Talk:Definition of planet/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This whole things reminds me of...

When Ceres was discovered in 1801. At first, everyone was like "Oh, it definently a planet! It's right where we excpected it to be! In the huge empty gap between Mars and Jupiter!" And it was obvious. Sure, the best telescopes couldn't resolved it as anything more then a point of light, but that's ok. And everyone was happy. Until Pallas was discovered. "Well, that's ok. We'll have another planet!" And then came Juno. "And another!" After some time, they eventually realised that thousands of these odd "Asteroids" would be found, and that they couldn't fit in well with the big planets known at the time (Mercury to Neptune). So then the planet count went back down to 8. Until Pluto was discovered. Pretty much the same thing happened, it was definently a planet, although an oddball too. Until 1992. Something else was found beyond Neptune. It was smaller, but it was in the same area. Doubt lingered, but then along came some others. Sedna, Quaoar, and then "X". We face the same problem today. We know that out there is something like an asteroid belt, but with ice instead of rock. Perhaps "X" and Pluto would just be really big comets in the Kuiper Belt. Maybe if something is mostly made of ice, it can't be a planet, because if brought close to the Sun, it vanishes pretty quickly. It would look nice sure, in it's death pangs, but when all is said and done... the system I thought they'd choose wouldn't have an arbitrary barrier at 800 km for size, but at say... Mercury. It's made of rock, round, big, is very close to the Sun, but still not vaporised. Seems logical to me. But what do I know? I'm not one in the commitee of "7 elderly astronomers who decide the faith of the Sol-system". When we discovered about say, 50 of these things, just "Nuke and Pave" the bloated list, with Mercury being the smallest.--Planetary 18:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

We already have discovered over 50 of them. This definition, love it or shove it, is for the long haul. Serendipodous 19:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Planetary, i guess you never heard of this: Hot jupiter. If you put Earth or Mercury even closer they would also evaporate. In fact, that will occur to Earth, and these planets will continue "living". Pluto is also made of rock, ice in that region is hard as rock. The problem of Plutons is that those are not translatable, I cant translate Pluton to have the same meaning as in English. If I translate directly I'll get the name of planet Pluto. I would prefer Ice planets or Tartarus planets or something else... Plutons?! what a lack of imagination, that razes translation issues. --Pedro 19:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I already know about Hot Jupiters. That isn't what I really meant. If you could push Pluto inside Mars's orbit, say, it would evaporate pretty quickly (relatively speaking). That probably won't happened, though. Pluto's still pretty big, and hard to move. By 50, I meant 50 planet-sized KBOs, not all of them. I know there are almost 1000 already. I just think the current definition for planet isn't strict enough. IMHO, Mercury should be the smallest planet. We can call the others "planetoids". If something is discovered out there larger then Mercury, I'm all for it. Just my opinion. Just noting similarities now to about 200 years ago, when this sort fo thing was happening with the asteroids. I think making Ceres a planet would just make things worse. If they wanted to, they could even set the limit at "X"'s size, but Ceres is just much too small. As for translation issues, I can already think of something in my native language that says the same thing as Plutons. But I recommend planetoids or minor planets. --Planetary 20:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
We have already found more that 50 planet-sized KBOs. At least according to Mike Brown, and he should know. Serendipodous 20:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Planetary, your comparison of this to Ceres and the asteroids is a good one. I agree Ceres should not be considered a planet as it is clearly part of the asteroid belt. Also what about Quaror and other KBOs ? The list of "planets" is just going to increase simply to serve the generally public opinion of keeping Pluto on the list and that's ridiculous. If there's any doubt that this decision is about public opinion then consider the following quote:

“If we were starting from present knowledge we probably would not have classified Pluto as a planet. But this is a very sensible compromise.”

Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2314926,00.html

Since when is science about compromise with opinion ??

