Talk:Dwarf planet/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

mergefrom Candidate planet

Should we redirect Candidate planets here?

Support

  1. Support -- Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 08:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Opppose

  1. Oppose Dwarf Planet is currently an IAU defined term. Candidate planets is not and should be merged with the 2006 redefinition of planet article which is where descriptions of failed proposals belong. Sophia 10:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, per Sophia. —Nightstallion (?) 11:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

See the related vote at Talk:2006_redefinition_of_planet#mergefrom_Candidate_planet and related comments at Talk:Candidate_planets#Merge_Suggestions.Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 02:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Changed Spelling

To the "u" out of neighborhood. I don't know if thats the English spelling (as apposed to the American spelling) as near as I could tell it was a misspell. Feel free to change if I was wrong.

It's British spelling (probably international spelling in this case) and was used in the original wording. --Aranae 09:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Many recent edits have converted fulfil (UK) to fulfill (USA) and vice versa. Not only is this a waste of time, it is also against wiki policy (somewhere). Come on guys, surely life is too short for this? Abtract 22:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You're correct that it's a waste of time. I'd actually thought that my edits were maintaining the original version, but now that I look back through the history it's hard to determine which came first. Anyways, as you suggested, it's not a big deal. --Ckatzchatspy 22:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Chart: volume

I removed km3 from the volume entry because only a ratio is displayed--unless someone has the actual volumes in km3 handy? AOB 22:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor planet numbers

Looks like all dwarf planets have now been assigned with minor planet numbers. 1 Ceres, (136199) 2003 UB313 — and 134340 Pluto.--JyriL talk 16:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Offering a different planet classification

The following seems to fall under the category of original research/soapbox and is therefore not suitable for inclusion in the article. Because of this, further discussion is also not needed here.Michaelbusch 16:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The "dethronement" of planet Pluto from its position, as the outermost planet in our Solar system, evoked a sensational storm, not only in the astronomical society, but in the whole scientific community around the world and beyond, pro and contra.

The reason this problem has aroused was the discovering the new trans-Plutonian planet as Xena and many other "icy balls" in outer Solar system in the so called Kuiper Belt. To stop this "inflation" in the planet population, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) decided, in its Prague meeting, to reduce the number of newly discovered planets, including Pluto, which has been discovered about seventy years ago (1930), As follows: Under the new rules, a planet must meet three criteria: it must orbit the Sun, it must be big enough for gravity to squash it into a round ball, and must have cleared other things out of the way in its orbit. The Solar system, therefore, will maintain its original size. The "classical" Planets are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. These are the final eight members of the Solar system. Pluto has been excluded as a "dwarf" planet. This "new" astronomical concept of the Solar system, is based on the traditional model of the Solar system, upon the heliocentric conception, adopted, in the second half of the second millennium (XVI century) by Copernicus, Galilei and Kepler 500 years ago. This archaic point of view, leading to the theory of classical understanding the principal astronomical laws, built up the Solar system, as seen by the observations the orbit of the planets and satellites. My new updated proposition for understanding the composition of the Solar system, based upon modern astrophysics, is as follows: There are three groups of satellites around our Sun: The first one - the four giant gaseous "sub-stellar" satellites, namely: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. Each of those satellites, like the Sun, is composed mainly of low density hydrogen and has greater volume then any other planet. They have rings around them, planet-sized satellites and small debris circling around them. ! The second group is composed of so called “Real Planets”, which are made of solid dense material. Their volume is about several thousand Kilometer in diameter (The planet Earth and Pluto also belong in this group). The third group is composed of small homogenous debris in the Kuiper Belt and other rings, such as the Asteroid Belt. Comets also belong to this group. Michael Popper, Taverne, Switzerland [user:michael_popper]


