Talk:Planet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

	Astronomy Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to astronomy, and WikiProject Astronomical Objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	A Wikipedian removed Planet from the good article list after consensus was reached to do so. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.
Article Milestones Date Process Result April 7, 2006 Good article nominee Listed September 27, 2006 Good article review Delisted Current Status: Delisted good article

	This article has been identified by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team as a Core Topic, one of the 150 most important articles for any encyclopedia to have. Please help improve this article as we push to 1.0. If you'd like help with this article, you may nominate it for the core topics collaboration.
B	Planet has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Planet is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

/Talk:Planet archive 1

/Talk:Planet archive 2

/Talk:Planet archive 3

Contents 1 Historical Planet Table 2 What needs to be done to get this article up to spec? 3 Edit 4 Intro 5 Indian planets 6 HD 188753 Ab has been shown to not exist (see wiki entry)

[edit] Historical Planet Table

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)

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)

Aside from that, changed "2006" to "present". Save everyone updating this each year - 2007, 2008, 43976, etc.martianlostinspace 15:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What needs to be done to get this article up to spec?

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)

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)

[edit] Edit

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Intro

The intro to this article is much too focused on the definition of a planet. While this is obviously an interesting subject now, it would be better as its own subsection. The intro should instead briefly define "planet" without using a bulleted list, then mention the major points discussed in the article. See WP:LEAD. Gnixon 05:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

How should the intro define planet, though? It's not possible to briefly define planet. I tried to fix the definition in this article's lead an it turned into a separate article. Serendipodous 06:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Almost exactly as it is in the first two paragraphs, but bringing the list in-line. The last two paragraphs aren't appropriate for the intro. The recent IAU debates should be mentioned in the intro, but so should the other topics covered in the article. Remember, the article isn't called "IAU definition of planet." The text in the first two paragraphs explains the definition well, so simply reformatting would do, then the next two paragraphs could be replaced by a summary of the article. Gnixon 13:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs only apply to our own Solar System. They don't cover the 200-odd extrasolar planets. Since this article is about "planet" rather than just planets in our Solar System, the intro should cover both. Serendipodous 14:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but briefly! The definition really only needs to be a sentence or two. The article is about much more than IAU definitions. I don't have time now, but I'll take a shot at revising things later today if nobody else gets a chance to do so first. Gnixon 14:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see what you come up with. If you can condense those two lists into two sentences, I will be immensely impressed. Serendipodous 16:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It fails the Wikipedia:Lead section definition as a stand-alone summary of the entire article. Section-wise I think the definition should take up no more than one paragraph. It would also help if the lead off were more engaging, rather than a dry discussion.

Sorry I haven't had a chance to get to this. Can someone else try? Gnixon 22:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Tossing out an arbitrary example:

A planet is a large object in orbit around a star that has collapsed under its own gravity, but has too little mass to undergo nuclear fusion. When a star is first formed, it may be surrounded by a protoplanetary disk of matter. Through a process of accretion, larger bodies form in this disk and these sweep up or eject most of the remaining matter. What remains is a system of planets in orbit around the star, plus some amount of debris that can form minor-planets.

The decay of radioactive material in the core of a planet, as well as the energy generated by the gravitational collapse, can provide an internal heat source. This thermal energy can melt part of the interior, allowing mass segregation to occur, and potentially driving tectonic activity and forming a magnetic field. A planet can also accumulate an exterior atmosphere, which can be massive in the case of a gas giant planet such as Jupiter.

Historically, ...

— RJH (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If that must be used, I would rather it said, "an object in orbit around a star that is large enough for its own gravity to have rounded its shape..." rather than "collapsed under its own gravity"- collapsing under their own gravity is what stars do. Serendipodous 12:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that's the right idea, but I recommend using the IAU's words exactly if they're not too verbose. I might open like "Planets in our solar system have recently been defined by the IAU as.... Historically, planet was defined more loosely, so that ...9 planets... however, under the new definitions ...." Then I'd continue with an overview of all the other parts of the article.

[edit] Indian planets

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: [1]. 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)

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.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: your tweaks - better. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] HD 188753 Ab has been shown to not exist (see wiki entry)

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).