Talk:Hypothetical trans-Neptunian planets

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Astronomy 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

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.

Contents

[edit] Not established

Until astronomers proclaim the existence of the tenth planet, this article should not exist. My opinion of course. --AI 22:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Um, Planet X, Santa Claus and the Tooth fairy don't exist, either, but we have articles on them. This article attempts to sum both fictional and factual candidates for tenth planet status over the past 75 years, leaving the Planet X article to deal with the astronomical details of that one particular gravitationally-based hypothesis -The Tom 22:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
This article is quite NPOV and IMO a good overview of the topic. If anything it helps to give people some context as to what this 10th planet business is all about, and that is a good thing. --EMS | Talk 03:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree with EMS. It is often useful to have factual articles discussing non-factual or not-yet factual information. That people have certain concepts in their minds is a fact, even if the actual concepts are about things that don't exist. As long as the article accurately presents the concepts as unsubstantiated and only as opinions, then we are still in the realm of facts. Additionally, suppose someone wanted to do a research paper on the origin and perpetuation of myths? I see no reason to make it harder for them to find information. --KKL 17:03:50, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
Perhaps... But in my opinion there should be no such article as Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy or Planet X or Tin-foil hat. I just expect a higher standard from Wikipedia than some of you. Shall we start writing articles about everything and anything that anyone popularizes? How about an article on poop. :) Very encyclopaedic... --AI 22:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
How about it, indeed? A rather well-developed article, actually. You're entitled to personally expect what you call "a higher standard," but this standard of yours certainly isn't echoed by the vast majority of Wikipedians, as reflected by where consensus has generally set our notability bar. -The Tom 22:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Feces is a real thing. Santa Clause, the Tooth Fair, Planet X, and Buckaroo Banzai are not.
Though they're not real as such, there is information about them. Keeping information out of an encyclopedia purely because it pertains to a fictional entity is, well, greatly pointless. --67.172.99.160 01:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Anyway, Regarding a higher standard, I certainly do not expect human beings to collectively support such a standard. Look at the pathetic history of what humans have "agreed" upon. Only Jimbo Wales can fix Wikipedia's inherent problem. --AI 23:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn’t hold Wikipedia to too high a standard as it is more of a conglomerate of concepts then an encyclopaedia in the sense of Encyclopaedia Britannica.
I Think its all about the Tact of the TexTile Žena Dhark…·°º•ø®@» 09:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2003 UB313

Isn't 2003 UB313 being considered the 10th planet in the solar system, since it is bigger than Pluto and also has a moon? myselfalso 22:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe too progressive...  Morcheeba? Žena Dhark…·°º•ø®@» 09:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theory

Is there mention in this article about how the tenth planet ties in with an evolutionary theory? My history teacher told us about this theory that an alien race lives on the tenth planet and that every 10,000 years, the planet comes within a few hundred miles of Earth. When that happens, the aliens come to Earth and help mankind in some way. As far as I know, it's not a scientology idea. This seems possible as every 10,000 years, there is a sudden spike in human development.- JustPhil 11:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No, there is no mention of that in this article. Robin Johnson 11:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Could we add that stuff?- JustPhil 16:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
No, not unless someone finds a good reference to it. To my knowledge, no astronomical objects other than the moon come anyway near the Earth at a regular basis.--Niels Ø 15:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, it's just a theory.- JustPhil 12:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Let's be a bit more blunt: It's an absolutely crazy theory, that shouldn't be mentioned here unless it has an exceptional importance in the history of pseudo-science.--Niels Ø 21:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears that your teacher has been reading way too many science fiction stories. Even if it were true, the civilizations that benefitted from such exchanges have since disappeared such as the race before the Ancient Egyptians, the civilization of Atlantis (hypothesized), and other ushc civilizations yet to be uncovered. That planet could be Nibiru, a planet seen by the Sumerians thousands of years ago. It could not be Thea because Thea is now part of the Earth....the reason why the inner and outer core of the Earth has a much divergent composition than the rest of the Earth (only a theory still). These are all theories, however, as we did not live during those times or have any recordings of the period between the late stone age and the early bronze age.

