Talk:IAU definition of planet/Archive 3

Archived

I've archived the talk page into Archive 2, it was getting way too long. -- Lego@lost _{Rocks Collide!} | 07:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the archives??? They seem to be gone now. AstroHurricane001 22:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

They got left behind during the last page move. I've fixed it now. DanielCristofani 05:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

the underlying reason for the redefinition

i think we should include in the article the underlying reason that the definition was changed. i think that it was that under the old system, there would now be more planets, and having a lot of planets is supposed to be bad. (by the way i think thats the most asinine thing ive ever heard of)

the possibility that the inner core will dominate the whole crust

Is there Always a possibility that the inner core will dominate or rule over the whole crust?if yes..why? and if no..why?

wt... are you completely or just partially retarded?

Huh? -- MiguelMunoz 00:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

2006 Planet definition

It is fine by me if you want to merge my article and yours it is fine.Asteroidz R not planetz 17:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Extrasolar Planets

I took out a sentence that incorrectly claimed that this definition doesn't apply to extrasolar planets. The 2003 draft agreement on extrasolar planets explicitly said that the lower limit of a planet's size would be whatever astronomers settle on for the solar system's planets. So it was designed to complement whatever new definitions astronomers developed for our own system. -- MiguelMunoz 19:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Controversial?

Is this still controversial? it hasn't been edited in a month, and the arguments have died down. I'll remove the category unless somebody objects. Totnesmartin 17:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me. I think it would be useful to include when the next scheduled attempt to define planets will occur (probably during the next IAU meeting in 2009). -- KarlHallowell 20:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

A new Idea

Why not just make the definition to read so that it includes any body that has enough mass to be roughly spherical but also has enough mass to have a moon that that meets the same criteria without having a center of gravity shared by the two bodies that is outside the object in question. If the minimum mass to retain a spherical shape can be determined why can't we determine the minimum mass to have a moon that is also spherical while keeping the center of gravity within itself? In this way almost all of the smaller planetoids thats caused all of this fuss would be excluded from being a planet without having some arbitrary criteria base off of a random amount of mass or diameter. User:. 68.193.3.225 08:57, 15 March 2007

Well, this discussion isn't for us to decide, so it doesn't really belong here, but from what I understand, it isn't a good idea to make a moon a requirement. What would Mars and Venus become? Also, I think there's an asteroid, one much smaller than Ceres, that has a sattelite, and isn't large enough to maintain hydrodstatic equilibrium. I don't think requiring a moon would be a good idea. McKay 13:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand me, not that it would be a requirement to have a moon but, that if there where to be a hypothetical moon just large enough to hold a shperical shape that the shared center of gravity would be within the object in question. I didn't mean to suggest that planets would be definited by if they have a moon or not - that would, as you hinted at, exclude Venus. Mars two moons but even though neither one is shereical I would wager that Mars is large enough to hold hypothetically in its gravity a moon large enough to be spherical in shape with out moving the center of gravity outside of itself. I'm not a physicist or I would do the calculation myself.User:. 68.193.3.225 14:19, 15 March 2007

This is rather moot, as we do not make this decision, the IAU does. Your question also depends on the distance between hypothetical moon and planet (at distance 0 between surfaces, the barycenter will always be in the larger body for bodys of equal density). And if you require the moon to be outside the Roche Limit, I don't know if e.g. Mercury passes. --Stephan Schulz 16:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I think I understand you better, but then it's an arbitrary distinction. one can't speak of "moons just large enough to hold a spherical shape" without knowing of their composition and history. Enceladus, a moon, is "large enough" to maintain maintain hydrostatic equilibrium, but 4 Vesta, a larger asteroid, is not. Also in question is theory, it is theoretically possible for one via thought experiments to create theoretical moons which are of various sizes and masses, that would break the idea. McKay 16:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

