|WikiProject Astronomy||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
- 1 2M1207b
- 2 New definition of planet
- 3 Hypothetical
- 4 Would like new title
- 5 Renaming and rewriting
- 6 Proposed move
- 7 in fiction
- 8 Occurrence of rogue planets
- 9 Resources
- 10 Proposed merger
- 11 Why is it still in "Hypothetical planet types"
- 12 Merged
- 13 Example
- 14 Retention of heat in interstellar space
- 15 Jargon rich
- 16 Suggest deleting "In popular culture section
- 17 Rogue vs. free-floating
2M1207b is an extra-solar planet, not an interstellar planet, right? I don't think the "proplyds" section really applies here. No interstellar planets have yet been confirmed. Maltodextrin 04:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure how an interstellar planet and a sub-brown dwarf can be seen to be the same thing. Any planet object found in interstellar space would be considered an interstellar planet, wouldn't it? but that wouldn't be the same thing as a brown dwarf, necisarrily. Thanatosimii 17:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
New definition of planet
With the new 2006 redefinition of planet, we would need to stop calling these things planets, perhaps interstellar planemo or sub-brown dwarf instead? (The IAU recommended sub-brown dwarf in 2003) 18.104.22.168 02:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- We'll see if this redefinition takes. I'm increasingly skeptical it'll survive. I think it's going to end up like International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry having to list Aluminum as an acceptable spelling.--T. Anthony 11:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- On further studt the new redefinition only applies to our solar system. It's sole purpose is to avoid their being too many planets as it's just all cluttery having that many symbols or planets to worry about. (This sounds sarcastic, but I believe it's basically correct. The asteroids that were downgraded were in part done so because it was causing there be too many planets)--T. Anthony 10:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
What is hypothetical about interstellar planets when the article gives an example of one? Reworded a little - the 2M1207b sentence made it seem like it was interstellar. Orthografer 06:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Would like new title
The IAU is really quite clear: these objects are not to be called "planets." That was established before the famous 2006 redefinition of "planet" and really has nothing to do with that redefinition. So I propose that the article be retitled. Unfortunately I can't come up with a good alternate title. "Interstellar planemo" would be logical, but unfortunately the term "planemo" hasn't really caught on in the astronomical literature. More often you see the clumsy phrase "planetary-mass object." So the title could be "Interstellar planetary-mass objects," but that sounds awkward to me. Any ideas? Kevin Nelson 10:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The redefinition only applies to our own solar system. Extrasolar planets have yet to be properly defined. 22.214.171.124 20:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Renaming and rewriting
The title "Interstellar planetary-mass object" does not seem to be used. I cannot find any occurrence in the abstracts of astronomical articles, despite of some efforts with the NASA ADS Query Form.
What about free-floating planetary-mass object (FFPMO) or sub-brown dwarf which are used in the literature ? (See fr:objet libre de masse planétaire and notes attached to the English names which are listed) ?
Furthermore, this article needs intensive rewriting. It focuses a lot on life there, whereas most studies focus on explaining their origin and detecting them.
- After thinking about it a little more, I like "Isolated planetary-mass object" which is a phrase I've seen in a paper or two. Thoughts? Kevin Nelson 11:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth there was a series of comic strip stories about the Daleks that appeared in the British magazine TV Century 21 entitled "Rogue Planet" back in March 1966. Almost three years before "Satan's World". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- And Star Wars includes another rogue planet: Iego (see starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Iego), which was first mentioned in Episode I. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
In Francis Carsac's novel "The Fleeing Earth" humanity voluntary made Earth a rogue planet to escape the exploding Sun. I have not been able to find a full translation into English, though. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Occurrence of rogue planets
Recent studies indicate that rogue planets are more prevalent in the universe than estimated. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13416431 220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
If I read the articles noted in the text correctly, "twice as many rogue planets as stars" refers to those larger than Jupiter, while "100,000 times as many rogue planets as stars" refers to those larger than Pluto.
- Those are very difficult questions to answer. I suppose it might be worth adding a sentence or two to the article on that topic, which would basically boil down to "it's unknown." Kevin Nelson (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Why is it still in "Hypothetical planet types"
Okay, I've noticed that this is still in the "Hypothetical planet types" category. As this type of planet has been undeniably and repeatedly demonstrated to exist, I propose we take it out of this category. It makes no sense being in there. Samcashion (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Retention of heat in interstellar space
As a non-astronomer, this page made little sense to me. And I have a degree in science. There is too much jargon, much of which is not even hyperlinked. An encyclopedia entry should have a range of basic to sophisticated content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Suggest deleting "In popular culture section
The section "In popular culture" is almost as long as the rest of the article. I understand that rogue planets are still largely hypothetical but such an overwhelmingly long section that includes seemingly every fictitious rogue planet amounts to clutter. Other astronomy articles do not have such sections. Zedshort (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- We can handle this by creating an article [[Rogue planets in fiction]] and transferring the section to the new article. Then [[Rogue planets in fiction]] could be added to the see also list. Fartherred (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)