User talk:195.137.85.173

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Planemo page

In English, the Moon is the name to use. Luna is not the name used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon Thanks, CarpD (^_^)

[edit] Planet Article

Hi there. I notice that you have deleted a change I made to the Planet article. The reason I did this (as I explained in the discussion page) is that the IAU definition applies only to Solar Planets and thus belongs in the section relating to planets in the Solar System.

In addition, the criteria you list for the IAU definition seem to be incorrect. Notably the first criterion makes reference to planets orbiting 'The Sun' (and not any star as your criterion states) and your criterion labelled (c) does not seem to exist at all according to the IAU. I think that the introduction to the Planet article should relate to planets generally and not only Solar Planets. What do you think? T.scrace 17:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your reply! First of all, my apologies for jumping in without reading all the discussion on the talk pages. I see what you are trying to accomplish here now. However, I would like to suggest a couple of ammendments that might serve to avoid confusion. The reason that I thought you had printed the new IAU definition in the introduction erroneously was that the first reference you list points towards the new definition and it is not made clear in the article that the definition in your introduction is an amalgamation of two definitions.
I think that in order to avoid this it might be worthwhile clarifying that your definition is an amalgamation. I would suggest something like this:
A "planet" is a celestial body that:
(a) is in orbit around a star or stellar remnants;
(b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape;
(c) is not massive enough to initiate thermonuclear fusion of deuterium in its core; and,
(d) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.
This definition is based on an amalgamation of two definitions proposed by the The International Astronomical Union (IAU), the official scientific body for astronomical nomenclature.[1][2]
Another source of confusion is that the introduction then goes on to state that 'under this definition the solar system has eight planets...', further bolstering the impression that the definition has special relevance to solar planets. I think that, since the intro should represent all planets equally, we should either
(1)Delete this paragraph altogether (its contents is already covered sufficiently in the solar planets section of the article).
or
(2)Replace it with a short outline of all the various planets known currently to exist (solar, extra-solar, interstellar)
The last paragraph in the introduction seems vague and confusing. It makes reference to a recent resolution (presumably the August 2006 IAU resolution?) and then states that before this there was no scientific definition (seemingly in contradiction to the previous IAU definition cited above). Further vagueness ensues - 'the solar system had been traditionally seen as having various numbers of accepted planets over the years' and 'there has been considerable opposition to the recent adoption, and in the eyes of the greater public'. Frankly I don't see what purpose this paragraph serves. I think it is confusing and its subject matter is better suited to the article about planet definition.
I also think that the new image in the introduction (intended by the IAU to show the eight solar planets defined by the August resolution) further strengthens the impression that the definition in the introduction applies only to Solar planets. I think it should be replaced by a more general planet image and that the current IAU graphic should be moved to the solar planets section of the article.
Further, I think that the Solar Planets section of the article should lay out the recent IAU definition for solar planets.
What do you think? T.scrace 22:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fulfil -> fulfill

You were right to change this back, since the first use of a word with multiple spellings should be the one kept, but just so you know, it's not the correct spelling. They're both acceptable. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Criticisms of BBC

hi, trolling well over half an hour after everyone is done talking about it is not appreciated. Starting to restart fights will only get people upset with you, not others. Don't do it again, thanks --Lucid 18:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)