'Large enough' might be a bad phrase to use, a better phrase might be 'has enough mass'. I could be wrong but I was under the impression that mass was the determining factor in wheather an object could maintain a hydrodstatic equilibrium, reguardless of actual size or diameter? If so having a hydrodstatic equilibrium would not be an arbitrary distinction and if an object had enough mass to maintain a hydrodstatic equilibrium and to hold in its gravity another object with the minimum amount of mass needed to also maintain a hydrodstatic equilibrium without displacing the first objects center of gravity outside outside of itself then my idea still holds water, right? User:. 68.193.3.225 14:54(EST), 15 March 2007

4 Vesta has more mass than Enceladus (moon), yet Enceladus is in hydrostatic equilibrium, and Vesta is not. It is not generally agreed by scientists that mass makes hydrostatic equilibrium. But even that aside, there's still problems with the idea:

• Let's assume (for simplicity) that we've just got two potential planets in a universe. One larger than the other, and both orbiting a barycenter in a circle. From Barycenter (and a little OR): With a radial distance of a, and a barycenter at position r from the center of the primary mass a/r = 1 + m1/m2 which for something like the earth moon system, m1/m2 is about 1.2%, so the ratio of the barycenter to the orbital radius is about 98%, for the pluto charon system, it's about 90%. so, this means if the moon were further from the earth (lets say three times?), than it would have a barycenter outside of the surface of the earth. And similarly, if Charon were closer to pluto (half the distance would suffice), then it would be within it's barycenter. But your argument was with something like Vespa (or something with about that mass), then it only depends on how close an object could be to it. So, any object that maintains hydrostatic equilibrium, could hold another such object, presuming it was close enough to it. Except in the case where an object has exactly the smallest mass, because then it's feasably impossible (though still theoretically possible) for it to have another object "in orbit" with barycenter inside itself, but it would require the other object to physically be touching it.
• We basically make the distinction for calling something a star if it (is massive enough to) create(s) internal fusion. Requiring that it also be large enough to support another star similarly is kinda silly. There are several binary star systems that have a barycenter outside of the surface of the primary star. Even in the case of very large stars vs very small stars. Does that make them any less stars?

(These problems make me say that this definition is arbitrary.) 20:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like to see more planets, not less - I'd rather add Eris and Ceres to the list of planets than take Pluto off. Since when did the IAU, an organization I've never heard of, have the final say on the definition of a planet anyways? CobraA1 07:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The IAU was established in 1919, and has been the de facto body in charge of Astronomical Nomenclature since then. Also, 63 nations are members of the IAU (probably including the country you're from), and like the UN, the countries are bound to the decisions made by the IAU. If you would like to have a say in what goes on, they also accept individual memberships, but their bar for inclusion is somewhat high, as you basically have to have a PhD. McKay 20:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"and like the UN, the countries are bound to the decisions made by the IAU." -- Yeah, but my nation has a history of ignoring "bound" decisions and disliking international ruling bodies. Many of us couldn't give a hoot about what some UN-like body thinks. What are they going to do, declare war with us if we refuse to change our textbooks? CobraA1 00:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Come on, member governments may be bound to anything they want to, but languages my friend... --euyyn 08:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

mockery

Don't we have any source on the mockery the process has caused? The critics section only talks about technical critics. We should also cover those who saw the whole thing as a great waste of time and money. --euyyn 08:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we have too many sources of mockery, so that such a collection would be a pretty tough task. Maybe one of the most important source? Said: Rursus ☻ 06:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Odd name

Why "2006 definition of planet", you mean as opposed to the 2005 and 2007 definitions? Shouldn't this be either at "2006 redefinition of planet" or "Post-2006 definition of planet"? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 07:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Kinda odd, if you think about it. Redefinition, I'd say. --euyyn 21:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The term 'planet' had not previously been officially defined, so it was not a redefinition. Derek Balsam^(talk) 21:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, then the "Official definition of planet" or something like that would be fitting, or perhaps a merger with "planet". If there has been only one definition the year is irrelevant. But there have been numerous de facto definition over the years and "2006 definition of planet" doesn't really fit, so if it's a definition, no year should be indicated, if it's a redefinition it should say so. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is an article Definition of planet. It could be merged into that.Derek Balsam^(talk) 15:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

