Talk:Definition of planet/definition of planet archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Merge of 2006 redefinition of planet

Since we already have a (featured) article on the Definition of planet, I do not see why the 2006 redefinition needs its own article. As soon as the media frenzy is over, I suggest that the latter be merged into the existing article. Nick Mks 10:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge -- SGBailey 11:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as well, just as long as it doesn't get too big. If we see that the separate article starts increasing drastically in length, keep it split off into its own article. However, just as the nominator suggested, let them stay separated until the coverage dies down. ♠ SG →Talk 11:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Me Too! Merge is the logical action once the vote has been cast. -- Jordi·✆ 12:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge -Pedro 12:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - SpLoT 12:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge after definition final Also, I've been tagging articles with the Category:IAU planet debate to help us find pages that need to be updated when it's all over. McKay 13:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Good idea. I've already had to revert a tag removal though, after someone found himself important enough to decide by himself that this needs a seperate article. Nick Mks 14:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't merge I've decided to change my vote. I think that the 2006 article should remain for historocity (is that a word). This article is too big as it is, incorporating more history will add too much content, and we'll have to find something else to split out into an article. This one is done, why not leave it. McKay 13:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge after descision (which ever way it goes!) --Ant 14:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - Dyslexic agnostic 14:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge after/if the new definition is accepted - I think it needs it's own article for the moment, but in the long run it should be part of this article, though it will have to be a pretty big section of the article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hibernian (talk • contribs) .
  • I agree,once it is settled and all is done the articles can be merged in a nice way of giving 2006 its own part,or revising the article and saying in the past,and now.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.38.199.36 (talk • contribs) .
  • For what it's worth, the last time we added any new planets was way back in 1930. This is a big deal. --Cyde Weys 16:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree, but we don't have an article on the 1930 discovery of Pluto (which would be the equivalent) either, right? Nick Mks 16:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow, we don't have an article on the discovery of Pluto? That's a travesty. It should be created as a sub-article of Pluto and fully fleshed out. There's more than enough verifiable information on the discovery of Pluto to create a featured article. --Cyde Weys 17:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Great idea, Pluto is too large now, so moving a lot of the information out to a new article could bring us below the 32k limit. McKay 17:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What about Herschel's discovery of Uranus? That was a far more revelatory moment; no one even suspected that there could be a new planet in our system when he found it. And what about the kerfuffle over Neptune? 17:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serendipodous (talk • contribs)
  • Exactly the point. No one suspected new planets, so the discovery events don't have as much information / hype. They were searching for Pluto for years, and there's lots of people who tried (including PL). There's a bunch of content available on the discovery of pluto. McKay 18:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you guys serious? If so, feel free to create the article and see if it passes an AfD. If not, please be aware of WP:POINT. Nick Mks 18:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I am familiar with WP:Point I really do think that pluto has enough information to have an article on it's discovery. The pluto article is currently too large, and look at these stats -- Google hits:
  • "discovery of pluto" OR "discovering pluto" OR "discovered pluto" 70,100
  • neptune 38,200
  • uranus 34,400
the discovery of pluto is more notable if you ask me. McKay 20:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course we're serious. You don't think the discovery of a fucking planet is notable enough for its own article? Christ! That AFD would be closed in record time. And please don't go throwing around WP:POINT accusations; that doesn't even make any sense in this instance. --Cyde Weys 21:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey hey hey hey. Don't do that.  -- Run!  07:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge now. This is the page for tracking the goings-on with the IAU. The new article will be hard to find unless it is prominently link to through this page. --EMS | Talk 16:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • New vote: Transwiki to Wikinews, otherwise merge ASAP - The redefinition debate is a currently news item, not a set encylcopedic subject. Let the event play out, and then decide how it and its effects will be handled. In the meantime, this page is the best place to track the events in Wikipedia, with the aid of a link to the transwiki-ed article. --EMS | Talk 19:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge now. The two different pages are saying the same thing in different ways - it's annoying. The Singing Badger 17:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge after. It isn't August 24, so I don't see how we know if the proposed defintion actually will be the ultimate one. If the decision is different from the current article, and it's merged now, then the information will not have just been incorrent then, but for almost 2 whole weeks. Radagast83 18:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That doesn't matter. Definition of planet is an article about the many ways of defining planet over history. It would thus include the current draft proposal, not be it. The Singing Badger 18:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Now Rlk89 20:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge now. DanPMK 22:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge partly and later. Next weekend or soon thereafter, much of the content of this article, with some more content that will be generated this week, should be included in Definition of Planet. Maybe I mean don't merge. You tell me after reading my sketch of the scope of any article on Redefinition --briefly, the process of definition and redefinition and the stakes therein. --P64 22:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge after new definition is approved. Smcmanus 02:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge after definition is decided. --Kmsiever 02:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Merge. Nah, I think the 2006 re-definition of planet should keep its own article. Alastor Moody (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Absolutely do NOT merge. The 2004 tsunami article isn't merged in the tsunami one. This is the one of the biggest astronomical events in the last 70 years, It more than warrants it's own article. If passed it will have extreme effect on our culture. Charts of the solar system, it's models and posters about it hang in millions of schools and people's homes. +Hexagon1 (t) 06:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • This isn't really an 'event' in a strict sense of the word; it's a decision. So the tsunami analogy isn't valid.  -- Run!  07:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Hexagon1, the 2006 redefinition article is short. It's only a few paragraphs. It's nothing like the 2004 tsunami article, which of course does not belong in 'tsunami'. The Singing Badger 11:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Just because it's short doesn't mean it merits it's own article. Look at the length of the Chemical compound article, yet it definitely warrants it's own article. +Hexagon1 (t) 03:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge after - wait until it has been redefined then the current event tags can be removed too. Mdcollins1984 11:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Regardless of outcome. If yes it becomes the standard, if no it becomes a historical reference. Abyssoft 13:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. I think someone should take the two to a user page, come up with a draft and then round about the 24th replace this one with it. Marskell 14:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge but wait until the current event tag can be removed Amp 15:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merger now or later --Spiffy sperry 20:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Even though the poll is over, I change my vote to Don't merge per Cyde Weys on 19:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC) (expansion of the 2006 article). --Spiffy sperry 16:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merger later. If this doesn't pass or something unexpected happenes, well then probably not.--Planetary 20:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Regardless of outcome At least the footnotes won't be as scattered. Shawn Hendershot Jr 14:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge if the new definition is ackowledged. If not, then delete. Until then keep as it is.--213.155.224.232 17:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge afterSeamus215 17:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Merge - the current events need not be the last redefinition.--GwydionM 17:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge now – This is exactly what this article was intended for. RandomCritic 18:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't merge - this is an important event in the history of defining the term "planet", no matter if it is accepted or not. I'd personally go with keeping the article separate, as there are now well-developed advantages/criticism sections. My preference would be a brief overview here and use a "main article" link. Unless we want a huge monster-article here, I'd suggest not merging this one in. Chaos syndrome 20:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge once it is all said and done.--Chili14 00:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments -
    1. IMO, this 2006 redefinition of planet is going to go stale very fast due to loss of interest after the matter is resolved.
    2. I don't see a consensus for merging now, but I do see a consensus for merging overall after the debate has ended. At this point, August 24 isn't that far away ayway.
    --EMS | Talk 04:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I highly doubt that this will magically be resolved on August 24. There is going to be significant fallout and it is going to take people time to adjust to a new definition of planet that has been unchanging since 1930. It might take us a few days to even synthesize the full scope of the issue. So saying this article should magically be merged on August 24 seems like a bad idea to me because that day and the few days after it are going to be the most active days in regards to this article. --Cyde Weys 18:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
      I now agree with the writer below who thinks that 2006 redefinition of planet should be transwikied to Wikinews. I agree that it will be some time before the true significance of this debate will be apparent, but I see this as a reason not to have a seperate article. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Articles should wait until the need is obvious, not just because the issue is of interest at the current time. --EMS | Talk 19:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge after the decision is made. If it is succesful, then the other artichle should be changed. If it is not succesful, it should be made into a footnote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.53.123 (talk • contribs)
  • Merge now. Most of the detail in the "2006 ..." page would really fit better over at WikiNews. What's left belongs here. Rossami (talk) 09:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge after the final decision has been made. topace10 13:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't merge Think to the situation in 5 years time. The article "Definition of a planet" is where people would look to find the current agreed definition. The article might mention, in a brief section, the fact that back in 2006 the definition was changed and formalised and the debate that this created but would not go into much detail. The section would then refer people to the 2006 article, which would have all the details of the historical debate, effect of the change and so on. Hence wikipedia should still have two articles. AndrewRT - Talk 14:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I concur. This article is already too large as is. We need to pull content out of this one, merging stuff in a too large article in is a bad idea. McKay 13:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed, this is exactly hwat I had in mind when I created the separate 2006 redefinition of planet article. I think this event is significant enough (the first time new planets will be added/dropped since 1930) that it deserves significant coverage, and that would be more coverage than is liable to also fit into this Definition of planet article, since it also has to talk about all of the alternative proposed definitions, definitions in the past, etc. --Cyde Weys 18:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Conversely, the event is significant enough that we ought to find a way to bring it into what is already a sub-article of planet for primacy of placement. "See definition of for more" and then "See redefinition of for more" is a step too many to arrive at the details of the decision. We have this page, an FA—let's use it when the dust settles. Note too, that when this decision is made (assuming it's final) much of this page can be abbreviated, as the currently contemporary arguments will become historical. Marskell 18:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the way subarticles generally work is that you have a short paragraph summary on the page and then the link to see more. --Cyde Weys 18:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't merge - as per AndrewRT, perhaps rename to "2006 definition of planet debate"? Serious people, please read WP:NOT where it says this is not a paper encyclopedia. And understand that a tangerine and an orange are simila, not the same...