Since there is the odd belief the removing Pluto's planethood will result in riots. But then, cartoons can result in riots.--Planetary 21:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • maybe that is also a pressure they had to deal with. Almost everyone likes to read the horoscope, and I bet that some people that has Pluto as planet would become pretty mad. LOL. Roundness is a physical aspect and what really distinguish asteroids from planets, thus you are not making very scientific statements. All that you say for Pluto will also turn Earth into an asteroid. Planets are all different: Jupiter != Earth != Pluto. Ceres was removed from planethood, because in the 1800s people wanted order in the skies.--Pedro 22:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Horoscope ?!? That's an absolutely stupid reason which has nothing to do with science. I don't know anyone who reads that sort of unscientific garbage. Your weak arguments are a good example of why science should not pander to public opinion. Science is about understanding the true nature of things, not capitulating to public opinion or silly traditions.

Agreed. And how can Earth be an asteroid just because Pluto is a comet? I don't see the connection. It would be simpler to set the limit at Mercury.--Planetary 03:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

  • reply to anonymous: maybe you don't know anyone. We've got a new Einstein! There are scientific studies that show that most people read horoscopes. And that was not part of my arguments (but possible reasons for protests), the roundness is the only valid scientific argument that comes by in these discussions and it was studied by a group of 7 prestigious astronomers for more than two years. And they came up with a valid scientific, historical and international definition. Mass is the key: if you have enough mass you'll get a star, and more and more, you can even get a black hole. If they didn't do it, in a few years different countries would have different counting of planets. Why set the limit at Mercury?! One of the reasons for Ceres being classified as a planet: Ceres An Embryonic World. BTW, I've read that the diameter cut-off would be 772.5 km (but that doesnt show up in the IAU site: [1]

-Pedro 10:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the unsigned comment above (about opinion) reminds me about the decision made to turn pounds into a unit of mass and not force (discussion at weight). Even though officially according to virtually standards organization, the pound (and ounce and ton...) are units of mass, even the top class scientists use them the old way. Regardless of whether they like it or not, no matter what they say, Pluto will remain a planet. As I've been thinking about this discussion, I can't help but think about how I would make the distinction. I personally like taking away the status of Pluto, because I don't think it's very scientific. So, giving it the smaller status is a reasonable compromise. A couple sentances ago, I made the statement that I didn't think that calling pluto a planet was very scientific. Until the past couple days, my reasoning for thinking that it wasn't very scientific, wasn't very scientific. See, within the past 20 years, we've found other objects within the gravitational well of Sol that seem more like planets than Pluto does. (most notably "Xena"). But within the past couple of days, I've thought about it more. And I've been thinking, "Well, how would someone who wasn't familiar with just the Sol System define the term. This is hard for us – as humans who haven't left our system – to do, but picking a size and sticking to it is kinda stupid. (anything smaller than 2000km?) As it's very arbitrary. I liked the "larger than the combined masses of other objects in the same orbit" definition (which would kick out pluto), but it would kick out other planets just because some other masses got a little larger. I really do like the current proposed definition of having enough gravity to maintain Hydrostatic equilibrium. It doesn't seem arbitrary. sure, badastronomy.com likes to say that if a material is made of a softer substance like pluto, (cf 4 Vesta), it attains this status easier, but it isn't arbitrary, it's an established phenomenon. I want to say something (potentially about size) to exclude the potentially millions of KB or OC objects that might attain this status, but either it's too arbitrary, or excludes planets like earth. Pedro is right, all other characteristics of celestial bodies are characteristics based on mass. A black hole is an object that is so massive that the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light. A star is an object not a black hole that's so massive that it generates internal fusion. Why not, A planet is something not a star that's so massive that it attains hydrostatic equilibrium. It think it makes perfect sense the more I think about it. McKay 13:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Foolish unscientific garbage like horoscopes shouldn't be part of a discussion about astronomy. Anyway mass is still an arbitary parameter, Ceres has less mass than many satellites. Also shouldn't an object have only one definition ? Ceres is an asteroid and is officially designated as such: 1 Ceres. Why shouldn't Pluto which is a Kuiper Belt object be officially designated as "1 Pluto" (first discovered member of the Kuiper Belt) ? That seems much more logical than simply pandering to opinion especially considering there are many known KBOs already and this number will very likely grow. Having specific classes of objects in the solar system makes more sense: Sun, planets, satellites, asteroids, KBOs, comets. 16:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree on horoscopes, Yes, mass is an arbitrary parameter Hydrostatic Equilibrium isn't. Sure, Ceres is kinda an asteroid, but an asteroid Usually considered a hunk of rock, and usually not really in hydrostatic equilibrium, because there isn't a liquid core. So, Ceres isn't really an asteroid. It may have been one at one point, but because of it's size it compressed its core, and reached a state of hydrostatic equilibrium. So, unless you can define asteroid differently, then that might be something. Also, mercury is smaller than many moons, should we have a new designator for Planets that are smaller than moons? McKay 18:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's see, what's know about Ceres? Not much. Pluto is about 2 and a half times larger the Ceres. If we set the limit at Pluto exact size (will be known very well in 2015), we'd have 11 planets, with Pluto and "X" the new editions (2003 UB313 is too long a name, Xena is hideous, so for me it's just "X"). If we set the limit at Mercury, there would be 8. Yes, there are 2 larger moons in the solar system, one of which has a significant atmosphere. However, they all very clearly can't be planets by basically all definitions, because the center of mass of the system is deep inside the gaseous planet, which is much more massive. If Titan or Ganymede were free-orbiting objects, yes they'd definently be planets, based on sheer size. But they aren't. They're deep in the gravity well of their parent bodies. Another bonus of setting the universal lower limit for planethood at Mercury is that we don't have to wonder about Pluto-Charon counting as 2 planets or not. The difficulty with this whole issue is that we don;t know very much about the objects in question. "X" is just a point of light at best. Ceres is a ball of pixels. Pluto and Charon no better. We might just have to wait a few years, until New Horizons and Dawn reach their mission objectives.--Planetary 20:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Size of Our World