All that just because people cant let go of the reclassification of 134340 Pluto. Its a ball of rock among many in the Kuiper Belt. -- Nbound 11:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Nbound that does not mean it is not a planet.--Pedro 11:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it means precisely that, science needs a consistent and non-arbitary point to define things, Pluto didnt make the cut... goodbye Pluto... -- Nbound 11:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I would have supported either the 12 planet or 8 planet plan btw, as long as the defining point was consistent -- Nbound 11:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • the first draft was, it is not now. I think planetary scientists should also form a proper international association and make their own definition: "The cism of planetary science" eheh. IMO, only planetary scientist should have a say on what's a planet. Or, in the other hand, turn this into real politics, because maybe tomorrow geologists will say Europe is a peninsula, not a continent. --Pedro 12:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The main problem with the first draft (this is not my opinion btw) was that it was too open, it allowed what could possibly be hundreds of objects to be classified as planets, when only a tiny fraction of those were planets in any real sense (be that by perspective, or physical properties). It has been noted by many planetary scientists that there are really only 8 planets which dominate their area, while there are many more, which are planet-like but arent unique by any means, and often sharing orbits with other planetoids and asteroidal matter. This distinction is what the resolution was tryin to achieve... a defining point between the "planets" which dominate their surrounds, and the "planets" which while being planet-like do not. Its funny you say that because Europe is recognized (in conjunction with Asia) as Eurasia, they are really only separated by a historical line. See Also: Eurasian Plate -- Nbound 12:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • don't confuse planetary scientists with the broader "astronomer". I don't think most planetary scientists agree with this definition, but that's what I think. "clearing the neighbourhood" is something a planetary scientist will never think of for definition of a planet. Planetary scientists are most interested in physical aspects of the body proper. Eurasia is part of plate tectonics topic, continents aren't plates, Europe is a continent. that's why they (politians et al) can do the same for Pluto. Like someone said, the IAU can even vote to declare Pluto as a banana split. Should we (the world) accept it? too many?! There are much more stars than sand on Earth. it is the universe we live on. Pluto is a dwarf planet. Ok. Yesterday I told some friends that Pluto was no longer a planet, you can guess the answer, they though I was crazy. But don't focus on plutinos and the cubewanos (please!) and all that new kind of categorizations that is not really used broadly, articles on planets/moons and dwarf planets should focus on the object itself and little on other things that some astronomers like. If not, Pluto is also a planet.--Pedro 13:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think most planetary scientists do agree with the definition (hence why it passed the vote). clearing its orbit has everything to do with the characteristics of a planet, as it suggests a different path of "planetary growth" (via accretion) than these other objects which have become under the influence of the larger (and thus more gravitationally dominant) planets. I wont continue due to michaelbusch's nonsoapbox comment above but ill leave you with one thing: Should our science be driven by popular opinion or scientific theory? I know which id prefer :) -- Nbound 23:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


Newbie question

I quote: five orders of magnitude in Λ. What exactly is Λ? Why is it significant? Rwflammang 12:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Added a basic explanation. Please keep in mind that a single point of view is presented here and a single model. Close to a violation of NPOV in my opinion. Eurocommuter 13:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Color scheme of draft proposal/vote outcome diagrams

The "draft proposal" and "outcome of the vote" diagrams at the end of the article contain some light cyan text on a white background, which is virtually unreadable. I suggest that the diagrams use text colors that have more contrast from the background. -68.102.127.239 15:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Hope it's a bit better now. Eurocommuter 21:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ixion, Sedna, Quaoar

I don't understand, we are waiting for the IAU to declare them dwarf planets, or...?--TheFEARgod (listening) 20:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  • ...Small solar system bodies. ---Pedro 21:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Dwarf planets names

Hmm several people here want to have pluto with its original name and the two other dwarf planets with the numbers

We must decide whether:

  1. they will be named with the numbers (1 Ceres)
  2. without (Ceres)

