Talk:Planet

planets in the universe

Interesting theory, there's just no actual evidence to support the idea of planets in other galaxies. What evidence is there for other solar systems with planets outside of our own?72.161.229.229 (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Plenty. See: List of extrasolar planets. Serendi^podous 19:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware there's a list of planets (however did not know the list was generated so recently, only as of 1995), the question is what is the evidence for these planets listed. What's the strongest evidence for any one in particular?72.161.229.229 (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

See: Extrasolar planet. Serendi^podous 23:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, from that link "The vast majority have been detected through radial velocity observations and other indirect methods rather than actual imaging." Then there's a b/w depiction from these indirect methods. The critics of 'big bang' theory reason the planets did not cool down slowly. Also, Robert Gentry has shown the planets did not cool down slowly by examining the baserock granites. If this is true then planets do not form as claimed. If they do not form as claimed there may be no other planets. But, we have this indirect image. If only we could independently verify it. We'll find out some day. 72.161.229.229 (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The planets around HR 8799 have been confirmed via infrared direct imaging since the star is only ~100 light years away. -- Kheider (talk) 09:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. This system was also imaged by coronagraph. See also, Fomalhaut b, which was coronagraphically detected in visible light by the HST. If dear old Hubble can do it, we should probably expect to see many more direct images from more specialised future planet finding missions. Several brown dwarfy things have been spotted in infrared as well. MrAngy (talk) 10:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

satellite security

Jupiter has the most secured satellites (63) in the solar system.

What does 'secured' mean? Verified? Unlikely to be torn from Jupiter's embrace? (If the latter, in contrast to what?) Something else? —Tamfang (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It was added in this diff. Seems to be referring to known moons, even those moons without official names yet. HumphreyW (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Revision of the article

I have used this article as basis for a general revision of the Portuguese version. In spite of its high quality, I was able to find some minor flaws, which I cannot correct because the article is under protection. How can these corrections be done? Claudio M Souza (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Just tell me what the problem is. Or edit for four days. Serendi^podous 20:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, here are the comments I have:

1) Introductory text, paragraph that starts with " The planets were thought by Ptolemy…":

In the phrase: "As observational tools improved, astronomers saw that, like Earth, the planets rotated around tilted axes, and some share such features as…": for the sake of coherence, it should read "the planets rotated … and some shared…"

2) Chapter History, paragraph that starts with " In ancient times, astronomers noted…":

In the phrase: "… and the apparently common sense perception that the Earth was solid and stable, and that it is not moving but at rest.": again for coherence, it should read "that it was not moving…"

3) Chapter India:

In the phrase: " Ayrabhata's followers were particularly strong…": the name is misspelled, the correct is Aryabhata.

4) Chapter Medieval Muslim astronomy:

The text "…which was later identified as the transit of Mercury and Venus by the Maragha astronomer Qotb al-Din Shirazi in the 13th century." must be followed by "However, Ibn Bajjah could not observe a transit of Venus, as none occurred in his lifetime.", as is mentioned in the article "Transit of Venus".

5) Chapter European Renaissance, paragraph that starts with "Thus the Earth became included …":

This case requires some research. In the phrase "…the terms "planet" and "satellite" were used interchangeably – although the latter would gradually become more prevalent…", it seems to me that the more prevalent was "planet" (the former), and not "satellite" (the latter), but I have no access to the reference. I hope the experts in the subject can clarify this point.

6) Chapter 21st Century, title of the box:

"Planets from 2006 to presente". Word mispelled: "present" ("presente" is Portuguese!)

7) Chapter Mythology and naming, first paragraph:

The phrase " The Greeks also made each planet sacred to one of their pantheon of gods…" should be revised, for "pantheon" is the collective noun for gods. I suggest: "…sacred to one among their pantheon of gods…"

8) In the same chapter and paragraph:

In the phrase: "Phosphorus was ruled by Aphrodite…", substitute the name for "Phosphoros, as is spelled before, in the same paragraph.

