerly considered planets in that section? Eris was considered a planet by many including NASA and still is by people rejecting the IAU definition. 212.186.0.174 (talk) 06:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not officially and for a very short time only. Ruslik_Zero 06:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

text: Eris is still officially recognized by NASA as a dwarf planet. So technically is still a planet just smaller and belongs on this page.Liebecon (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Dwarf planets are not a subcategory of planets, they are separate. While some would argue they should be considered a subcategory, myself included, that does not change the classification as it stands. Hi529 (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planet Eris 

message: 15760 Albion (image on the right) and (181708) 1993 FW are the two bodies in question.
"two newly discovered planets are called Smiley and Karla."ISBN 978-1-84239-912-5
I searched those two bodies up and it turns out they refer to the bodies listed at the very top, discovered by David C. Jewitt and Jane X. Luu. These bodies do orbit the Sun and do appear to be round despite their small dimensions. They may not have cleared their Kuiper Belt neighbourhood (this is being debated on, see clearing the neighbourhood#Disagreement) but unlike Pluto their orbits appear satisfyingly circular and not as eccentric.
I know I and my source are probably the only ones in the world shouting about these two bodies being planets, but unlike Pluto I classify them both as legitimate planets in a ten-planet Solar System. Should we debate over these being planets? Honestly, even though I see Pluto as a dwarf planet or even a binary comet or asteroid I don't think we should always follow the IAU.
46.107.124.47 (talk) 06:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not planets; they're not even dwarf planets. Whoever called them planets was being either careless or facecious. And in future, don't put refs in talk page comments; they stay at the bottom no matter how long the page gets. Serendipodous 09:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are these even planets? They could be more than Pluto will ever be 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Escaping the Earth. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Steel1943 (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Escaping the Earth" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 1. Add the template to the section "Objects formerly considered planets" linking to the main article: List of former planets
2. Change "was ruled by Aphrodite, the goddess of love" in section "Mythology and naming" to "was ruled by Aphrodite, the goddess of love, and Hera, the queen of the gods" with source https://www.theoi.com/Summary/Hera.html thanks 2407:7000:A2AB:D00:51C0:E732:65B0:DA84 (talk) 06:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: #1 is , but #2 is . The source given is not reliable. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2020 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Space Planet. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 18#Space Planet until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  TheAwesomeHwyh 13:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Space Planet" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: A newly discovered planer  Premsagar1997524 (talk) 05:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 07:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2020 

message: I think this might be a good general ref for either this article, definition of 'planet', or our article on the IAU definition of 'planet'. I don't see it in any of them, but IMO it might make a useful counterweight to the claims that the IAU didn't adequately consider astronomer's views. 
Ron Ekers (2018) 'The Prague IAU General Assembly, Pluto and the IAU processes'. In C. Sterken, J. Hearnshaw & D. Valls-Gabaud, eds., Under One Sky: The IAU Centenary Symposium. Proceedings, IAU Symposium No. 349. 
It does note that there were 3 conceptions of 'planet' under consideration, something that seems to have gotten lost in our articles -- the traditional 9 plus Ceres and a couple more TNOs, the Classical 8, and the Sterns concept including moons. — kwami (talk) 05:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: did they really use the term "classical 8"? if so, that was kinda bogus of them..in classic times, there were only 5. (the sun and moon were NOT originally considered planets, but they sort of came to be considered planets in late/post classical times, but even then not fully). Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto were all discovered in modern times...so to call Uranus and Neptune classical seems a bit arbitrary Firejuggler86 (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref and historical summary for IAU def 

message: Thought I should give some of my reasons here. We often equate the non-IAU def with Alan Stern, because he's vocal and is the head of New Horizons. But he badly contradicts himself, criticizes the IAU for adopting his own proposals (e.g. for claiming that Neptune had cleared its neighborhood, claiming that if it had, Pluto wouldn't be there -- despite his lambda criterion being in complete accord with the IAU), counts hundreds of known TNOs as dwarf planets when his colleagues/collaborators have shown that most are not even solid bodies, etc. So e.g. in the table of former planets, we need to be careful when stating that a body fits "the" geophysical definition, because there isn't just one, and even restricting ourselves to a single researcher, the def changes from year to year. — kwami (talk) 03:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that raises the question of whether we should include the geophysical definition at all. If, as you say, it changes all the time, then the logical thing to do would be to appeal to a higher authority, like we do re: the definition of the Kuiper belt. But in this case there is no higher authority. Serendipodous 06:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with . Double sharp (talk) 08:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stern and the alt def of 'planet' 

