From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article 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 so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 24, 2008.
WikiProject Solar System (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Planet is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Core
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Alleged medieval observations of transits of planets[edit]

The observation of transits of planets by Avicenna and Ibn Bajjah is quite improbable, if not impossible. See also the discussion at Talk:Transit of Venus/Archive 1#Can Avicenna have possibly observed the transit of 1032?. --Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Former classifications[edit]

please split this. make "Timeline of planetary classifications" - make it in similar to the "objects by size" set-up! heck, even add the time when Neptune and Pluto were the 9th and 8th planets — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, why? — Meanwhile I wonder why the first four asteroids are separated from the next eleven. Weren't they all reclassified at the same time and for the same reason? —Tamfang (talk) 00:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
When were the first four and the next eleven discovered? People didn't feel a need to reclassify four 'planets' in the asteroid belt, but they did when it turned out there were not a few, but many bodies there. --JorisvS (talk) 09:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The first four took longer to be reclassified than the others. Serendipodous 10:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
My understanding is that all the asteroids (minor planets) got the boot in the 1850s. I am sure there was a generation of astronomers that treated the big 4 as special. -- Kheider (talk) 10:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, they all got reclassified simultaneously. Somehow the first four were discovered shortly after one another, then for a long time none were discovered, and after that asteroid discovered began to take off, forcing reclassification. --JorisvS (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Archive reorganisation[edit]

I've just gone through the archives for this page and noted that there was a massive disparity between the largest and smallest pages. This is partly my fault and partly a legacy of the spats we had here over the definition in 2006. I've had a go at evening them out, so now they're all roughly 100k. I've also reduced the number of archives from 7 to 5. Serendipodous 15:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Number of DPs[edit]

Saying the SS has "at least 5 DPs" is a serious misrepresentation of our sources. No-one says that. IAU pubs estimate hundreds if not thousands of DPs. (Okay, found one from 2006 that says dozens or more; we have others around here w higher.) There are 5 individual bodies which they have accepted as DPs, but that is not a claim about the number of DPs in the SS. (If s.o. argues that "at least 5" could mean hundreds or thousands, no normal reader would interpret it to mean that.) — kwami (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Reverted again, please resolve this before changing again K. I have merged your notes into the ref. Let's not have the DP argument spill onto yet another page. --Ckatzchatspy 06:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't know where this comes from, since you have no reference that the estimated number of DPs is anything close to five. Since the number is not ref'd, and neither DPs nor SSSBs are the topic of the article, I've removed the sentence for now. — kwami (talk) 07:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
And that's restored as well. Seriously - you're challenging that there's at least five? Please resolve this here first, or else we have to go back to the way it was before you initially changed it. --Ckatzchatspy 11:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Of course I'm challenging it. We could say there are "at least 20 stars in the galaxy", and if you wanted to be ridiculous you could point out that it's technically true, but it would still be a stupid thing to say. When you say "at least", you imply that is the lower boundary. Why you would edit war to restore a statement like that is beyond me. Please provide a single RS to back it up. As for "or else we have to", that would be WP:POINTY edit. — kwami (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Color distribution[edit]

There's a NASA sourced color distribution diagram for Solar System planets in this article [1] Do you think it would be a good addition? -- (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

"rogue" planets don't orbit stars?[edit]

There is a news article reporting a paper published confirming discovery of a rogue planet, a planet that is not orbiting a star. This article says that planets orbit stars... see where I'm going with this? (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

What is a planet depends upon it having cleared its neighborhood. If it is in direct galactic orbit, that criterion is not even applicable. Any rogue planemos (planetary-mass objects) are therefore not planets, even though "rogue planet" is often incorrectly used in place of "rogue planemo" (as does the news article). --JorisvS (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
"Minor planets" and "dwarf planets" are also not planets as they are more or less used as compound nouns. -- Kheider (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Contradictory relative size in pictures[edit]

In the first picture on the page Uranus and Neptune are larger than Jupiter, in the first picture in the section "Solar system", Jupiter is the largest of the planets. This source [1] seems to agree with the second picture; I also seem to remember Jupiter as being the largest of the planets. Also the first image doesn't include Saturn, which is strange, because it includes objects like the moon and Haumea, but this isn't really important. I suggest either removing one of the pictures, or changing the description to state that one of them is only to show the color of the planets. If there is a reason why they're not contradictory, I'd like to hear. ---Tacit(not registered) (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

In the 1st picture what you think is Jupiter is Venus. -- Kheider (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
You're right, it is Venus. My apologies, I only glanced over the description and thought it was Jupiter because of the texture. Is the reason for not including Saturn and Jupiter in that picture, their size? ---Tacit(not registered) (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Uwingu/IAU controversy over the naming of exoplanets[edit]

A bit of a kerfuffle has arisen over the naming of exoplanets. The International Astronomical Union apparently thinks they do, or ought to, have a monopoly on the naming. Other scientists disagree, including the planetary scientists and cosmologists behind Uwingu. Here's the link to the news story from a reliable source, the science reporter at NBC News: Who gets to name alien planets? May be relevant to the articles re planetary naming in general, and the putative names of the many newly discovered exoplanets in particular. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC) l

Bunch of con artists bilking money from the public, just like the International Star Registry. We need pay them no heed. Serendipodous 15:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Atmosphere of Pluto[edit]

Around the bottom of this page, there is a box about planets and their atmospheres (or lack thereof). However, this article claims that Pluto's atmosphere is temporary, though new research has proven that it is in fact permanent, as show here. 134340Goat (talk) 08:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

NASA Kepler telescope helps identify 715 new planets outside our solar system[edit]

Headline-1: Planet bonanza: NASA announces discovery of 715 new worlds

"NASA says its Kepler telescope has discovered a bonanza of 715 planets outside our solar system, pushing the number of planets discovered in the galaxy to about 1,700."

Headline-2: ‘We Almost Doubled Just Today the Number of Planets Known to Humanity’

" "Our galaxy is looking far more crowded and hospitable. NASA on Wednesday confirmed a bonanza of 715 newly discovered planets outside our solar system." "Scientists using the planet-hunting Kepler telescope pushed the number of planets discovered in the galaxy to about 1,700. Twenty years ago, astronomers had not found any planets circling stars other than the ones revolving around our sun."

Headline-3: NASA Scientists Discover 715 New Planets — Data From Kepler Space Telescope Suggests 4 Alien Worlds Have Potential for Life

NOTE: This is a subscription article: "NASA scientists announced Wednesday the discovery of 715 . . ." — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Rogue planets[edit]

I've removed the following paragraph.

"More recently, with the discovery of several rogue planets in interstellar space, a planet is no longer defined as being in orbit around a star. Although rogue planets are thought to have been originally formed in stellar orbits, later to be ejected from their solar systems. The origins of rogue planets are still however not known for certain."

The definitions used by the IAU and by exoplanet catalogs do not classify "rogue planets" as planets. There have been no discoveries of objects known to have been ejected from their system. There have been free floating planetary mass objects discovered but it is not true to say that they are all thought to have been originally formed in stellar orbits. Astredita (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


  1. ^