9) Same chapter, paragraph started with " Some Romans, following a belief possibly originating…":

In the phrase: " after the Nundinal cycle was rejected – and still preserved many modern languages.", correct for "…still preserved in many modern languages."

10) Same chapter, paragraph started with " Since Earth was only generally accepted…":

This paragraph shows two theories for the origin of the name "earth", one saying it comes from ancient Anglo-Saxon word "erda" and the other from the ancient Germanic word "ertho". Maybe both are correct and there is a link between both ancient words, but the text is confusing. In my translation I simply abandoned the first theory and I suggest you do the same in the English version.

11) Chapter Formation, paragraph that starts with " When the protostar has grown such…":

The phrase: " Meanwhile, protoplanets that have avoided collisions may become… either dwarf planets or small Solar System bodies." is not coherent with the objective of the chapter, which deals with the formation processes of planets in any star system, not only in our Solar System. I suggest to write "…either dwarf planets or small bodies" and include a reference in "small bodies" addressing to "Small solar system body".

12) Chapter Atmosphere, paragraph that starts with " Hot Jupiters have been shown…":

The name of the planet "HD 189733b" is lacking a space: "HD 189733 b".

13) Chapter Magnetosphere, paragraph that starts with " In 2004, a team of astronomers in Hawaii…":

In the phrase " which appeared to be creating a sunspot on the surface of its parent star", I think "sunspot" should be changed into "spot", for it is dealing with a star other than the Sun.

That's it. I appreciate your help in case you accept to perform these corrections in the article.Claudio M Souza (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for vetting this; this article has been heavily fiddled with and I shouldn't have left it to rot. Not sure about the planet/satellite history; will look into it. I reworked the "earth" paragraphs so they made more sense. I think I'll leave "sunspot" though- the correct generic term is "starspot", but I can't expect lay readers to know what it means. Serendi^podous 15:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

A minor note

Section Formation:

It is not known with certainty how planets are formed. The prevailing theory is that they are formed during the collapse of a nebula into a thin disk of gas and dust.

But AFAIK, there is no surviving alternative to the "nebular theory", the latest alternative was the deceased Jeans theory of a near stellar passage. The "nebular theory" has however numerous variants, the current ones usually involving protoplanets and possibly "oligarchs" in various time stages, the only thing in common between them being that they all presume an original disc formed solar nebula. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrong caption/image

The first image in this article shows 2 big planets in the background labelled as Uranus (left) and Neptune (right). But 'Neptune' looks a lot like Jupiter. From other images of Neptune, the planet is supposed to appear bright blue. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 12:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm an amateur here, but will try to answer: Jupiter isn't blue, Neptune is. Its blue tint depends on the observing instrument (see Neptune). Its atmosphere in the picture is fake, as admitted in the image description and here. Materialscientist (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the answer. I thought there was an error or something because the atmosphere of Neptune really looks like Jupiter's atmosphere to me and because it looks nothing like any of the images we have in the Neptune article. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 14:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, so the question remains whether that simulated atmosphere is appropriate for the image. Materialscientist (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me like pictures taken with a color filter (perhaps in ultraviolet), in which case the blue tint is misleading. — Isn't Neptune bigger than Uranus? —Tamfang (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Neptune and Uranus are roughly the same size, but Neptune is more massive, so it is denser. Serendi^podous 21:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Technically Uranus (due to lower mass and density) has the larger diameter. As for the activity in the atmosphere of Neptune: It is referenced to a fictional map by Don Davis located at NASA Solar System Simulator (as Materialscientist pointed out above). I do not see why Neptune could not be that active on rare occasions. I also think the Voyager flyby of Uranus probably caught Uranus at an unusually low activity level. -- Kheider (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The pictures at the top of the page

They show several non-planetary objects, so why are those being used? 67.161.18.204 (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this Nature article ...