message: So some guy has created his astrological symbols for dwarf planets discovered in 21st century. Nice, imaginative, but what about notability? It looks like pure original research. Szczureq (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: They're the default in astrology (which is the only place planetary symbols are common) and have been accepted into Unicode. He actually created a few more, but they are not notable. — kwami (talk) 12:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbols for 'new' dwarf planets 

message: What makes this article to be FA when it has uncited sentences and an expansion template. 2001:4455:364:A800:E5E5:3906:820:3691 (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There are currently 47 cn tags. (t · c) buidhe 00:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I look through the majority of "citation needed" tags, and it seems that a LOT of work is needed here. Some sections are good enough, but some (probably added after the FA nomination?) are in a great need of copyedit and sources (f.e. "21st century", "Geophysical definitions", "Mythology and naming", "Formation"). Section "Solar System" has 10 'cn', though it's mostly a list of planets with one-sentence intro of planet types. "Exoplanets" needs a rewrite and good sources. "Physical characteristics" has a "needs expansion" template. I never wrote a FA, but this one clearly fails even milder GA standards. , you are more familiar with the process, so maybe you know what should be done. FAR is probably the answer, though maybe the article should be simply stripped of its featured status. Artem.G (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi  To delist an article it does need to go through FAR. Unfortunately, I wont' be able to nominate this for a while because there's a limited number of FAR nominations each editor is allowed at one time. I would encourage you to go ahead and nominate there; the process isn't too difficult. (t · c) buidhe 22:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

text: In case any page watchers have missed it: an FAR has been opened. XOR'easter (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some new comments over on the review page, just in case anyone is watching here but not there. Input most welcome. XOR'easter (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues 

message: Hi there is actually 1000 million planets in the solar system because the different types of solar systems 86.13.15.62 (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean 'planetary system'. There's only one Solar system: the planetary system of Sol (the Solar planetary system). Though some people get sloppy and say 'solar system' for 'planetary system', the way some people say 'Kleenex' for 'tissue', 'Hoover' for 'vacuum cleaner' or 'Coke' for cola. — kwami (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science 

message: I'm a little concerned that the article currently has too many small tables floating about, listing what bodies counted as which type of planet at which time. It makes sense to present this in a tabular way for at-a-glance reference, but spreading it across multiple boxes partly defeats that purpose. The repetition of symbols also seems like overkill. Perhaps the multiple tables can be consolidated somehow? XOR'easter (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be difficult to combine them because they have different numbers of columns. It would also be hard to give an overall list of bodies with dates, because there's no clear cut-off for many of them.  (E.g., when did Ceres stop being counted as a planet? Or Io?) — kwami (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

text: I don't think the tables in the History section add much (if any) value. Praemonitus (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

text: I don't think they add anything, and in fact, think they are actually just disrupting the flow. The symbols certainly aren't needed.  If someone could find a way to make an overall depiction, that would be helpful, but it sounds like that would be hard to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  05:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tables 

message: This section of the article starts by stating that all planetary-mass moons are synchronous (tidally locked) and that their orbital period equals their rotational period.  My understanding is that there are many solar system moons that ARE NOT tidally locked, and therefore would have a different rotation to orbit ratio.  Hyperion of Saturn is not tidally locked.  The moons presented in the table however may be incomplete, and therefore excluded some of the asynchronous ones?
I think the table needs the rotation period column added, similar to the planet table above.
I think it would be helpful to also add a column identifying which planet each moon belongs to in this table.
Reference - https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/44688/moons-with-synchronous-rotation-in-our-solar-system
SquashEngineer (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Every planetary-mass moon (i.e. moon big enough to be gravitationally rounded) is tidally locked. Hyperion is not a planetary-mass moon. Double sharp (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planetary-mass Moons table 