"The term 'planet' had not previously been officially defined" <- Defined was it in every dictionary. There's no officiality in the 2006 definition IMHO because the term, having been in our languages for several hundred years, doesn't (cannot) "belong" to any organization. "Planet" is more like "table" and less like "gram-negative bacteria". --euyyn 22:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[1] Yeah, it was in the dictionary, but it wasn't ever specific enough for scientific usage. And the IAU has been given authority for nomenclature of astronomical subjects. So they do technically own the term. McKay 23:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Au contraire, there is no body with any sort of jurisdiction over the English language, unlike say the French or Czech languages. Any body merely has the power to recommend usage and hope for acceptance of their recommendation. The IAU has this acceptance in the astronomical community, but not in the general community. For instance, everywhere I turn I see 9 planets, not 8+3[?+] planets, in books, posters, even recent documentaries, so in this sense the IAU can merely hope their term catches along eventually. That means, according to WP:NC(CN), that the article should be found somewhere else, because in common terms the IAU definition is in no way the definition. (Oh, and how has the IAU been given this authority? By whom?) +Hexagon1 ^(t) 02:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

1. I have seen old posters and old books with the old definition on them, but I have also seen new posters with the new definition. Recent documentaries? Can you provide a source on that? McKay 22:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The IAU is accepted by the astronomical community (and by the broader scientific community) to have the ultimate decision-making role in the naming of celestial bodies, and various roles related to that. Attempts to usurp that authority (cf/ the star-naming people) have come to nothing because the community as a whole did not pay them any attention. Taking the lead in defining what a scientific term meant, even if they were 75 years slow off the mark, is a pretty reasonable extension of this. They don't need some kind of statutory authority to do this (besides, who could give it to them? Congress? Parliament? the UN? Oxford University Press?) but derive their authority from the consensus and consent of the general scientific community.

As an aside, the last time "planet" was sort-of-defined it was by omission - the c.1855 decision to class the asteroids as "minor planets" didn't actually define planet, it just defined a class of things that weren't "real planets". And, for that matter, it was hardly a "decision" at all - someone started using the new nomenclature, it was sensible and the need for a distinction was well understood, and it just became common usage. The USNO has an excellent article on it. Shimgray | talk | 17:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Expanding on this, perhaps it would be wise to move to Definition of planet and include a discussion of the original minor-planets issue? I have a geography textbook around here with fourteen planets in it... Shimgray | talk | 17:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"It was never specific enough for scientific usage" <- I cannot imagine what's the scientific usage of a more specific definition. E.g., a new exoplanet is discovered and studied, and then one can look and see if it fits the concrete new definition of planet. Say it doesn't fit... would anybody care the least?? "Well, yes, it's not a planet, shit, our work isn't worthy...". I think everybody knows, without need of mathematical rules, what's a planet and what isn't, and even if there's some body one cannot say for sure if it's a planet or not, I fail to see what's the big deal... --euyyn 21:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think everybody knows, without need of mathematical rules, what's a planet and what isn't - and there's the exact problem. Is Pluto a planet? Are the five or six known comparable transneptunian objects planets? What about the hundred more that we might reasonably expect to find in the Kuiper belt? A lot of perfectly serious astronomers said "of course"; a lot of perfectly serious astronomers said "of course not" - I'm not sure we can reasonably say "everybody knows".

This decision wasn't really about Pluto - after the recent spate of discoveries of things like Eris and Sedna, it became rapidly apparent that there were going to be a lot more things like Pluto turning up; we've hit the point at which finding them will become just a matter of patience, like with asteroids in the mid-19th century. One dubious case is fine (we've lived with it for decades of indecision, after all), but the possiblity of several dozen is a little more daunting.