See here. They don't satisfy the definition of a planet in the lead of this article ... but I presume people will come here looking for information on these objects. Is there an official term for these objects? Do we have an article on them? And if yes, should we mention them in the lead of this article? Cheers, Ben (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I read beyond the extrasolar planets section and found rogue planet. Any chance we can mention this in the lead of this article in the same paragraph as we mention extrasolar planets? Cheers, Ben (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Technically no, since a planet must orbit a star, and therefore a "rogue planet" cannot be a planet. Serendi^podous 15:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Also planet like objects such as our moon, or Saturn's Titan, are not planets because the orbit a planet. By definition a planet must orbit a star. -- Kheider (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Right, but I still believe people will come to this article looking for information on rogue planets. This article has a section on that topic, which is great, but perhaps we can mention them briefly in the lead too (which is consistent with WP:LEAD due to the existence of that rogue planet section in this article) to help guide these readers. Does this seem reasonable? Cheers, Ben (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

How abput a disambig link at the top {{for| ... see rogue planet.}}}--Salix (talk): 23:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Does this article need an overhaul?

I'm particularly interested in redrafting the history section; the article's lead contains references to Galileo and Kepler, which don't get elaborated on in the history section, and the history section contains several unsourced statements. Serendi^podous 18:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Lede

The formal IAU def belongs in a section on definitions, but not in the first line of the lede, or perhaps even in the lede at all. Brown makes a this point in How I Killed Pluto: astronomy is not based on definitions, it's based on concepts. There is no formal definition of a star, or a moon, or a galaxy. The current IAU definition of a planet is merely a way to disqualify Pluto, because people want to make it an exception to the concept of a planet that disqualified Ceres etc. That is, he sees the definition as an attempt to explain the concept. He says, "The concept of a planet—in the eight-planet solar system—is equally simple to state. A planet is one of a number of bodies that dominates a planetary system." IMO he's right, and we should say something more along these lines in the lede. — kwami (talk) 07:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that that definition is fairly vague, and in trying to make it more specific, we'll just end up restating the IAU definition anyway. Serendi^podous 07:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

But... how does Brown define a planetary system? Cheers, Greenodd (talk) 08:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Correct, we cannot use his wording. It wasn't intended for the lede of an encyclopedia article. I think his approach is that everyone knows what it means without getting legalistic about it. There's the gas giants, the terrestrials, and then a bunch of other stuff: the asteroid and Kuiper belts, comets, etc. The first two groups are lumped together under 'planet', the rest are 'minor planets' and comets / DP's and SSSB's / subplanets and debris. I think we can come up with something which is not as bureaucratic as the IAU def. I dunno, maybe s.t. like,

A planet is any of a number of bodies that dominate the material orbiting a star

By implication, that would exclude another star, though maybe we would need to say that explicitly. It would also avoid the problem of Jupiter not being a planet because it doesn't orbit the Sun—the rational the IAU had used to declare Charon a planet. But y'all can probably come up with something more elegant.

For Brown, Sedna is not a planet, and it wouldn't be even if we knew there was nothing else out there and that it had 'cleared its orbit', but by the legalistic def it would be one. — kwami (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

There are rogue planets, too. I would rather think in terms of planets having an atmosphere. Cheers, Greenodd (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Mercury does not have an atmosphere so you are back to a techincal definition that says a planet must clear its region of similar sized objects. -- Kheider (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It's thin, but Mercury does have an atmosphere. That said, my thought was that 'could have' suffices. Greenodd (talk) 11:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Babylon

The first sentence of the second paragraph of the section called Babylon states:

"The Sumerians, predecessors of the Babylonians who are considered as one of the first civilizations and are credited with the invention of writing, had identified at least Venus by 1500 BC.[16]"

This sentence about the Sumerians identifying Venus by 1500 BC seems inaccurate. According to the article referenced, the Sumerian period ended in 2300 BC, and 1500 BC was in the Middle Babylonian period. The referenced article also makes the following statement, which seems contrary to the idea that the Sumerians had identified Venus:

"Writing was invented by Sumerians ca 3200 BC. Cuneiform1 tablets of Sumerian period give us very interesting material but unfortunately no astronomical or astrological texts."