Let's decide it here. (the decision made should have no exception - Pluto for example)--TheFEARgod (listening) 21:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the most common usage for these dwarf planets will be simply by their names: Ceres, Pluto, Eris, and the others that are to follow them into this category. If the mythological figure on which they are based is obscure enough (such as perhaps Sedna and Quaoar if they are elevated to dwarf planet), they should be placed by their name only. If a disambiguation is required then number-name is perferable to a parenthetical statement following the name because it is the official name of the object anyway. --Aranae 03:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

and one more question. I need a short explanation why Pluto doesn't need and other DPs need numbers??--TheFEARgod (listening) 10:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Pluto was considered to be a planet until recently, although its status as a planet has been under increasing attack ever since 1978 (when Charon was discovered and showed that Pluto is much smaller than originally thought) and more so since 1992 (when the Kuiper Belt objects started being discovered). In fact Pluto lacked a minor planet number until this year, when it formally became cataloged as number 134340. The result is that Pluto has traditionally been described without a number (if only because it lacked a number). The time has come to change that, but the old habit is going to be hard to break. There are now related discussions going on at talk:Pluto and talk:136199 Eris. --EMS | Talk 15:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Pluto handily beats the other uses of its name in name recognition right now. Therefore "Pluto" goes straight to the dwarf planet instead of a disambiguation page. The same can't be said for Ceres and Eris at present. The reason for the number is that it is a (the) technically correct name that needs to be at the beginning the article that also serves to disambiguate. If Pluto fades into obscurity in the future such that Roman Hades and/or Mickey's dog are equally well-known usages, then Pluto would also warrant a number to disambiguate. --Aranae 04:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

In favor of numbers included. While the number isn't the common name, it has just been established, so how can it be the common name? Also, I rarely hear anyone call Ceres "1 Ceres". That having been said, I am in support of including the numbers, as it is the official name. Being a part of WP:USRD, we've been debating what the names of the state routes should be. We've concluded that we should go by the official name (which is commonly used) but is not the most commonly used name. For example, most people refer to a state route in Pennsylvania as PA-39. But we chose to use the title Pennsylvania Route 39. I think the same should be used here. Instead of Ceres it should be 1 Ceres. Just like the other two dwarf planets, and others if the IAU should add to the list. --myselfalso 16:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Having the numbers in the name is superfluous for anyone but an astronomer. This is not an encyclopedia for astronomers, but one for the general public. The full designation should be listed somewhere in the article, but the article should use the name that people, and the general news media, use. Saying that the number should be included is like saying that the cocaine article should be renamed as methyl 3-benzoyloxy-8-methyl-8-azabicyclo[3.2.1]octane-4-carboxylate. No-one other than a chemist would use that name, so trying to force it onto the general public is inherently illogical. aLii 17:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
As a planetary astronomer, I am biased, but the full designation is needed in many cases to remove ambiguity. Ceres, Eris, etc, are all mythological figures, so we would need rename all of the pages to something like Ceres (dwarf planet), Eris (dwarf planet), etc. Even that doesn't cover all cases, because there are a few duplicates in the catalog: Europa is both a moon (at Jupiter) and an asteroid (52 Europa) and two different asteroids are named Romulus. The cocaine analogy is false, because there there is near-zero potential for confusion and even a chemist would call cocaine cocaine.Michaelbusch 17:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you honestly trying to tell me that while you're sitting around discussing dwarf planets over a cup of tea with other planetary astronomers, you actually use the term 134340 Pluto instead of simply Pluto? If that is what you are saying I don't believe you. Even If you were writing a scientific paper about dwarf planets my guess is that you'd state the full official name once, and then use the colloquial name for the rest of the paper. There is obviously more of a problem with naming the Eris article Eris, but Eris (dwarf planet) is fine. Re-direct pages can be made for all the various designations, but I think we should go with the simplest possible name for each body, not the most "officially correct" (whatever that means). For many asteroids, comets and even stars the simplest name will infact be a designation code, but for major bodies it doesn't seem necessary for codes to make up part of the article title. aLii 23:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm in favor of names only where the body is not a point of confusion like the example between Europa and 51 Europa provided above. For example Pluto, Ceres, Eris... if you're talking planets there is no confusion about which giant space rock you're talking about. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 17:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of names only because we have a new classification for a celestial body.--TheFEARgod (listening) 18:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - if we just choose the name only, then we will need to move Ceres. This will need to be approved on that page too. Arguably, Ceres, the dwarf planet, is no more well known than the goddess. Richard B 18:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

