Talk:Definition of planet: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:48, 20 August 2006

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Definition of planet article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles.

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.

Template:V0.5

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.

Orbital period of the moon and the planet

The current article contains a paragraph that describes how any moon-planet system may be considered a double-planet. The paragraph goes on to say that "The required distance from the planet to the moon depends on the mass of the planet, and the distance from the planet to the Sun, but not the mass of the moon. If the distance from the Sun to the planet increases, or the planet's mass decreases, then the required distance between the planet and moon increases."

I disagree with the statement that the mass of the moon does not change the required distance. I also disagree with the statement that as the planet's mass decreases, the required distance to the moon increases.

The period of orbit of one body about another depends upon the mass of both bodies, as this is what determines the gravitational force between the two bodies. However, as a first approximation, the mass of the smaller body is usually considered to be small when compared to the mass of the larger, and hence the orbital period calculation, in this instance, can be said to depend only on the mass of the larger body. This is usually the case in Earth's solar system, although since the article is attempting to be general and apply to any system of orbiting bodies, the approximation may not hold true in all circumstances.

On the second point, even if we assume that the mass of the moon is small, then as the mass of the planet decreases, the gravitational force between it and the moon will also decrease. Hence, the period of the moon at that orbital distance will lengthen. Therefore, the moon could orbit at a closer orbital distance and still have an orbital speed slower than the planet's speed around the star. Therefore, the required distance between the moon and planet decreases (the article as it is written says "increases").

There is no reference for the statement in the article but the article has apparently been peer reviewed so I assume someone has checked this out, and I am interested is reading what that person(s) has to write, as I am open to a complete discussion of the dyanamics of orbiting bodies and may learn something on my part. I did not make any changes to the main article for the same reason.

D. Clippinger

I'd be interested to see this issue resolved. I've been meaning to source that paragraph for a long time (for the record: I didn't write it) but lack the knowledge of Newtonian dynamics to do so. Serendipodous 19:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drat, this means that I have to break out my physics book and figure it out. Could someone get me a reference of who added that particular change while I'm doing the math? McKay 20:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His name was Tompw. Serendipodous 08:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of 2006 redefinition of planet

Since we already have a (featured) article on the Definition of planet, I do not see why the 2006 redefinition needs its own article. As soon as the media frenzy is over, I suggest that the latter be merged into the existing article. Nick Mks 10:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- SGBailey 11:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as well, just as long as it doesn't get too big. If we see that the separate article starts increasing drastically in length, keep it split off into its own article. However, just as the nominator suggested, let them stay separated until the coverage dies down. ♠ SG →Talk 11:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Me Too! Merge is the logical action once the vote has been cast. -- Jordi·✆ 12:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -Pedro 12:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - SpLoT 12:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge after definition final Also, I've been tagging articles with the Category:IAU planet debate to help us find pages that need to be updated when it's all over. McKay 13:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I've already had to revert a tag removal though, after someone found himself important enough to decide by himself that this needs a seperate article. Nick Mks 14:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge after descision (which ever way it goes!) --Ant 14:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Dyslexic agnostic 14:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge after/if the new definition is accepted - I think it needs it's own article for the moment, but in the long run it should be part of this article, though it will have to be a pretty big section of the article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hibernian (talk • contribs) .
I agree,once it is settled and all is done the articles can be merged in a nice way of giving 2006 its own part,or revising the article and saying in the past,and now.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.38.199.36 (talk • contribs) .
For what it's worth, the last time we added any new planets was way back in 1930. This is a big deal. --Cyde Weys 16:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but we don't have an article on the 1930 discovery of Pluto (which would be the equivalent) either, right? Nick Mks 16:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, we don't have an article on the discovery of Pluto? That's a travesty. It should be created as a sub-article of Pluto and fully fleshed out. There's more than enough verifiable information on the discovery of Pluto to create a featured article. --Cyde Weys 17:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea, Pluto is too large now, so moving a lot of the information out to a new article could bring us below the 32k limit. McKay 17:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about Herschel's discovery of Uranus? That was a far more revelatory moment; no one even suspected that there could be a new planet in our system when he found it. And what about the kerfuffle over Neptune? 17:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serendipodous (talk • contribs)

Exactly the point. No one suspected new planets, so the discovery events don't have as much information / hype. They were searching for Pluto for years, and there's lots of people who tried (including PL). There's a bunch of content available on the discovery of pluto. McKay 18:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you guys serious? If so, feel free to create the article and see if it passes an AfD. If not, please be aware of WP:POINT. Nick Mks 18:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with WP:Point I really do think that pluto has enough information to have an article on it's discovery. The pluto article is currently too large, and look at these stats -- Google hits:

"discovery of pluto" OR "discovering pluto" OR "discovered pluto" 70,100
neptune 38,200
uranus 34,400

the discovery of pluto is more notable if you ask me. McKay 20:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we're serious. You don't think the discovery of a fucking planet is notable enough for its own article? Christ! That AFD would be closed in record time. And please don't go throwing around WP:POINT accusations; that doesn't even make any sense in this instance. --Cyde Weys 21:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey hey hey hey. Don't do that. -- Run! 07:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge now. This is the page for tracking the goings-on with the IAU. The new article will be hard to find unless it is prominently link to through this page. --EMS | Talk 16:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge now. The two different pages are saying the same thing in different ways - it's annoying. The Singing Badger 17:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge after. It isn't August 24, so I don't see how we know if the proposed defintion actually will be the ultimate one. If the decision is different from the current article, and it's merged now, then the information will not have just been incorrent then, but for almost 2 whole weeks. Radagast83 18:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't matter. Definition of planet is an article about the many ways of defining planet over history. It would thus include the current draft proposal, not be it. The Singing Badger 18:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Now Rlk89 20:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge now. DanPMK 22:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge partly and later. Next weekend or soon thereafter, much of the content of this article, with some more content that will be generated this week, should be included in Definition of Planet. Maybe I mean don't merge. You tell me after reading my sketch of the scope of any article on Redefinition --briefly, the process of definition and redefinition and the stakes therein. --P64 22:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge after new definition is approved. Smcmanus 02:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge after definition is decided. --Kmsiever 02:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Merge. Nah, I think the 2006 re-definition of planet should keep its own article. Alastor Moody _(talk) 04:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely do NOT merge. The 2004 tsunami article isn't merged in the tsunami one. This is the one of the biggest astronomical events in the last 70 years, It more than warrants it's own article. If passed it will have extreme effect on our culture. Charts of the solar system, it's models and posters about it hang in millions of schools and people's homes. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 06:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really an 'event' in a strict sense of the word; it's a decision. So the tsunami analogy isn't valid. -- Run! 07:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hexagon1, the 2006 redefinition article is short. It's only a few paragraphs. It's nothing like the 2004 tsunami article, which of course does not belong in 'tsunami'. The Singing Badger 11:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's short doesn't mean it merits it's own article. Look at the length of the Chemical compound article, yet it definitely warrants it's own article. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge after - wait until it has been redefined then the current event tags can be removed too. Mdcollins1984 11:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Regardless of outcome. If yes it becomes the standard, if no it becomes a historical reference. Abyssoft 13:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I think someone should take the two to a user page, come up with a draft and then round about the 24th replace this one with it. Marskell 14:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but wait until the current event tag can be removed Amp 15:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merger now or later --Spiffy sperry 20:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merger later. If this doesn't pass or something unexpected happenes, well then probably not.--Planetary 20:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Regardless of outcome At least the footnotes won't be as scattered. Shawn Hendershot Jr 14:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if the new definition is ackowledged. If not, then delete. Until then keep as it is.--213.155.224.232 17:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge afterSeamus215 17:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Merge - the current events need not be the last redefinition.--GwydionM 17:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge now – This is exactly what this article was intended for. RandomCritic 18:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge - this is an important event in the history of defining the term "planet", no matter if it is accepted or not. I'd personally go with keeping the article separate, as there are now well-developed advantages/criticism sections. My preference would be a brief overview here and use a "main article" link. Unless we want a huge monster-article here, I'd suggest not merging this one in. Chaos syndrome 20:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge once it is all said and done.--C hi li 14 00:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -
1. IMO, this 2006 redefinition of planet is going to go stale very fast due to loss of interest after the matter is resolved.
2. I don't see a consensus for merging now, but I do see a consensus for merging overall after the debate has ended. At this point, August 24 isn't that far away ayway.
--EMS | Talk 04:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge after the decision is made. If it is succesful, then the other artichle should be changed. If it is not succesful, it should be made into a footnote.

@@ Line 96: / Line 96: @@
 *# I don't see a consensus for merging now, but I do see a consensus for merging overall after the debate has ended.  At this point, [[August 24]] isn't that far away ayway.
 *: --[[User:ems57fcva|EMS]] | [[User_talk:ems57fcva|Talk]] 04:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
+Merge after the decision is made. If it is succesful, then the other artichle should be changed. If it is not succesful, it should be made into a footnote.