The next one to come will be to define the upper limit of "planet" and the lower limit of "star", which should get interesting - the better our exoplanet work gets, the more borderline "is it a brown-dwarf binary or a very large gas giant" cases we'll run up against, and the IAU will no doubt wade in with a suitably chewy definition and a lot of news stories. Shimgray | talk | 21:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see what's the problem. I mean, I see what you call the problem, but I don't see how could that be a problem. A perfectly serious astronomer of the side of "thery're not", if he weren't so bored and actually had some work to which dedicate his time, would have answered to the "they're planets" guy: "You say they're planets. So what? Leave me alone, I'm working."

Come on, this is as ridiculous as a comite of painters deciding which hue is blue and which is turquoise. Of course they will say it is a big problem which doesn't allow them to sleep: Nobody rejects a little vacation all costs paid and with canapés.

Albeit being irrelevant to my point, why would anybody say Pluto isn't a planet? Not only have we all being taught at school it is (so it's not like America being 2 continents or 1, which dependes on where you where born), but Pluto isn't more distinct to Earth than Jupiter is... --euyyn 00:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Pluto isn't unique. There are probably dozens of Pluto-like objects out there. Are they all planets? If not, then where do you draw the line? What about Eris? It's bigger than Pluto, but your school didn't tell you that it was a planet. Does that mean that it isn't a planet?

Personal answer -> No, none of them is. I draw the line at Pluto. They're not planets; they're "Pluto-like" bodies. Quite easy.

Reason -> It's what my, and your, school told us. Why not stay with it? It won't change anything for anybody if we call them planets or bananas. The only change is that saying Pluto isn't a planet is unnatural for every person in the world...

But, as I said, you/the IAU can call Pluto and company however you/they feel. It won't change how I call it, and it won't change a thing at all in the world. No astronomer will change the way he works because of the new definition. No scientific theory will change the least. Because how we call things isn't science, but language. That's why the whole thing is ridiculous (even more if you think they were PhDs, those who did it). Oh yes, and now a lot of teachers will hate the IAU, which adds more humour to the subject. --euyyn 09:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal: So what makes pluto a planet and not Eris? If Eris is "Pluto-like" and Pluto is a planet, why isn't Eris?

Reason: Oh, that's a great reason, let's keep saying the world is flat, or that the sun revolves around the earth, because that's what schools taught for so long.

Yes, it is language, but scientists need a precise language for dealing with things. McKay 17:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

What makes Pluto a planet and not Eiris is the same that makes some group of stars and not another a constellation. It is that the set of planets is not an implicit set, but an explicit one.

Saying the 9 traditional planets are planets, and everything else in the Solar System isn't, cannot be more precise. You can write a "traditional" address in an envelope, or you can write longitude-latitude coordinates. Both descriptions of the location of a house are sufficiently precise for the poourpose of sending a letter.

The world being flat or the sun revolving around the earth are not names, but propositions. Do you speak Esperanto? Would you use it instead of your native language? Still worse, if all the world spoke the same, natural language, wouldn't it be ridiculous to switch to Esperanto?

We have no need to change existing language to have precise language; that's why Science is full of new words. E.g., Terrestrial planet, or Gas giant. Neither the new nor the old definition of planet serve science for any particular pourpose; not because they aren't precise, but because they are heterogeneous sets. The old definition because it was a traditional one, the new because it is but a mathematical criterion. --euyyn 19:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

In antiquity, the term included neither Earth nor Uranus, Neptune, or Pluto, but both the Sun and the Moon. After the heliocentric model came up, we dropped Sun and Moon, but gained Earth. Then, in 1781, we gained Uranus, from 1801 to 1807 we gained 1 Ceres, 2 Pallas, 3 Juno and 4 Vesta. In 1846 Neptune joined, and a bit later we lost the asteroids again. Finally, in 1930 we gained Pluto, which we lost in 2006. So which of these "traditional" definitions do you prefer? And for what reason except that that is what you are used to? The old defintion obviously was not a plain enumeration - people had something in mind that included Mars, but excluded Ceres. What happened in 2006 is that people finally made that definition explicit and exact. --Stephan Schulz 21:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know. But I'm not talking about respecting tradition, I'm talking about being practical. I agree and understand the complaints of people who are used to call Ceres & co. planets. Well, if they weren't all dead and still cared. Being used to it is the reason you'd rather speak your native language than Esperanto. And it's indeed still worse, since _we_ are _all_ used to it, so the case is like speaking Esperanto with a person from your own country. Or like doing math in hexadecimal base instead of decimal. Do you still use your fingers to do math? No, but you continue using base 10 "only" because you're used to using it.