--68.165.220.147 19:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • If I had to guess at the final article name I'd say "2006 IAU redefinition of planet". --Cyde Weys 19:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should probably wait a few days until after the IAU's vote and then hold another straw poll. A lot of the people commenting in the current straw poll did so before the 2006 redefinition of planet article was expanded to an appreciable size, and I have a feeling that after the events of August 24 things are going to change a lot. These new facts on the grounds can't really be retroactively added back in to the current straw poll, so it'd make a sense to start a new one once everyone is on the same page. --Cyde Weys 19:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be sort of gaming the vote. There is a fairly robust merge consensus here. Marskell 21:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
My point was that most of the comments here were made when the subarticle was much smaller in size, and most of these people aren't going to revisit to re-evaluate their comment. That's just the way it works ... people show up in straw polls just to have their say and then leave, not particularly worrying as events change. Especially after August 24, when the new definition is made known, the situation is going to change a bit. It could invalidate every reason that anyone has given in here, including me. Who knows, they might even vote to just keep it with the nine planets we have now, thus changing it from a "merge" to a "mostly delete". --Cyde Weys 14:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
When "the new definition is made known" (or delayed further) our page entitled Definition of planet is still going to be the appropriate place to deal with it. The page we want for this already is. IAU definition of planet + Wikipedia page "Definition of planet" = nice fit. Creating a sub-page is excellent for collecting content, but when it settles it should be merge until and unless length dictates otherwise. And even if they only comment once, the above "votes" to this effect should not be discounted. Marskell 22:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Revisit soon. I would suggest to leave the status quo until after the vote on the 24th and subsequent media coverage; world reaction would suggest how notable this would be as an event in itself, or if it should flow with its parent article. Radagast 23:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    Hear hear. +Hexagon1 (t) 09:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    Agreed, and as above, I think we should re-run this poll then. A lot of comments/"votes" made above are simply going to be inaccurate, and it would be nice to have everyone come back in and re-evaluate the situation. --Cyde Weys 14:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    Agreed some more. When the proposal was made, the article had 7 paragraphs and 6 references. The current version has 30 paragraphs and 28 references. Who can predict what we'll have in a week? Melchoir 04:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Revisit soon, Do not merge. There will be substantially more information available after the August 24th announcement, including how the announcement will impact future research and/or debates. Flibirigit 18:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Revisit in a week, Do not merge I agree per Flibirigit. We should wait and see what happens. If the definition is changed, then it should be included in this article. If it is not changed, the 2006 redefinition entry should be by itself (a "see also" could be added to the "definition" page, if it is not passed). Benje309 01:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't merge. Both articles are already long enough, including enough unique material, to be self-supporting. What's wrong with summary style? What happened to comprehensive coverage? Since when does an article have to be "needed" by another article in order to justify its own existence? Melchoir 04:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This article will need to be completely revised from the ground up when the definition is finally released. I don't think that the two articles necessarily need to be merged. A detailed description of the events of every single day is unnecessary for this article; a simple recapitulation of the initial proposal, and a mention of the debate and the final proposal would be enough. The new definition would need to be placed in the introductory paragraphs; the most recent events will need to be moved to the top; the remainder of this article would be focused on the historical development of the definition and also the remaining controversies and issues left unresolved, particularly as regards extrasolar planets. Serendipodous 07:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • A detailed description of a single day may be unnecessary, but we are in the business of exceeding what is necessary. The events will already be briefly summarized in the lead section of 2006 redefinition of planet and the corresponding section of Definition of planet. But in the encyclopedia article itself, why would we get rid of relevant, verified information? Melchoir 18:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't get rid of it. I think the other article can stay, but only a summation of the main points of the article, totalling perhaps three paragraphs, is necessary for this article. EDIT: clarified my initial position. Serendipodous 18:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Ah. Forgive me, I read you in the wrong context! Melchoir 18:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't merge for reasons outlined by AndrewRG --Mikebrand 00:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't merge, The 2006 redefintion of a planet is an article in it's own right, covering what happened around those days, it critisism and controversy, all the draft copies, opinions and e.g. The article definition of a planet, simply shows what a planet is defined as, get my point? -- Legolost EVIL, EVIL! 04:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Once the IAU meeting is over, the decisions of that body can be reduced to a single paragraph and the events leading up to it -- which do not really require immense detail -- can also fit in a single paragraph. At that point, the 2006 article will be useless, and might as well be incorporated in this article (where, honestly, it should have been all along). RandomCritic 07:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Merge per AndrewRT. Dionyseus 08:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Merge because the 2006 redefinition is a good sized article and should stay there for the sake of history.

