Talk:Hills cloud

Naming Confusion

Should the subject of this article be referred to as: The Hills Cloud, Hills' Cloud, or Hill's Cloud? Because the article seems to have some inconsistencies with the use of the definite article in the name of its subject, and a definite article would be needed if the name does not include one of the possessives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nogburt (talk • contribs) 06:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I am no expert astronomer (only amateur), nor linguist (though I know French near perfectly and English rather well), but since the cloud's existence was proposed by J.G. Hills, then it should be Hills' Cloud or Hills Cloud, but definitely not Hill's Cloud.

CielProfond (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I was also thinking about the use of the definite article "the". If it is "Hills' Cloud" (meaning the same thing as "The Cloud of Hills") then I don't think the "the" would be needed. But if the "Hills" were just a part of the name, the "the" would be needed.

--Nogburt (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go with "Hills' Cloud" (a.k.a. "The Cloud of Hills") without the definite article unless there is some better information on it.

--Nogburt (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I just realized that we usually say "The Oort Cloud" as opposed to "Oort's Cloud". Perhaps we ought to consider if staying with that nomenclature would be better --Nogburt (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

As I implied earlier, I am not perfect in English, but the way I understand 's and its equivalent ' after an s, it seems to be like it is a possessive. Thing is, the cloud does not belong to Hills, nor does the other one belong to Oort. So it should indeed be "Hills Cloud" and not "Hills' Cloud". CielProfond (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be the case. At least if it is done like "the Oort Cloud". But then a definite article would be necessary. So a sentence couldn't go like: "Hills cloud is XYZ AUs in diameter". It would have to go like "The Hills Cloud..."

--Nogburt (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Scientific Notation

There's some inconsistency in the first paragraph, using 2-3x10^4 then 100-3000 AU. I think the notation should be ditched, given that almost everyone can comprehend numbers below 1x10^6 easily and the notation may make it harder. Also, the variance in the number seems clunky in Scientific notation, given that it's supposed to be an accurate method of numeric representation. Basically, I think it should say 20,000-30,000 AU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.165.141 (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirecting to Oort Cloud

I'm redirecting this page to the main Oort Cloud article. The term 'Hills cloud' is not in common use in the astronomical or planetary science communities, and the Oort Cloud article does a much better job of covering the same material. Michaelbusch (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

My gut instinct is that a re-direct is the best solution since we do not currently have enough peer-reviewed material for a GA-class article, and the Hills cloud is really just the inner Oort Cloud. The Oort cloud is already a FA-class article. -- Kheider 10 April 2010

I've never heard of this nomenclature or specification in 30 years of reading through articles, magazines and books. A simple google search comes up nearly empty and I don't see why there should be a need for a separate category in this specific case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.86.141.133 (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Does 2015 TG387 belong here?

2015 TG387 is being classed as a Sednoid, which to my non-expert view overlaps.--GwydionM (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Syntax

"vast theoretical circumstellar disc" should be "theoretical vast circumstellar disc". The former says that the thory is vast, not the disc. Professor Bernard (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Rasnaboy (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)