Talk:Definition of planet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Definition of planet is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
WikiProject Space
Space Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Related projects:
WikiProject Astronomy WikiProject Astronomy
WikiProject Solar System WikiProject Solar System
Comments:
Peer review This Natsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Archive
Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Unsourced


[edit] Pluto IS a planet, according to the International Astoronomical Union

The whole “Pluto is not a planet” idea comes from reports on the IAU (International Astronomical Union) which got together and decided on a new definition of a planet ["a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet”].

From this, it’s been everywhere that Pluto is not a planet. BUT on the IAU’s website, it says that Pluto IS a planet (http://www.iau.org/iau0601_Q_A.435.0.html). Even more, it says there are 12 planets in the solar system, not 9: "Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Charon and 2003 UB313 (provisional name)". The last one is “popularly called Xena,” but the official name has not been chosen yet.

Pluto and Charon are classified as “Plutons,” which is a subcategory of planet, not a separate category. Plus, “Perhaps as many as a dozen or two new planets in the IAU category called “plutons” remain to be discovered” and are just waiting on reports from committees formed to study them.

The whole “Pluto isn’t a planet” might come from the IAU’s attempt to rename everything. They’ve decide that Mercury through Neptune are the first nine planets (planet 1, planet 2, etc), but Pluto is not “planet 9.” Rather, it is “Pluton 1.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.138.96.227 (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That is an old website referring to an earlier proposed definition that did not pass the conference; for the whole bloody story of the different proposals at the time, see 2006 definition of planet.--Pharos 19:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
That's the draft resolution. The final resolution excluded pluto. Serendipodous 19:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The final resolution of August 24, 2006 did indeed include Pluto as a planet. It is clearly stated in Resolution 5A that a planet by the IAU, excluding moons and stars, is spherical by self-gravity and hydrostatic equilibrium. This definitely includes Pluto. It also uses "planet" ambiguously but corrects this in Resolution 5B. The confusion comes from people ignoring 5B. Check the IAU website. It is not old, it is current. Star Guy.

The final definition makes no reference to "Classical" at all. Resolution 5b was proposed, but it failed at the vote. Only 5a and 6a made it through. (see here) If you read the "Semantics" section, not to mention the IAU quote I added two days ago, you can see that the IAU makes perfectly clear that dwarf planets are not planets. I just added the results of the final vote to 2006 definition of planet, so hopefully that should clear the matter up.Serendipodous 16:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Even before I saw your response I reread both the resolutions and the Q n A page on the IAU site and you're right. The definition does not include Pluto as a planet and as you say in your Semantics section there is ambiguity and this is what is causing the confusion. Sorry about the error. I changed my website accordingly. Would you mind if I included a link for my website, astro-taxonomy.net, which has a clear and broader definition? Star Guy, Jan. 6, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpell (talk • contribs) 09:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind, but it probably would violate Wikipedia linking guidelines, since it states a very strong point of view. Serendipodous 23:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's OK then. But as I'm new to Wikipedia procedures and guidelines I might look into it to make sure. Bpell (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

i thought charon was pluto's moon. how then is it a planet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.164.205 (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Unlike all other large moons, Charon and Pluto orbit a common centre of mass outside themselves. In essence, they both orbit each other, so either could be described as the other's moon. Because of this, the initial proposal suggested that Charon be considered one part of a "double planet". However, that proposal was dropped and the final proposal left Charon a moon. Serendipodous 15:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nice article, inadequate lead

This is a great article, but the lead doesn't do it justice. The current lead reads more like the lead for 2006 definition of planet, and that was what I was expecting to find in the rest of the article. I was (pleasantly) surprised: this article contains a treasure-trove of historical information. However, such surprise runs contrary to WP:LEAD, so I think the lead needs a complete rewrite. Geometry guy 18:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I had a go at editing the lead; I didn't really want to rewrite too much because otherwise I would be in danger of repeating information already in the article. Let me know what you think. Serendipodous 07:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
It is definitely an improvement, but I don't understand why you are concened about "repeating information already in the article": that is exactly what the lead is supposed to do! It should "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". This means not only that the most important points in the body of the article should be summarized in the lead, but also that "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". So actually, all the information is repeated! Geometry guy 17:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I just don't see the point of going into too much detail. As long as all the salient points are mentioned, what else needs to be said? Serendipodous 17:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and the lead is probably a bit long now: it could surely be made more concise without loss of significant information. To me, it still does read a bit like the lead for 2006 definition of planet, and it repeats itself a few times: for instance the 2005 debate is discussed twice, as is the ambiguity in the meaning of planet historically. Geometry guy 18:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
OK; how's that? Serendipodous 19:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Nice one! Well, I like it, anyway, and hope you haven't found this exchange completely pointless :-) Geometry guy 19:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Nope. Any excuse to edit this article really. I like tending it; it's the only featured article I created, so I like to see it at its best. You know, like a prize winning pet. Serendipodous 19:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary

WP:NOTDICDEF Can somebody explain the significance of this article within the scope of this rule? WP:NOTDICDEF 67.137.0.28 (talk) 04:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This article isn't a definition of planet. It's about the definition of planet. Serendipodous 05:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't just define the planet. It explains the definition and presents accompanying viewpoints,etc. I quote: "articles should begin with a definition and description of a subject" --Jagun (talk) 04:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)