In favour of numbers - first off, the number serves to disambiguate the name, and according to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Disambiguation: "When there is another word (such as Cheque instead of Check) or more complete name that is equally clear (such as Titan rocket), that should be used." The parentheses option (i.e. putting "Ceres (dwarf planet)" is only second in the list. In addition, both dwarf planets and SSSB fall under the category of "minor planets", as evidenced by the IAU/MPC's handling of the number system. Furthermore, the existence of redirects and disambiguation pages means that you won't have to remember the numbers anyway. Chaos syndrome 11:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I wondered how the different POV's which we all know from the newsmedia are sketched in this article. But as far as I can see the "unofficial" POV is not mentioned at all: only the recent majority-vote POV is mentioned. This despite the fact that the term was certainly not recently invented nor is it owned by any group. Thus for the time being, I put the NPOV marker. Harald88 11:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The non-official POV is well mentioned in 2006 redefinition of planet where it belongs, this article is about the term dwarf planet, not the controversy of the recent redefinition -- Nbound

This article presents only one opiniated definition of planet vs dwarf planet, while we all know that a big disagreement exists about this matter. Purposefully omitting other notable POV's is definitely misinformation against WP:NPOV. Harald88 11:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
This article is about the term not the redefinition itself -- Nbound 11:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
That's fine - if indeed indicated as a term as introduced and used by a certain group of people. Let's make that clear. Harald88 12:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The term is used by all but a few people, certain group does not do it justice -- Nbound 12:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The numbers are roughly equal - several hundred on each side - and insufficient to be of more value than just that of a poll. Note that this doesn't liberate this article from the obligation to describe all notable opinions, especially within that same organisation. Thus one or two sentences about that, together with an appropriate link, are still lacking. Harald88 12:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I now add such remarks as well as a link to the abovementioned article, and consequently I'll remove the NPOV banner. It's of course a matter of taste where such remarks fit best; the main point is to have them in there. Harald88 22:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If no-one else has any major problems with NPOV on this article I will remove the tag in a while (to give people time to comment) -- Nbound 11:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Concur: the term is official. NPOV should be put instead on Orbital domination section instead: it presents a single (while respectable, of course) model and opinion (see #Newby question). Other models and opinions (on whether the physical parameters alone, without orbital consideration should be defining characteristics of dwarf, uber, inter … planets) should be added, and in the meantime, the existing text NPOV’ed with in one model for example... One cannot read a single paper and build an article (Orbital domination) around it IMHO. Eurocommuter 12:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC).

I see your point, but the orbital dominance model seems to be the model the new planetary definitions are built around, it should get the attention of this article, though perhaps a short paragraph at the end outlining that this is not the only model, but the base of the current definition? -- Nbound 12:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I have made a mention of other theories in the orbital dominance section, any elaboration on this though should really be in the main article of clearing the neighbourhood. -- Nbound 12:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would expect that it could be as many ways to model orbital dominance as to skin the cat. I do not have any special interest in this field, but this Wikipedia article before by small addition/explanation could imply that the lambda parameter is as established as the gravitational constant. Just wanted to encourage editors to look for alternative models/papers. Or, to confirm that this model of dominance have been actually endorsed by IAU. If this is the case, please just quote the source related to IAU. Regards Eurocommuter 12:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave the NPOV tags up as it may coerce an ethusiastic editor to find a reference to verify whether or not it is the IAU endorsed model of definiting oribtal dominance -- Nbound

I really do not believe anything is ‘official’ as a whole in this still on-going debate redefining Pluto (and the justification the existance of this definition). To call this stuff ‘official’ is pure POV conjecture. Nonprof. Frinkus 08:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

subpage on naming

In light of the 136199 Eris recently being renamed Eris (dwarf planet) and any renaming of Pluto being rejected, I have started Talk:Dwarf_planet/Naming. I hope to have editors from all of the "dwarf planet" pages use it to hammer out a coherent policy on this issue. --EMS | Talk 02:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

New Template for dwarf planet names

(from the Naming sub-page) You can now enter {{dp|Name}} and it will automatically bring up the correct minor planet number without you needing to look it up, but it will display only as the name. E.g. {{dp|Ceres}} will give Ceres i.e. [[1 Ceres|Ceres]].