The definition of the English word "planet" will always be a plain enumeration, as has always been since it lost its original sense (fixed stars versus wanderer==planet stars). You can drop or leave Pluto; that won't change it. You'll never be able to have a conversation in the street like "man, that is a planet" -"not really, look, it doesn't appear to have the treshold mass". That conversation will always be "man, that is a planet" -"is it? which one? jupiter?" --euyyn 00:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The IAU's definition had nothing to do with "threshold mass"; I don't know where you got that. The closest it came to mentioning mass was hydrostatic equilibrium, but there is no one mass at which that is achieved. It depends on what the object is made of. Serendi^podous 05:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You will eventually die, so your argument of growing up with it is interfering with progress, as surely as calling Ceres & co planets did after it was decided they were asteroids. Since you will die, as did the previous set of dissenters, then your argument *supports* not calling Pluto a planet. If we allow Pluto to be a planet, because it's known as a planet, then THE SUN is a planet as it has been for THOUSANDS OF YEARS. And that little heliocentric model doesn't matter. And all those asteroids defined as planets previously would be called planets again. 70.55.87.147 16:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm too "forward thinking", but I frequently hop over to other bases to do my math. Base 2 and base 16_X are frequent, but base 3 definitely has it's uses too. No, if you look at "old" dictionaries, their definitions usually list the ancient planets associated with astronomy (always excluding pluto, but usually excluding Uranus and Neptune. But they also include an informal definition. Merriam-Webster has a definition including the word "large". Older Dictionaries can show the definition of the term is in a certain state of flux. I for one am greatful for the IAUs definition. While people "in the street" might not be mentioning threshold mass, astronomers discovering new objects need a way to classify what it is they discover. Your claim of "practicality" is silly. McKay 15:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

To add a few more points. On a slightly ironic note, I actually do use my native language very rarely on Wikipedia. And, of course, since Pluto requires a fairly large telescope to be visible at all, the "man in the street" probably does not often discuss Pluto. Actually, I have a hard time imagining a discussion where this issue really matters to him, except maybe when playing old editions of Trivial Pursuit. For people who do regularly discuss planets, on the other hand, unlearning a trivial factoid is a minimal burden, while the new definition is generally useful. --Stephan Schulz 20:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Show me a dictionary definition of planet, and I'll show you why it's wrong. Or too vague to be of any use. Plus, I'm willing to bet that one dictionary's definition will be different from another's. This wasn't a redefinition; it was a definition. Dictionary definitions and scientific definitions are frequently at odds. Just look at the dictionary definition of "berry" and then compare it to the official definition decreed by the International Botanical Congress. They're completely different. Scientists require specific terminology. If a scientist mentions berries or planets to another scientist, each has to be absolutely certain what the other is referring to. Otherwise you couldn't repeat any experiments, because the parameters would be different depending on your own personal defintions. Serendi^podous 05:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a 2003 Definition of Planet from the IAU. Further, the 2006 Defintion only applies inside the Solar System. 132.205.44.5 21:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a draft proposal, never ratified; it addresses objects outside of the Solar System, not those within. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternative without year-number. What about International Astronomical Union definition of planet?--Pharos 03:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This definition does not apply outside the Solar System... 132.205.44.5 22:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it's the only definition the IAU has agreed on so far; hence my proposal.--Pharos 03:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with it. --euyyn 02:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Or, even Official definition of planet would be another possibility.--Pharos (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Good god, I'm not reading all that! How about 2006 IAU definition of planet? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 13:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, except we don't need "2006".--Pharos (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, so should be propose a move? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 05:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"Round" versus "spherical"