I tried to put this up as a new article, but it gets deleted. This is interesting anyway so feel free to put it somewhere appropriate.

http://www.rense.com/general72/size.htm

This seems non-notable. Also because of the nature of the site, incorporating its images into wikipedia is probably a copyright violation without express consent from the author of the images. McKay 20:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • nice link, loved it.---Pedro 13:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
No McKay... I just wanted to incorporate the link not the entire picture, and why is it non-notable?
Pages linking to that page according to google. Seems very non-notable to me. It's very cool, but Wikipedia is not a place for original research. see WP:Notable. I think that those images would be good in wikipedia if they were copyleft somehow. McKay 20:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Original research? This shows the relative size of planets to other celestial bodies, maybe it does not belong here, but when relative size is discussed it seems this link is just what the doctor ordered.

MVEMCJSUNPCU

Why this obsession with roundness? We don't define "moon" based on shape, which is why Jupiter and Saturn have so many of them.

For the traditionalists who want to keep 9 planets because they don't want to memorize more, I have a new mnemonic, good at least until they rename UB313 or add more planets:

My Very Educated Mother Considers Just Slightly Understood Nine Planet Concept Uneducated Roger 20:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Man Very Early Made Clay Jars Stand Up Nearly Perpendicular, Clearly Upright. GBC 17:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

My proposed definition

I doubt anyone in the IAU will read this, but I'm curious what other people think.

A planet is:

  • anything large enough to be spherical under it's own gravity AND
  • is significantly larger then the other objects in it's general area (orbit), excepting it's moons.

Anything large enough, but not 'unique' in it's orbit shall be called a 'minor planet' or 'planetoid' (or moon if applicable).

Tell me what you think. 71.199.123.24 01:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


What is the limit on "spherical"ness? Nothing natural can be a perfect sphere. The Earth has a slight bugle, almost not noticable. Saturn is football shaped. What is the limit? And how wide is the "general area"? Look here [2]. That seems rather "messy", doesn't it? The limit will have to be arbitrary, or else nature will always find a way to keep us humans from categorising everything. --Planetary 07:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to lead an expedition to find the Earth's Bugle. It can be like Christopher Robin searching for the North Pole. THanks for that link, by the way; I'm gonna swap one of refs with it. Serendipodous 08:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, I don't think the Earth has a Bugle. There is a Cape Horn, but that has been discovered.

Atmosphere

Sorry for my ignorance on this, but how much mass does a body need to hold in an atmosphere? That could be another factor that could be added to the IAU's current proposal so that tiny round objects aren't added later.