This poll did not reach a consensus. Until a new poll opens, feel free to continue discussing the merits of a merge, but any votes here will not be counted.

[edit] OR issue

A few months back, while preparing this article for feature consideration, I went through and attempted to eliminate any and all traces of POV; of which this article, not unjustifiably, has been accused multiple times. I am (I can safely say) very much of the "demote Pluto" camp, and earlier drafts of this page contained far more obvious anti-Pluto POV, so when I prepared this article for feature consideration I focused primarily on that. I realised, looking over the different proposals, that each had a counter-claim showing the holes and amibguities within it, but the "shared orbit" definition (which is effectively the "demote Pluto" section) did not. Unable to find a sourced counter-claim for that section, I just made one up myself:

However, the criterion of a shared orbit is not without ambiguity; it does not define a planet by composition or formation, but, effectively, by its location. Hence, by this definition, a body of Pluto's size or smaller orbiting in isolation would be called a planet, whereas larger objects in close proximity to one another would be termed "minor planets".

I think this is a correct reading of the "demote Pluto" position, but it may still qualify as original research. What do you think?Serendipodous 18:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

My own opinion is that this is a fair interpretation and commentary on the issue. As long as it is non-controversial, it can stay. Look at it this way: You are expected to use sources, but the article is also expect to be of your own words. To propose a standard for when multiple objects in the same orbit are a set of planets as opposed to being a collection of objects (such as the asteroids or TNOs) would be quite OR. However, noting that there is an issue as to when the transition occurs is not. --EMS | Talk 03:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you think the deleted second "criticism" section over at 2006 redefinition of planet constituted original research?
“ One criticism of this proposal is that it is unclear what is meant by "by far the largest object". Also, by setting relative parameters, it creates the potential for the existence of large, terrestrial-planet-sized objects that are not planets, either in our own solar system or elsewhere, if their "local population" prevents this.

Another criticism is that, in the end result (with the exception of clarifying the question of brown dwarfs), it does not truly differ very much from the original draft, other than it takes the category "dwarf planet" and sets it apart rather than making it a sub-category of planets. It can be argued that the two recognized groups of planets (terrestrial and gas giant) are so utterly different that the complete exclusion of any icy trans-Neptunian objects regardless of their physical characteristics is arbitrary.

One of the criticisms of the original draft, that it could result in "too many" planets, is in principle solved by that very draft, in the creation of two categories of planet, classical and dwarf, while relying on a strictly physical overall definition of planet. Critics of the counter-proposal see it as being more arbitrary, and segregating one potential class of planets for no particular reason other than the desire to end all planets at the Kuiper Belt. It should be noted that the two recognized classes, terrestrial and gas giant, are themselves bisected by a belt of minor bodies, yet there seems to be no opposition to categorizing these dissimilar groups under the umbrella of "planets."

 ”
Serendipodous 09:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
There are a number of things that set the quote above apart from the statement which started this thread:
  1. The large quote proved to be controversial. As a rule of thumb, controversial + undocumented = OR.
  2. The initial statement is a one-line elaboration on the issue, limited in scope and well integrated into the article. By contrast, the quote above is a multiple-paragraph mini-essay that stands of its own.
  3. The initial statement does not materially affect the POV of its article, but the large quote above did, making it more in need of being sourced. This is because
    • The quote above is a blatant rebuttal of the proposal it refers to.
    • It also suffered from a POV perspective by the lack of any supporting argument for the proposal.
So IMO it was quite appropriate that this quote was removed. --EMS | Talk 22:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)