More Specifically, LemmeSee Žena Dhark…·°º•ø®@» 03:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xena and Greek Mythology

Found this in the 2003 UB313 section:

"Originally nicknamed Xena after the lead character in the TV series Xena: Warrior Princess, its moon is nicknamed Gabrielle after Xena's sidekick in the series. However, "Xena" won't be the object's final approved name, because it is a fictional TV character that does not exist in Greek mythology." (emphasis mine)

I'm not sure if you fellows are aware, but most of the planets in the solar system are named after figures in Roman mythology; otherwise, Mars would be renamed Ares, Jupiter would be called Zeus, Saturn would be named Cronus... etc. Several moons do take Greek names, though. I'm changing the sentence to say "does not exist in Greek or Roman mythology".

Also, although the reason for never officially labelling the object "Xena" (it's a fictional, recently created character) is quite common-sense, it also smells strongly of original research, and I think we need a citation to be able to state factually why the name doesn't work. (I'm adding a {{Fact}} tag as a consequence). T. S. Rice 03:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should take the line out altogether. Whatever it is eventually named, that does not affect whether it is now nicknamed "Xena." And are Quaoar and Sedna Roman names? I'd think not, and I am a Latin teacher. No, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaoar#Name. --Mrcolj 20:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] redefinition of planet

Man, this article will be needing quite an update... 132.205.93.195 21:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha, you're quite right! If what this says is true, "Tenth Planet" will be totally pointless, probably referring to Charon or something... Comrade4·2 07:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Discussion on this partially at Talk:Definition of planet. 10th would be Pluto, because Ceres gets put in the mix? Pluto and Charon share 10th planet? McKay 15:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we'd name this article Tenth planet in the twentieth century or somesuch. 132.205.93.195 03:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Keep at present title as an historical speculation. ninth planet as now an article for the present speculation.. Rokkss 22:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename: Tenth planet → Ninth planet

Tenth planet → Ninth planet … Rationale: The IAU redefined planet today, so Pluto was dropped, so the Tenth planet discussion is now the Ninth planet discussion (with alot of refactoring and cleanup necessary) — 132.205.93.205 21:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

  • Agree. Rename. --md84419 21:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. Rename. --myselfalso 21:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep "tenth planet". Until someone finds a reliable source indicating that this concept is suddenly referred to as the "ninth planet", this proposal violates common naming and WP:NOR, specifically the prohibition of new definitions. Melchoir 21:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep at tenth planet. This discusses the historical speculation about there being a tenth planet in the solar system before Pluto was redefined. When speculation starts occurring about a possible ninth planet in the future, that can go into a ninth planet article, but this article should remain as history. Voortle 21:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Heh, heh. Pretty quick on the draw aren't we? Pluto's not even cold in the grave yet (well, not colder). -  AjaxSmack  22:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename It's becoming pretty obvious that the IAU's desicion is standing.--Nog64 00:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; Melchoir is right. AJD 00:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, "tenth planet" is not so much about a literal tenth planet, as it is about the idea of more planets in our cultural imagination. Adam Bishop 00:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Voting is evil, but if we must, Keep. The discussion has historically, for the last century or so, revolved around a "Tenth Planet" - we can't retroactively change it. If the discussions from this point on are about a "Ninth Planet" then that's different. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral This is too hard a question. Either way the content must be dramatically reworked, destroyed and recreated. --Kinst 05:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, per comment by Adam Bishop. --Gene_poole 03:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, until citations can show the usage of the term has changed, it should be left "Tenth Planet" even if it is an historical anachronism. --Aelffin 03:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although tricky I think the usage of "tenth planet" is established. This article is about the usage of the term, not the actual 10th planet per se. We should note the change in IAU terminology, of course, and Ninth planet may redirect here. The OR objection is not trivial. --Dhartung | Talk 04:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This article is about the so-called tenth "planet," so why should it be moved to a title already occupied by Pluto, the ninth planet? ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 04:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Most of this article is about the concept of a tenth planet as speculated, or described in fiction, "when there were nine planets". All the objects given as exmaples - real and fictional - have been called the tenth planet, but not the ninth planet. Robin Johnson (talk) 09:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - consider rename if the term ninth planet is established, which we can only know years from now. -- Egil 13:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

