Talk:List of Solar System bodies formerly regarded as planets

Name change

I moved this from List of Solar System bodies formerly considered planets to List of solar system bodies formerly considered planets, keeping in line with the lower-case usage at solar system. Please see Talk:Solar_system/Archive_001#Solar_System_vs_Solar_system and Talk:Solar_system/Archive_001#Requested_move (with discussion) for rationale. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Now defunct following the article's move to Solar System. David Kernow (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Add image thumbs...?

Having placed the list within a table, I'm wondering if each body might have its own row prefixed by a thumbnail image; rowspan could be used to group notes appropriately. Yea, nea...? Regards, David Kernow (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eris, Sedna, and Quaoar

This came up over at Planet (as there is a similar chart there) with regards to Eris. As with that page, I have removed the references to Eris, Sedna, and Quaoar as there is no evidence to support their inclusion. This article is entitled "List of Solar System bodies formerly regarded as planets" - a name which implies a formal recognition that never occurred with those three objects. (Upon discovery, there may have been claims of "new planet", but they were never officially accepted as such.) As I said in the other discussion, by listing Eris (and here, Sedna and Quaoar) because of supposed "partial acceptance" by the scientific community - even though the IAU did not recognize them as a planet - we open up the possibility of another "Pluto problem". While the IAU doesn't define Pluto as a planet, some scientists still do, including the head of the New Horizons mission. Do we then have to qualify the "2006" delisting? --Ckatz^chat _spy 09:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Apologies for removing first and then opening the discussion, but in a case like this where a reader might otherwise be presented with problematic information, I felt that it was the correct way to proceed. --Ckatz^chat _spy 09:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Since this article is titled 'formerly regarded' instead of 'formerly classified' I am not sure that I agree with removing Eris, Sedna, and Quaoar from this article. Though I don't consider Pluto a planet, the "Pluto problem" does exist and will probably continue to exist for the next decade or two. -- Kheider 09:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, saying "regarded" or "classified" still implies a certain stature to the designation. With Eris, Sedna, and Quaoar, the "planet" designation for each object appears to have been more of a "look, I've discovered a planet" statement upon discovery, with the caveat being that it was early in the discovery process and thus subject to official acceptance. The casual reader won't make that distinction, though, and might easily believe that the Solar System had four official planets out past Neptune. --Ckatz^chat _spy 10:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing them before discussion is not a problem - as the old Wikipedia expression goes Be Bold! However I would take issue with the removal for other reasons. The items other than the Kupier Belt objects in this list were discovered and hailed as planets prior to the existance of the IAU, and therefore are being held to a more lax standard on whether they were considerd planets or not - certainly Huygens may have labelled his moon a planet, but was this in the C18th/C19th version of a press release to attract most attention? Did scientists of the time consider the bodies to be planets in the same was as the other 7 or 8 known bodies and did they treat them in the same way?

Essentialy there are three parts to this table, the objects that were called planets while we were still working out the course details of what a planet was (i.e. not the Sun or a Satellite body), those objects which could be called planets, but were not by virtue of their size (Ceres, the other Asteroids and Pluto), and large bodies discovered in the late C20th and early C21st who were called planets by their discoverers or the news media, but not by the IAU.

It is my personal belife that at least Sedna and Eris belong in this table, as I can find references to them at the 10th planet easily, [1] [2] possibly not Quaoar though as I can't remember that being refered to in the same way and can't find a reference for it. Having said that if they are included then maybe a new row in the table is appropriate. --Neo 10:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think those two references actually give reasons why we should not include the troublesome trio. Just looking at the headlines, we have two announcements referring to different objects, each of which is claimed to be the "tenth planet". (The Sedna article even goes so far as to say "There is likely to be some debate about whether it qualifies as a true planet" and "Dr Mike Brown of the California Institute of Technology, US, leader of the research team that found the body, said he did not believe it was a true planet.") The references we have (not just those two) suggest that the various discovery teams - excited about their finds - announced them as "planets". To me, that doesn't qualify for "regarded as", unless we are merely incorporating any object that was ever dubbed "planet" in our system. (If so, then the article would have to be revised to reflect and explain that approach.) --Ckatz^chat _spy 10:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but equally in follow up articles to these about the possiblity of moons around each body[3][4] they are still being refered to as a planet - which means that for a while at least they were regarded as such.--Neo 13:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Planet#History

This table used to be at Planet#History, and really should be put back. It's too short to stand on its own and I don't see it getting any longer. Serendi^podous 21:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]