The 2006 definition is given as saying that a planet must have "sufficient mass so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape". Is not "roundness" the quality which distinguishes the shape of a circle from that of an ellipse, in other words, a property of two-dimensional figures? Three dimensional roundness is sphericality. This is a rather fine linguistic point, but this is, after all, an encyclopedia article. I would appreciate further comment on this point. Writtenright 04:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Writtenright

Not really, spheroids are considered round. Earth is much more accurately modeled as an oblate ellipsoid, not a sphere. Generally, it is believed that each of the TNOs mentioned in Image:EightTNOs.png might become dwarf planets when we know more about them. Even though some are far from spheres, they likely have hydrostatic equilibrium. McKay 15:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

2003 definition of planet

There probably should be an article at 2003 defintion of planet to complement this article... 132.205.44.5 23:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the 2003 matter was a draft, not an official declaration, and it applied to extrasolar object - not the Solar System. Still, it might be worth some text, or at least a redirect to a section of a larger article where it is covered already. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, if we moved it to International Astronomical Union definition of planet per my suggestion above, it would be perfectly within the scope of the article to cover all proposals made before the IAU, including the historical ones that have failed.--Pharos 20:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Final vote

I added the "final vote" section after a confused editor failed to understand that resolution 5B, although proposed, was never passed. I had assumed that the information was not in the article, but on second reading I realised it was. To prevent future confusion, I have boldened the words approved and defeated in the main text to ensure people notice them. Serendi^podous 15:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section?

Should it be intermixed with the rest of the text, asks somebody? (Then in order to NPOV-ify the definition text). I think not, because then the discourse of the text would become "tainted" by criticism, hard to read from deviations from the main topic and the points of the creators of this definition will be lost in detail before becoming a whole coherent concept. I think the current state is much better than trying to hide this unexpectedly hard criticism. (My personal criticism only regards linguistics and philosophy, for the rest: "To the H*cc with Pluto!! It's a Sissy-Planet of Meek!"). Said: Rursus ☻ 06:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(Practical philosophy, that is! OK, then Pluto (including the cartoon dog) is nice, but I don't care what it's (he's) called, as long as the term used for it is logical and usable). Said: Rursus ☻ 06:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get into another "Save Pluto" debate :) But yes, I think you're right, that POV claim doesn't make a lot of sense. I'll remove it. Serendi^podous 07:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Next definition?

When was the next time IAU could review this half-made definition stuff again? 2009? Said: Rursus ☻ 06:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep. That's the next IAU conference in Rio. Whether they'll actually address the issue then I don't know. They're going to have to do something; extrasolar planets at least will have to be dealt with. Serendi^podous 07:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

They also seriously should consider correcting the language errors: "dwarf+" as a way to express "not cleaned it's orbit", and "dwarf+planet" not being included amongst "planets", while every other usage of "dwarf+" includes "dwarf+X" into "X", f.ex. dwarf elephants being elephants. Said: Rursus ☻ 19:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistancy Concern

I've started a discussion at Talk:Ceres_(dwarf_planet)#Inconsistancy_Concern over problems relating to information consistancy between this and two other articles. Gnangarra 06:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Exoplanet definition

The exoplanet draft definition should be mentioned here, in the history section, or something. 70.55.85.134 (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's covered in Definition of planet; the exo-definition doesn't really apply here, since this definition only covers our solar system Serendi^podous 22:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2006 definition of planet/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello. I will be doing the GA review for this article. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• The list in the lead should be converted to prose.

How is it now? Nergaal (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• The lead is supposed to summarize the main points of the article. I think it should mention something about the history of the debate and the different draft proposals.

 Done Nergaal (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Image:ThePlanetDefinition.svg, Image:ThePlanetDefinition3.png, and Image:ThePlanetDefinition2.png are too small to read. They need to be bigger if they are going to be useful.