  • If we renamed this ninth planet, we can include the stuff about the next planet out from Neptune, since the discovery of Neptune, and thus the 10th planet stuff would fall into a section . 132.205.93.19 02:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Be aware that Planet X covers some of this territory. As yet there isn't an ongoing search for "a ninth planet", although I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a trans-neptunian object meeting the new definition. --Dhartung | Talk 04:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Further thought suggests to me that ninth planet should be a disambiguation page, perhaps directing to all three of Pluto, Planet X, and Tenth planet. --Dhartung | Talk 09:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Probably the earliest claim out

From the Times, 24th April 1930 (yes, 1930):

...a telegram from Professor Stewart, of the Dominion Observatory, Ottawa, indicating the possibility that a tenth planet had been found. According to the telegram, an object discovered by "Henroteau and Miss Burland on plates taken in 1924" is suspected to be a trans-Neptunian planet (etc)

Turns up again on the 26th, when he confirms it wasn't Pluto ("the Lowell planet"), but it never crops up afterwards that I can see... an interesting little footnote for the first claimed tenth planet. I wonder if they ever decided what it was - a comet? Shimgray | talk | 22:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"Plate flaws" seems to be the modern interpretation, although the originals have been lost. Presumably if they calculated ephemerides that would have been recorded somewhere and thus matchable. --Dhartung | Talk 06:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with ninth planet

A merge would update both articles.---Scott3 Talk Contributions Count: 950+ 03:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

See prior discussion. --Dhartung | Talk 04:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Makrisj 06:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)== Stay tenth. ==

I suggest article name stay, because it can be easier to discover. we may add first line comment, though, stating that the tenth shall be the nineth planet actually, right because of the recent desicion.

Let's make the subject easier to find and even more informative.Makrisj 06:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ninth planet discussion

[edit] Ninth planet vs. tenth planet

This is not a duplicate of the tenth planet article, as ninth planet and tenth planet are not the same topic. Tenth planet is about historical speculation, and ninth planet is about present speculation about a planet in the solar system beyond Neptune. Voortle 00:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Right. As per the concensus discussion conducted on talk:tenth planet Robert Brockway 04:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You guys need to learn some facts. The 9th planet was found in 1930. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.117.31.66 (talk • contribs) .
Indeed it was. And in 2006 it was reclassified as a dwarf planet. This has happened before in astronomy and will happen again. --Dhartung | Talk 06:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yep, when Pluto gets reinstated at the next General Assembly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Something14 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 01 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete?

This seems like a pointless article when not only hasn't there been any speculation about a "ninth planet", but given the construction of the current definition of "planet", it's pretty much impossible that any body, even one the size of Earth, discovered anywhere in the Kuiper belt will ever be considered a planet. RandomCritic 17:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there certainly was, for a time, a ninth planet. The majority of the article is historical, rather than about speculation (compare with tenth planet, naturally). As for the future, I'm both certain that a body at least Mars-size will one day be found out there, and that that's when the 3rd clause will bite the IAU in the ass as far as the imprecise definition of "cleared its neighborhood" (or the choice of "dwarf" planet as a name, rather than something indicating an anomalous planet-like body that isn't necessarily smaller). However, that's perhaps a bit beyond the scope of this article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. Certainly when an object the size of Mars is found out there, the definition of planet debate will return. Voortle 09:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] criteria for deletion

There isn't any references for "speculation" for anything that people are calling the "ninth planet", [1], so, while there may actually be speculation, such a concept is WP:NOT a part of wikipedia. I would guess that people won't really be calling it the "ninth planet" in speculation. Planet X fits the idea better anyway. McKay 05:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

First, Planet X is a specific theory related to gravitational perturbations of Neptune Uranus both Uranus and Neptune, not a general theory of "the next planet out". Second, I don't understand your first two sentences. --Dhartung | Talk 10:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I still don't quite understand your comment above, but on the assumption that our wording was misleading I decided it was possible that the sentence "One of these [i.e. bodies as big as Mars] may constitute a 9th planet" could be construed to mean that there was a specific body being referenced. I've rewritten to eliminate the ambiguity, and removed the tag. --Dhartung | Talk 15:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with tenth planet

A merge would update both articles.---Scott3 Talk Contributions Count: 950+ 03:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus from Talk:Tenth_planet#Rename:_Tenth_planet_.E2.86.92_Ninth_planet was otherwise. --Dhartung | Talk 04:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)