In addition, the sentence mistakenly uses a relative clause ("who are considered...") to incorrectly identify the Babylonians as one of the first civilization as well as being credited with the invention of writing. Although that identification belongs to the Sumerians, it is, in fact, irrelevant regarding the topic.173.254.219.20 (talk) 07:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

per the IAU

In case this gets into an edit war, I changed a line:

According to the IAU's current definitions, there are eight planets and five dwarf planets in the Solar System.

The problem is that there are not 5 DPs; as we state further down, 5 is the number that have been accepted by the IAU. Since we aren't discussing DPs here, I simply removed the incorrect phrase:

According to the IAU's current definitions, there are eight planets in the Solar System.

Kheider thought this would be confusing to our readers, so he added it back in with the correction "recognized":

According to the IAU's current definitions, there are eight planets and five recognized dwarf planets in the Solar System.

This is better, but there are not 5 recognized DPs according to IAU definitions, as there are 8 planets according to their definitions. The IAU expects there to be many more DPs (according to their definitions, and actually everyone's definitions). Therefore I removed the word "definitions":

According to the IAU, there are eight planets and five recognized dwarf planets in the Solar System.

There are other ways we could word this and remain factually correct, if people find this unacceptable, though they tend to be a bit more awkward. Perhaps,

According to the IAU's current definitions there are eight planets in the Solar System; there are also five dwarf planets recognized by the IAU.

— kwami (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

In the lead paragraph, International Astronomical Union is written. Then IAU is written. A reader needs to work out that these things are the same. Reading the above debate, seems the correct word is not "recognised", but "known". And the words "According to", should be "Following..." or "Based on ..." 46.108.133.2 (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

Okay, we're back to edit warring over authority vs. diversity. Per NPOV, we're supposed to provide all significant angles, without choosing sides other than by WEIGHT. Per WEIGHT, the IAU definition of 'planet' is the basis for organizing the article, which I think is right. However, some astronomers, such as Alan Stern, continue to push for other definitions. We cover that in the article, but it needs to be reflected in the lead. Anything wrong with the following wording?

A planet (from Greek πλανήτης αστήρ planētēs astēr "wandering star") is a celestial body orbiting a star or stellar remnant that is massive enough to be rounded by its own gravity, is not massive enough to cause thermonuclear fusion, and—in the definition used by the International Astronomical Union—has cleared its neighbouring region of planetesimals. [...]

Planets are generally divided into two main types: large, low-density gas giants, and smaller, rocky terrestrials. Under IAU definitions, there are eight planets in the Solar System. In order of increasing distance from the Sun, they are the four terrestrials, Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars, then the four gas giants, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Six of the planets are orbited by one or more natural satellites, of which 19 are of planetary mass.

In addition, the Solar System is thought to contain hundreds or perhaps thousands of icy-rocky dwarf planets, five of which have been accepted by the IAU so far. [list in fn] Both the planetary-mass moons and dwarf planets are included as planets by some astronomers, for three types of planet (gas giants, terrestrials, and dwarfs). There are also innumerable small Solar System bodies below planetary mass.

— kwami (talk) 05:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Kwami, this is more of your long-running efforts to rewrite pages per your personal preference. Your repeated attempts were rejected at the dwarf planet article, so please don't try to drag it onto this one. Differing opinions can be covered in the body, if consensus dictates, but your tendentious rewrites of numerous articles relating to dwarf planets is not acceptable. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No, Ckatz, this is not my opinion. I don't even agree with it. But it's a matter of WP policy. I'm sorry if you are unable to understand this, but we are an encyclopedia, and as such we need to reflect the breadth of opinions out there. (And it's not part of the DP debate.) Alan Stern was head of NASA and leads the Pluto mission; he is very publicly pushing for a broader def of 'planet'—and he is not alone. This is important enough to include in the body of the text, and the lead is supposed to summarize the body. Certainly in a FA. Now, do you have any factual criticisms of the proposed wording? Any comments about improving the article? — kwami (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Factual? Yes, it is a fact that you are engaging in disruptive editing to push through your preferred text. You've been disrupting the dwarf planet article for months now, ignoring consensus, discussion, and your fellow editors, and you show no signs of letting up this disruptive behaviour. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, you're clearly having a problem here, but all of that is irrelevant. I made a change to the lead, you reverted it, and now we're at Talk. How is that disruptive?