 Done Nergaal (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ref #34 needs to be properly formatted using Template:cite web.

 Done Done, but is ref formatting a req for GAs? Nergaal (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That's it for now. I have more suggestions, but I'll wait for these to be completed first. You'll have seven days to make these initial improvements. Nikki311 18:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Changes look good. More suggestions coming soon. Nikki311 17:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Round 2

• "some astronomers stopped referring to Pluto as a planet" and "so was thought to be equally deserving of the status of 'planet'" - it needs to be made clear who thought this. Citations would help.

 Done Nergaal (talk) 09:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Some full dates are wikilinked and some are not. The new MoS prefers for them to be unlinked. It doesn't matter to me either way, but it should be consistent throughout the article.

This is not a GA requirement. Nergaal (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Consistency is. Nikki311 19:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Quotes shorter than four lines should be incorporated into the prose, instead of standing out with a blockquote.

Ha? In which MOS is this? Or better said, who suggested this? Since if someone uses a small resolution those 4 lines could be 10... Nergaal (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSQUOTE. Look under block quotations. Nikki311 19:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I am not sure what to do then. Are the quotes in the article ok now? Nergaal (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• "There had been a concern that, in extreme cases where a double body had its secondary component in a highly eccentric orbit, there could have been a drift of the barycenter in and out of the primary body, leading to a shift in the classification of the secondary body between satellite and planet depending on where in its orbit the system was." - who had this concern? citation for the fact that anybody was concerned?

 Done

• "These descriptions were used partly to allow for some "common sense" judgement, but primarily to provide language that could readily be used in communicating the definitions to lay audiences." - Cite that this is why those descriptions were used?

I don't know how to find a ref for this. Also, I am not 100% sure that this definately needs a ref, but I think it is better not to simply delete the info. Nergaal (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like original research without a cite. There could be other reasons why such language was used or definitions not made explicit. Perhaps they wanted it to be vague, so that people could discuss the meanings and they could change over time? (that's a dumb example, but you get the idea). Maybe it can be reworded in a way so it doesn't sound so "cause and effect"...that might allow it to get away without a citation. Nikki311 00:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

How about now? Nergaal (talk) 09:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• "but out of the over a thousand who attended the session only 424 members chose to vote or indicate their abstention on Resolution 6A (below)." - cite for stat?

 Done Nergaal (talk) 05:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• There is a citation needed tag.

 Done Nergaal (talk) 09:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Some of the external links may need to be trimmed out. See WP:EL for what an appropriate external link is. You can add what you remove to a further reading section.

 Done Nergaal (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Nikki311 01:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

For the who parts, it is hard to say exactly; there were people on both sides of the barricade. Also, since there is none wiht a particularly huge authority, just giving some random names for people supporting one side or the other would not really help since it might lead to the belief that those people might have had more authority. Nergaal (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If nobody particularly noteworthy had an opinion on the matter, that's okay, but you still need to cite the fact that someone felt that way. Nikki311 19:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I already did that. Nergaal (talk) 09:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Update

I didn't see where you changed the quotes, so I did that myself. I also wikilinked the one date that needed to be. The only thing left is the sentence ("These descriptions were used partly to allow for some "common sense" judgement, but primarily to provide language that could readily be used in communicating the definitions to lay audiences."). I saw your change, but now it reads like speculation, which is also no good. The best bet, IMO, is to hide the sentence with <!-- --> until a good source can be found. I don't think the article loses anything too major with out that particular bit of info. Nikki311 21:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah...don't feel like you have to reply on my talk page. I have this page on my watchlist, so I'll see when you've replied here. Nikki311 22:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I left out the common sense sentence. As for the quotes, I agree with them except with those that are 'official'. I think that the official text should stand out, and through the same format, since this article is about that exact text. I think the MOS is less important in those 2 quotes in this specific article. Also, it is consistent this way. Nergaal (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense, and I don't mind if you separate the official text out. I'm going to go ahead and pass the article, though. Nikki311 02:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)