So... 1) orbits a star, and not another object (like a moon), 2) has enough mass to form a round shape, and 3) has enough mass to hold in an atmosphere. ? i dunno... -- Zeroyon 05:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It depends how cold the planet is. Pluto has an atmosphere, but much larger Mercury don't. Our Moon doesn't have atmosphere, Jupiter's Galilean satellites' atmospheres are almost nonexistant, whereas colder but similar-sized Titan has thicker than Earth's. On the other hand, 2003 UB313 most likely currently (like Pluto most of its time) don't have atmosphere, because it is now too cold.--JyriL talk 09:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually the Earth's moon has an atmophere, very thin, but mostly Argon. So does Ganymede and Europa. The question is, how thick does it have to be to count as an atmosphere?

Planet Ordering

So, I was reading Real Life (webcomic) today, and he was calling 2003 UB313 the tenth planet, which I thought was wrong, so I went to the Xena page, to get look at the page. The Xena page actually references the Xena: Warrior princess character, but at the top it said that 2003 UB313 was a potential tenth planet also (has been modified since), so I went to the Tenth planet article. It will definitely need some work when the decision has been made, but it got me thinking about the ordering of the planets. Here's a couple possible numberings, LMK what you think: "Planetary order"

  1. Mercury
  2. Venus
  3. Earth
  4. Mars
  5. Ceres
  6. Jupiter
  7. Saturn
  8. Uranus
  9. Neptune
  10. Pluto
  11. Charon
  12. 2003 UB313 (we really need a real name for this one)
  • Disadvantages, Renumbering. This also has the effect of making Pluto, the Tenth planet

or Order in which they became planets (ties go to closeness and discovery)

  1. Mercury
  2. Venus
  3. Earth
  4. Mars
  5. Jupiter
  6. Saturn
  7. Uranus
  8. Neptune
  9. Pluto
  10. Ceres
  11. Charon
  12. 2003 UB313 (we really need a real name for this one)
  • Disadvantages, splits up Pluto and Charon. Ceres is way out of place

discovery

  1. Mercury*
  2. Venus*
  3. Earth*
  4. Mars*
  5. Jupiter*
  6. Saturn*
  7. Uranus 13 March 1781
  8. Ceres 1 January 1801
  9. Neptune 23 September 1846
  10. Pluto 18 February 1930
  11. Charon 22 June 1978
  12. 2003 UB313 21 October 2003(we really need a real name for this one)
  • Classical planets, (doh, that term means something) planets discovered anciently
    • feel free to move Earth to #1, but that's kinda silly.

So, now that I've typed all this, I realize that planetary order is the only real order, you're just going to have to get used to saying "...mars, ceres, jupiter..." McKay 14:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Or just use the classical planets (all 8 in the classic order) and forget about the rest, since it is likely more asteroids will become accepted as dwarf planets, and it is without doubt that many more plutons will be added to the list.... -- Jordi·✆ 14:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Eh, yes, I think the first one will have to be the new planet order, although because Pluto-Charon is a double planet they might both share the 10th (or 11th) position. Which is a bit confusing, but I'm sure it will be worked out in due time. There is also the possibility that other objects (like other big asteroids and other KBOs) will be upgraded to planet status, which will again change the number arrangement. I think the only thing for sure is the Earth will remain 3rd Rock from the Sun. --Hibernian 14:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I think easiest is to forget about the small ones. The IAU is going to give us a nice order which fits both the historical and the --imnsho-- logical definition of planet by creating the term classical planet which nicely eliminates not only Ceres and the plutons, but also any other rocks from the list without need for re-ordering.
  1. Mercury
  2. Venus
  3. Earth
  4. Mars
  5. Jupiter
  6. Saturn
  7. Uranus
  8. Neptune
-- Jordi·✆ 14:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • UB313 will get a name after it is officially declared a planet, in some weeks time. --Pedro 15:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    Which will certainly not be Xena, by the way. 2003 UB313 must be named after a deity. -- Jordi·✆ 15:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
So, My question is in regards to the Tenth planet article, (which doesn't have much conversation). What will happen there? McKay 15:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, since the whole concept of a "tenth planet" will soon be out of date, I think it probably should be merged with "hypothetical planet." As regards the ordering of disovery: Ceres, technically, is a classical planet, because it was discovered before Neptune. Earth wasn't "discovered" to be a planet until long after Saturn. Serendipodous 15:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, we're either going to end up with 12-and-soon-more planets, so the "tenth planet" bit is somewhat moot (if you want to be anal about it, Pluto is the tenth, since Ceres was discovered long before it), or 8 "classical planets" (i.e. non-dwarfs) so the "tenth planet" will be the second planet we discover which is larger than Mercurius. I don't think current theories about the Kuiper Belt or Oort Cloud allow for two objects the size of non-dwarf planets there, so there likely won't be one. (edit conflict with Serendipodous, so some duplication) -- Jordi·✆ 15:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
And if more asteroids are upgraded to dwarf planet status, Neptune will become the 'Tenth planet' in order of discovery and distance from the sun, or even a higher number. Most planet-candidate asteroids were discovered before Neptune was. -- Jordi·✆ 15:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


