Talk:IAU definition of planet: Difference between revisions
→Inconsistancy Concern: new section |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
<!-- Related projects --> |
<!-- Related projects --> |
||
|astronomy=yes |
|astronomy=yes |
||
|astro_object= |
|astro_object=yes |
||
|astrophysics= |
|astrophysics= |
||
|solar_system=yes |
|solar_system=yes |
||
|mars= |
|mars= |
||
|moon= |
|moon= |
||
|space_exploration= |
|space_exploration= |
||
Revision as of 07:30, 15 July 2008
 | IAU definition of planet received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the IAU definition of planet article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Criticism section?
Should it be intermixed with the rest of the text, asks somebody? (Then in order to NPOV-ify the definition text). I think not, because then the discourse of the text would become "tainted" by criticism, hard to read from deviations from the main topic and the points of the creators of this definition will be lost in detail before becoming a whole coherent concept. I think the current state is much better than trying to hide this unexpectedly hard criticism. (My personal criticism only regards linguistics and philosophy, for the rest: "To the H*cc with Pluto!! It's a Sissy-Planet of Meek!"). Said: Rursus ☻ 06:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- (Practical philosophy, that is! OK, then Pluto (including the cartoon dog) is nice, but I don't care what it's (he's) called, as long as the term used for it is logical and usable). Said: Rursus ☻ 06:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Let's not get into another "Save Pluto" debate :) But yes, I think you're right, that POV claim doesn't make a lot of sense. I'll remove it. Serendipodous 07:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Next definition?
When was the next time IAU could review this half-made definition stuff again? 2009? Said: Rursus ☻ 06:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yep. That's the next IAU conference in Rio. Whether they'll actually address the issue then I don't know. They're going to have to do something; extrasolar planets at least will have to be dealt with. Serendipodous 07:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Inconsistancy Concern
I've started a discussion at Talk:Ceres_(dwarf_planet)#Inconsistancy_Concern over problems relating to information consistancy between this and two other articles. Gnangarra 06:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)