These can be used mid-article to provide links to the correct article titles, without using redirects and saving time writing minor planet numbers in.

Only covers the dwarf planets - {{dp|Pluto}} will link to [[134340 Pluto|Pluto]] at the moment - just in case it ever changes - but you wouldn't need to currently use the template for links to the Pluto article - it's just at Pluto

The template can of course be amended if the naming convention changes e.g. if the IAU issues a new dwarf planet catalogue system - meaning that no links would have to be changed - just the template. Richard B 00:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ceres no longer considered an asteroid by the IAU

Some light on the mystery as to whether or not Ceres is still an asteroid: text from the IAU's website:

"Q: What is Ceres? A: Ceres is (or now we can say it was) the largest asteroid, about 1000 km across, orbiting in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Ceres now qualifies as a dwarf planet because it is now known to be large enough (massive enough) to have self-gravity pulling itself into a nearly round shape."

"Q: Didn’t Ceres used to be called an asteroid or minor planet? A: Historically, Ceres was called a “planet” when it was first discovered (in 1801) orbiting in what is known as the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Because 19 th century astronomers could not resolve the size and shape of Ceres, and because numerous other bodies were discovered in the same region, Ceres lost its planetary status. For more than a century, Ceres has been referred to as an asteroid or minor planet."

--Ckatzchatspy 05:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Article Naming - a new proposal

Hmm, it looks like no one mentioned here, that there is a new proposal for the naming of articles for the dwarf planets at Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming#A New Proposal. Nfitz 01:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"Dwarf planet and other solar system categories" section

I've removed the "Dwarf planet and other solar system categories" section from the article pending discussion. Here is the text in question:

"The categorization of solar system objects into the three categories of planet, dwarf planet, and Small Solar-System Body established by IAU Resolution 5A does not supersede previous classifications based on other criteria, such as a body's location in the Solar System, its composition, or its history. The Resolution itself makes reference to the classes asteroid, Trans-Neptunian object (TNO), and comet (footnote 3).[1]"

"None of these classes (asteroid, TNO, comet) is coterminous with any of the categories of planet, dwarf planet, and Small Solar-System Body. They may or may not be subsets of the latter categories. The language in footnote 3 that Small Solar-System Bodies "currently include most of the Solar System asteroids, most Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs), comets, and other small bodies," although technically ambiguous, implies that "comets and other small bodies" are subsets of the category "Small Solar-System Body". The use of the word "most", however, indicates that asteroids and TNOs are sets that only partially overlap the category; this is consistent with the naming of asteroid 1 Ceres and TNOs Pluto and Eris as dwarf planets and not Small Solar-System Bodies. A reasonable conclusion is that Ceres continues to be the largest asteroid and Pluto and Eris continue to be Trans-Neptunian objects despite also being categorized as dwarf planets."

It appears that the text is not based on verifiable definitions, but instead sounds like the dreaded "original research". While it would be nice to have a concrete definition of what is what in the solar system, I don't think Wikipedia should be creating that definition. If anyone has thoughts on this, or (more importantly) can provide citations for the conclusions reached in the text, please add them. Thanks! --Ckatzchatspy 08:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is probably best left out. It's interpreting and drawing conclusions from the text of the IAU resolution etc, not merely setting out interpretations and conclusions made by others. Also, whether (for example) Ceres is still an asteroid is best dealt with in that article. Similarly for Pluto and Eris. --Cuddlyopedia 12:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Archive

Archived talk down to the beginning of September 2006. RandomCritic 00:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/w/a/Talk%7EDwarf_planet_Archive_2_ecb5.html"