Again, do you have any comments on the point at hand? — kwami (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Under any non-arbitrary definition, there is the category of the dominant eight, which are most commonly called "planets". Even people like Alan Stern recognize the category. We could (I'd say we should) word the lede to be clearly not about the word planet, but about the category. We could say that some lump the dominant eight+DPs(+round moons) together under the term "planet", and use a different word (e.g. überplanet) for the dominant eight. We could then state the article is specifically about the dominant eight. IMO, WP articles should be about concepts wherever possible, not words. Here, that is clearly possible. --JorisvS (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. We could even develop planemo into an article that would cover Stern's concept of "planet". Any specific changes in wording? — kwami (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Leave uberplanet out of it. This article is about the dominant 8 planet-mass bodies in the Solar System. I am sitting on the fence for most of this, but the intro about the 8 dominant planets (+lesser bodies) is not the place to debate Stern's concepts that are not accepted by the general public (ie: Our moon is not a "publicly accepted" planet.) -- Kheider (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

But we do discuss it in the text, and the lead is intended to summarize the text. True, the Moon is not 'publicly' accepted as a planet, but Pluto still is by many. (Anyway, the Moon nicely illustrates the consequences of a purely physical/geological conception of 'planet'.) Also, it's not just Stern's POV; others, including a number of the public, accept DPs but not satellites as planets (I suspect there are more in that camp, but don't have any figures). By keeping such views out of the lead, we're effectively saying they don't exist. We can say, as Jorisv suggests, that this article is about the dominant 8, and if the reader wants other views, they should go to [planemo/DP/wherever]. — kwami (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ckatz: you are again trying to push your own personal opinion at the expense of fundamental Wikipedia polices. Ruslik_Zero 18:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Do we really need to:

• Put {{POV}} on every major dwarf planet candidate and planet article on Wikipedia?
• Do we really need to suggest that the Earth-Moon system is a double planet in the lead?
• Should I tag the Earth article because it does not mention that it is a double planet (according to some)?
• Should I edit Saturn to state, "With 8 gravitationally bound planets, the Saturn planetary system is largest in the Solar System?

I fail to see why we need to get too complicated (and political) in the lead. -- Kheider (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No, hence my suggestion: Just note that some people may mean something else when they use the word "planet" (for NPOV reasons) and refer the reader elsewhere and have the rest of the article simply be about the dominant eight. This to avoid letting it get complicated. --JorisvS (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Kheider, I don't think you have RS's to say any of those things. We have a very simple criterion for inclusion on WP: if noted astronomers said Earth–Luna was a binary planet, yes, we would need to say that in the lead. If they said the Saturnian system was the largest planetary system in the SS, then yes, we would report that too. But since they don't, we don't. Also, we don't cover such opinions in the articles, so it would be out of place if mentioned in the lead alone, as the lead is supposed to recap the text. In this case, however, we have a very public and protracted debate by several noted astronomers, one which is already covered (adequately, IMO) in the text. — kwami (talk) 04:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

If you do not like the idea of Earth being an obvious double planet then we do not need to spend time in the lede going into details about Stern's planet-moons. Stern's idea is reasonable (it is what Galileo used), but people have been taught that planets directly orbit stars for years. This will not be settled on Wikipedia. -- Kheider (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Which is why we follow sources. Why is that such a difficult concept for you to grasp? — kwami (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:DUE, in the lede planets should orbit stars. I added the one generic comment that the lede needed. We follow sources, but we also give due weight to them, especially in the lede. -- Kheider (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed re. due weight, and that is an improvement. — kwami (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly sure where to put this comment with the -outdent- above, but to comment on the original entry’s "Per WEIGHT, the IAU definition of 'planet' is the basis for organizing the article, which I think is right. However, some astronomers, such as Alan Stern, continue to push for other definitions. We cover that in the article, but it needs to be reflected in the lead." - the controversy *is* reflected in the lead, the opening paragraph closes with that. And at least to me, it seems adequate. Rwessel (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, though as I'm reading it, it isn't clear that, when we say what a planet is in the first line, it's the 2006 definition that we're using, and that the first line is the point of contention for the criticism mentioned at the end of the paragraph. (True, it's in the footnotes, but normally we shouldn't have to read the footnotes to follow the lead of an article.) — kwami (talk)