PSR B1257+12 D

PSR B1257+12 D could be defined as a planet if this passes... it's larger than Ceres. 132.205.93.195 03:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

  • Merge -- SGBailey 11:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Me Too! Merge is the logical action once the vote has been cast. -- Jordi·✆ 12:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge -Pedro 12:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - SpLoT 12:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Don't merge I've decided to change my vote. I think that the 2006 article should remain for historocity (is that a word). This article is too big as it is, incorporating more history will add too much content, and we'll have to find something else to split out into an article. This one is done, why not leave it. McKay 13:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge after descision (which ever way it goes!) --Ant 14:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - Dyslexic agnostic 14:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
Hey hey hey hey. Don't do that.  -- Run!  07:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • New vote: Transwiki to Wikinews, otherwise merge ASAP - The redefinition debate is a currently news item, not a set encylcopedic subject. Let the event play out, and then decide how it and its effects will be handled. In the meantime, this page is the best place to track the events in Wikipedia, with the aid of a link to the transwiki-ed article. --EMS | Talk 19:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Merge Now Rlk89 20:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge now. DanPMK 22:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Merge after new definition is approved. Smcmanus 02:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge after definition is decided. --Kmsiever 02:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
  • Merge after - wait until it has been redefined then the current event tags can be removed too. Mdcollins1984 11:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Regardless of outcome. If yes it becomes the standard, if no it becomes a historical reference. Abyssoft 13:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Merge but wait until the current event tag can be removed Amp 15:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merger now or later --Spiffy sperry 20:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Even though the poll is over, I change my vote to Don't merge per Cyde Weys on 19:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC) (expansion of the 2006 article). --Spiffy sperry 16:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merger later. If this doesn't pass or something unexpected happenes, well then probably not.--Planetary 20:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Regardless of outcome At least the footnotes won't be as scattered. Shawn Hendershot Jr 14:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Merge afterSeamus215 17:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Merge - the current events need not be the last redefinition.--GwydionM 17:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge now – This is exactly what this article was intended for. RandomCritic 18:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Merge once it is all said and done.--Chili14 00:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • I highly doubt that this will magically be resolved on August 24. There is going to be significant fallout and it is going to take people time to adjust to a new definition of planet that has been unchanging since 1930. It might take us a few days to even synthesize the full scope of the issue. So saying this article should magically be merged on August 24 seems like a bad idea to me because that day and the few days after it are going to be the most active days in regards to this article. --Cyde Weys 18:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
      I now agree with the writer below who thinks that 2006 redefinition of planet should be transwikied to Wikinews. I agree that it will be some time before the true significance of this debate will be apparent, but I see this as a reason not to have a seperate article. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Articles should wait until the need is obvious, not just because the issue is of interest at the current time. --EMS | Talk 19:45, 21 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.53.123 (talk • contribs)
  • Merge now. Most of the detail in the "2006 ..." page would really fit better over at WikiNews. What's left belongs here. Rossami (talk) 09:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge after the final decision has been made. topace10 13:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't merge Think to the situation in 5 years time. The article "Definition of a planet" is where people would look to find the current agreed definition. The article might mention, in a brief section, the fact that back in 2006 the definition was changed and formalised and the debate that this created but would not go into much detail. The section would then refer people to the 2006 article, which would have all the details of the historical debate, effect of the change and so on. Hence wikipedia should still have two articles. AndrewRT - Talk 14:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I concur. This article is already too large as is. We need to pull content out of this one, merging stuff in a too large article in is a bad idea. McKay 13:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed, this is exactly hwat I had in mind when I created the separate 2006 redefinition of planet article. I think this event is significant enough (the first time new planets will be added/dropped since 1930) that it deserves significant coverage, and that would be more coverage than is liable to also fit into this Definition of planet article, since it also has to talk about all of the alternative proposed definitions, definitions in the past, etc. --Cyde Weys 18:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Conversely, the event is significant enough that we ought to find a way to bring it into what is already a sub-article of planet for primacy of placement. "See definition of for more" and then "See redefinition of for more" is a step too many to arrive at the details of the decision. We have this page, an FA—let's use it when the dust settles. Note too, that when this decision is made (assuming it's final) much of this page can be abbreviated, as the currently contemporary arguments will become historical. Marskell 18:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the way subarticles generally work is that you have a short paragraph summary on the page and then the link to see more. --Cyde Weys 18:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't merge - as per AndrewRT, perhaps rename to "2006 definition of planet debate"? Serious people, please read WP:NOT where it says this is not a paper encyclopedia. And understand that a tangerine and an orange are simila, not the same...