message: The introductory paragraph, which outlines NASA's definition of a planet, contains some grammatical errors. Please revise this paragraph by devoting a separate sentence to each criterion, and supplanting the numerical terms that precede them, like "firstly" and "second", with more formal or appropriate terms, like "additionally"; amending the writer's use of the contraction "it's" in place of the possessive "its"; and amending the writer's erroneous capitalisation of the term "planet". 2001:1970:529D:2600:81B1:24B3:D3BF:65AF (talk) 03:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Spintendo  23:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2023 

message: The caption for the first image reads "The eight planets of the Solar System with size to scale (up to down, left to right): Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus, Neptune (outer planets), Earth, Venus, Mars, and Mercury (inner planets)" but with the directions given the ordering should be Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus, Earth, Mars, Neptune, Mercury, Venus. (This is because (up to down, left to right) implies you scan the image as vertical columns starting from the left and moving to the right.)
Even if the outer planets and the inner planets remained grouped in the caption, the inner planets should say Earth, Mars, Mercury, Venus.
Whatever, this caption needs to be changed to improve readability. 2600:1700:6E30:30B0:A1CD:CD28:3DCE:4BC9 (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Caption Readability 

message: Let’s Imagine you’re playing catch with a friend. When you throw the ball, it follows a path through the air until it lands back in your friend’s hands. That path the ball takes is like an orbit—it’s the path something follows as it moves around something else.
In space, orbits are everywhere. For example, Earth goes around the sun, just like the moon goes around Earth. Even things we humans make, like satellites, have their own paths around Earth. These paths aren’t straight lines; they’re more like stretched-out circles, called ellipses.
Its Very Important to Make Understanding on orbits .  it helps us travel with space . Imagine trying to send a rocket to Mars without knowing . With understanding orbits, scientists and engineers can plan out the paths of spacecraft,
Orbits also help us learn more about space.  The study  of Scientists is  paths of planets, moons, and stars Give us understanding , how and Why they move . It’s like putting together a giant puzzle of the universe!
But orbits aren’t just about moving physically—they can mean other things too. Ever heard someone say they’re “in the orbit” of a famous person? That means they’re close to them or influenced by them. Orbits can also mean cycles, like the changing seasons  of the moon.
Looking ahead, orbits will keep  important. Imagine going on vacation to a hotel in space, where you can look out the window and see Earth below you! Or maybe one day we’ll get resources from asteroids by sending spacecraft around them.
Whether it’s planets moving or our  adventures, orbits help us understand  About the the world . So, next time When you look up at the stars, take a moment to think about the amazing paths things take as they travel through space. Who knows  we’ll discover as we keep exploring the wonders of orbits.
Why does [] Chandrayaan-3 revolve around the Earth?
In July 2023, India sent a mission to explore the Moon. They planned for a spacecraft called Chandrayaan-3 to land near the Moon’s south pole. It had a lander named Vikram and a rover called Pragyaan.
The mission started well, with Vikram and Pragyaan landing on the Moon in August 2023. But soon after landing, they lost contact with Vikram, so it couldn’t work anymore.
While Vikram and Pragyaan stayed on the Moon, another part of the spacecraft, called the propulsion module, stayed in orbit around the Moon. It was supposed to work for three months, but it had extra fuel.
To use this extra fuel and learn more, the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) decided to bring the propulsion module back to orbit around Earth. They did this by making the module do some controlled moves between October and November 2023, and it safely entered Earth’s orbit.
Bringing it back to Earth’s orbit was important for a few reasons:
Testing: ISRO wanted to see how well the module worked. This would help them plan better for future missions to the Moon.
Looking at Earth: The module had instruments to study Earth’s air and surface. Staying in Earth’s orbit meant they could keep studying these things.
Saving Fuel: Bringing the module back to Earth’s orbit instead of letting it stay around the Moon meant they could use less fuel and control it better.
As of February 11, 2024, the Chandrayaan-3 propulsion module is still circling around Earth in a steady path. They haven’t said yet what they’ll do next with it, but they might keep studying Earth or let it fall back to Earth when it runs out of fuel.
Even though the part of the mission Orbit with the lander and rover didn’t go as planned, bringing back the propulsion module gives them more chances to learn and get better for future trips to the Moon.
 Singhharjeet23 (talk) 07:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 12:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Are you proposing a section on orbits in the style of a children's magazine?  Not gonna happen —Tamfang (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2024