The IAU definition has been subject to some strong and valid criticisms. Our ideas on what planets are, how they form, how abundant, and how much variation is to be found in arrangement of planetary systems, have been in much flux in recent years since the definition was arrived at. This is a rapidly developing area of knowledge and the appropriate weight should be given in the article to these valid criticisms. The definition is too clean for what is increasingly becoming a much more messy reality. Maybe when we find a super-Earth moon around a gas giant planet this will change. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 08:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

If Earth is not an obvious double planet, I would NOT hold your breath that a double gas giant (that can not be seen up close) will change anything. -- Kheider (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the end of the paragraph could be reworded as follows: "In 2006, the International Astronomical Union officially adopted the above definition in a resolution defining planets within the Solar System. This definition has been both praised and criticized, and remains disputed by some scientists." Rwessel (talk) 10:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Given the lack of further discussion, I put in a comment about whose definition we're using. I also removed the bit on DPs, since it's off topic and any attempt at NPOV wording causes fights. (Best estimates are that there are hundreds of DPs, not "at least five", which is seriously misleading.) — kwami (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed, again; the fact that people have grown frustrated with your repeated attempts to modify dwarf planet-related material does not mean there is consensus for you to implement them. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Then we're back to tagging the article, until you get over your unhealthy authority fetish. The lead sentence is a very specific definition of "planet", that of the IAU. It's a perfectly good definition, but we need to be honest with our readers whose it is. — kwami (talk) 05:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

See, there you go again - it's always something wrong with the person who disagrees with you. Today, I have a supposed issue. Other days, it's Ruslik who is the problem, or Kheider, or whoever happens to say no to you. Tagging a featured article because you aren't getting your way is disruptive and damaging to the project. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Kheider I can work with, because he's willing to work with other people. Most sources follow the IAU def, and therefore so should we. But we need to reflect that there are other views out there, not just Stern and astronomers who agree with him, but historically, within astrology, etc. When we give a definition of a disputed term, it's a no-brainer that we should say whose definition we're using. — kwami (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This amply demonstrates why what you are doing is POV pushing: it has been agreed for a long time that astrology has no place in scientific articles. Ruslik_Zero 07:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

But "planet" is not inherently scientific. That's why we need to establish that this is a scientific article. Stating that we're following the IAU def establishes that. — kwami (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

And again, there are already two sentences *in* the lead paragraph (out of six), that say (1) where the current definition comes from, and (2) that there's a controversy. This is more than adequately covered. Rwessel (talk) 09:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't say that. You'd have to go to another article to know that the 2006 definition is the one we'd use. That's not professional. And again, we state the definition as if it were a fact, when it's actually a convention that's not even universal within planetary astronomy. — kwami (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The last two sentences in the lead summarize the issue adequately. The lead is not the place to go into excess detail about what Alan Stern prefers or that the Sun and moon use to be a "planets" since they wonder across the sky. -- Kheider (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You already accept that covering this is appropriate, so it's odd you would call it "excessive detail". It's only appropriate to say whose definition it is. The last two sentences only summarize this for those who already know the facts, but a lead is targeted to those who don't. — kwami (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Work needed

Hello everyone! This article currently appears near the top of the cleanup listing for featured articles, with several cleanup tags. Cleanup work needs to be completed on this article, or a featured article review may be in order. The tags should either have the issues they refer to fixed and then the tags removed or, if they are unjustified, simply removed. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete ref

The ref No. 29 says just "Joseph, 408". It probably refers to a book by some Joseph, but there is no more information. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Searched the history to see when it was added, and no it never had a corresponding citation. So removed. Serendi^podous 09:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

One PDF is listed as a dead link, but it works. Can't say why. Serendi^podous 11:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)