--68.165.220.147 19:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • If I had to guess at the final article name I'd say "2006 IAU redefinition of planet". --Cyde Weys 19:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should probably wait a few days until after the IAU's vote and then hold another straw poll. A lot of the people commenting in the current straw poll did so before the 2006 redefinition of planet article was expanded to an appreciable size, and I have a feeling that after the events of August 24 things are going to change a lot. These new facts on the grounds can't really be retroactively added back in to the current straw poll, so it'd make a sense to start a new one once everyone is on the same page. --Cyde Weys 19:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be sort of gaming the vote. There is a fairly robust merge consensus here. Marskell 21:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
My point was that most of the comments here were made when the subarticle was much smaller in size, and most of these people aren't going to revisit to re-evaluate their comment. That's just the way it works ... people show up in straw polls just to have their say and then leave, not particularly worrying as events change. Especially after August 24, when the new definition is made known, the situation is going to change a bit. It could invalidate every reason that anyone has given in here, including me. Who knows, they might even vote to just keep it with the nine planets we have now, thus changing it from a "merge" to a "mostly delete". --Cyde Weys 14:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
When "the new definition is made known" (or delayed further) our page entitled Definition of planet is still going to be the appropriate place to deal with it. The page we want for this already is. IAU definition of planet + Wikipedia page "Definition of planet" = nice fit. Creating a sub-page is excellent for collecting content, but when it settles it should be merge until and unless length dictates otherwise. And even if they only comment once, the above "votes" to this effect should not be discounted. Marskell 22:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Revisit soon. I would suggest to leave the status quo until after the vote on the 24th and subsequent media coverage; world reaction would suggest how notable this would be as an event in itself, or if it should flow with its parent article. Radagast 23:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    Hear hear. +Hexagon1 (t) 09:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    Agreed, and as above, I think we should re-run this poll then. A lot of comments/"votes" made above are simply going to be inaccurate, and it would be nice to have everyone come back in and re-evaluate the situation. --Cyde Weys 14:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    Agreed some more. When the proposal was made, the article had 7 paragraphs and 6 references. The current version has 30 paragraphs and 28 references. Who can predict what we'll have in a week? Melchoir 04:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Revisit soon, Do not merge. There will be substantially more information available after the August 24th announcement, including how the announcement will impact future research and/or debates. Flibirigit 18:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Revisit in a week, Do not merge I agree per Flibirigit. We should wait and see what happens. If the definition is changed, then it should be included in this article. If it is not changed, the 2006 redefinition entry should be by itself (a "see also" could be added to the "definition" page, if it is not passed). Benje309 01:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't merge. Both articles are already long enough, including enough unique material, to be self-supporting. What's wrong with summary style? What happened to comprehensive coverage? Since when does an article have to be "needed" by another article in order to justify its own existence? Melchoir 04:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This article will need to be completely revised from the ground up when the definition is finally released. I don't think that the two articles necessarily need to be merged. A detailed description of the events of every single day is unnecessary for this article; a simple recapitulation of the initial proposal, and a mention of the debate and the final proposal would be enough. The new definition would need to be placed in the introductory paragraphs; the most recent events will need to be moved to the top; the remainder of this article would be focused on the historical development of the definition and also the remaining controversies and issues left unresolved, particularly as regards extrasolar planets. Serendipodous 07:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • A detailed description of a single day may be unnecessary, but we are in the business of exceeding what is necessary. The events will already be briefly summarized in the lead section of 2006 redefinition of planet and the corresponding section of Definition of planet. But in the encyclopedia article itself, why would we get rid of relevant, verified information? Melchoir 18:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't get rid of it. I think the other article can stay, but only a summation of the main points of the article, totalling perhaps three paragraphs, is necessary for this article. EDIT: clarified my initial position. Serendipodous 18:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Ah. Forgive me, I read you in the wrong context! Melchoir 18:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't merge for reasons outlined by AndrewRG --Mikebrand 00:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't merge, The 2006 redefintion of a planet is an article in it's own right, covering what happened around those days, it critisism and controversy, all the draft copies, opinions and e.g. The article definition of a planet, simply shows what a planet is defined as, get my point? -- Legolost EVIL, EVIL! 04:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Once the IAU meeting is over, the decisions of that body can be reduced to a single paragraph and the events leading up to it -- which do not really require immense detail -- can also fit in a single paragraph. At that point, the 2006 article will be useless, and might as well be incorporated in this article (where, honestly, it should have been all along). RandomCritic 07:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Merge per AndrewRT. Dionyseus 08:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Merge because the 2006 redefinition is a good sized article and should stay there for the sake of history.

This poll did not reach a consensus. Until a new poll opens, feel free to continue discussing the merits of a merge, but any votes here will not be counted.

OR issue

A few months back, while preparing this article for feature consideration, I went through and attempted to eliminate any and all traces of POV; of which this article, not unjustifiably, has been accused multiple times. I am (I can safely say) very much of the "demote Pluto" camp, and earlier drafts of this page contained far more obvious anti-Pluto POV, so when I prepared this article for feature consideration I focused primarily on that. I realised, looking over the different proposals, that each had a counter-claim showing the holes and amibguities within it, but the "shared orbit" definition (which is effectively the "demote Pluto" section) did not. Unable to find a sourced counter-claim for that section, I just made one up myself:

However, the criterion of a shared orbit is not without ambiguity; it does not define a planet by composition or formation, but, effectively, by its location. Hence, by this definition, a body of Pluto's size or smaller orbiting in isolation would be called a planet, whereas larger objects in close proximity to one another would be termed "minor planets".

I think this is a correct reading of the "demote Pluto" position, but it may still qualify as original research. What do you think?Serendipodous 18:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

My own opinion is that this is a fair interpretation and commentary on the issue. As long as it is non-controversial, it can stay. Look at it this way: You are expected to use sources, but the article is also expect to be of your own words. To propose a standard for when multiple objects in the same orbit are a set of planets as opposed to being a collection of objects (such as the asteroids or TNOs) would be quite OR. However, noting that there is an issue as to when the transition occurs is not. --EMS | Talk 03:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you think the deleted second "criticism" section over at 2006 redefinition of planet constituted original research?


Serendipodous 09:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
There are a number of things that set the quote above apart from the statement which started this thread:
  1. The large quote proved to be controversial. As a rule of thumb, controversial + undocumented = OR.
  2. The initial statement is a one-line elaboration on the issue, limited in scope and well integrated into the article. By contrast, the quote above is a multiple-paragraph mini-essay that stands of its own.
  3. The initial statement does not materially affect the POV of its article, but the large quote above did, making it more in need of being sourced. This is because
    • The quote above is a blatant rebuttal of the proposal it refers to.
    • It also suffered from a POV perspective by the lack of any supporting argument for the proposal.
So IMO it was quite appropriate that this quote was removed. --EMS | Talk 22:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Definition_of_planet/Archive_3&oldid=1144659337"