Talk:Dwarf planet/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4 →

Lack of Clarity

Is a dwarf planet a planet that happens to be of type dwarf, or not a planet at all? For example, a berry is a fruit, but a fruit is not necessarily a berry; berry is just a subcategory of fruit. If it is not a planet, I a surprised there is no hyphen, because it dwarf looks to be an adjectives, and nothing more. It seems dwarf is a subcategory of planet, and this article does not explain this clearly, especially to lay people. Nonprof. Frinkus 20:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"Dwarf planet" is that name of a type of solar system object. If the article doesn't say it's a subcategory of "planets", that's because that's not how it's defined. If it helps, think of it as one word that happens to have a space in the middle. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it good English to have two words work as one? With such an explanation, it probably would be difficult to get all school children to understand the precise difference between ‘planet’ and ‘dwarf planet’ and yet another possible contradiction in rules in English grammar. As for the science behind this (or severe lack thereof, real science is not a popularity contest and should not be determined by vote) ... “new planet definition that relegates Pluto to "dwarf planet" status is drawing intense criticism from astronomers. It appears likely that the definition will not be widely adopted by astronomers for everyday use, even though it is the International Astronomical Union's (IAU) official position.”. [from New Scientist Space] “"Alan Stern, who heads NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto and works at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado, US, says the new definition is "awful". "The definition introduced is fundamentally flawed," he told New Scientist. "As a scientist, I'm embarrassed."”.

He goes on to say that only 4 of 8 objects in the IAU's new planetary definition meet their convoluted criteria (Earth and Jupiter for example, do not). He gives technical details for why that is. Another strong point was that “the new definition was pushed by people who are unhappy with having large numbers of planets” (very unscientific). All of that in addition that only astronomers were present, and less than 5% of the total IAU membership voted. Perhaps Richard Conn Henry likes to make a semantical (and only time will show how insignificant) victory to satisfy his own personal opinions.

So, given all of these numerous flaws, why does the main Pluto article now redefine Pluto as a ‘dwarf planet’ when frankly, I yet to see any real consensus (scientific or otherwise) nor any earth shattering supporting logic? Can I change that, or give both the title of ‘planet’ and ‘dwarf planet’ equal standing in all sections of that article?

Nonprof. Frinkus 08:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, first off, you should probably pose that question over at Talk:Pluto rather than here, seeing as how it involves changes to that article. Secondly, I don't think the article is "redefining" Pluto - the IAU redefined it. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, bases its definitions of "planet" and "dwarf planet" on the decisions of the governing body for a particular field - in this case, the IAU. That doesn't mean that the article can't cover the controversy - in fact, that would be an important part of the coverage, and it is well represented. However, there is a real difference between writing about a controversy and participating in it. By doing what you propose, you would cross that line. (Just my two cents.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Me controversial … moohey, sorry about that. :-) Almost all of what I wrote there, was sourced in the same flavour (albeit not exact word for word due to copywrite) is not original by me, so I did not realize I was participating in it. And you are correct, this does not belong here … one question led to another, and I am not sure how to properly transition stuff over.

Ummm, is there a Wikipedia policy that states that each section of subject matter has only one official governing body to make decisions, and that this encyclopædia must be in lock step with that organization for the official take? Some of the complaints of scientists I mentioned there, is the fact some governing bodies could be much more narrow than the community directly researching that type of subject matter as a whole. Unless there is some official policy stating that one organization will be anointed master of each subject matter for official takes … does not Wikipedia participate in the controversy as well (by choosing sides for who gets top billing, even though both sides of issue might be represented when some areas)?

Nonprof. Frinkus 20:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

If a Dwarf star is a Star, should not a dwarf planet be a planet?

That's just a grammatical mistake, so it doesn't prove that a dwarf planet is a planet.

Nonprof. Frinkus 06:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What's a grammatical mistake? Dwarf star or a dwarf planet? I believe IAU motivated it's decision by referring to an earlier mistake, but does one wrong rectify the other? I think this kind of terminology should be defined by linguists, not astronomers. Those fools seem to think language rules doesn't matter. I also think that we shouldn't take IAU too seriously, when they don't handle terminology seriously. Said: Rursus 13:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Should this article explain why this definition is required?

Should this article on "Dwarf planet" explain the reasons why it is so important to have a separate definition for the term "Planet"? No where in this article does it seem to clearly justify the why this definition is so importantly required. Could I be wrong here? Nonprof. Frinkus 05:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone have a clear answer here? That would be helpful for my own research and for inclusion in this article. :) Nonprof. Frinkus 06:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"As defined, the term "dwarf planet" does not apply to other planetary systems." I think this statement does not make sense as it stands, nor does it's citation support the statement. The definition DOES apply to other systems just fine: if the body has cleared its orbit of most other mass, it is an extrasolar planet, if it has not then it is an extrasolar dwarf planet. There is possibly a problem insofar that extrasolar planets have highly elliptical orbits, so the concept of orbital clearance isn't easily applied, but that should be made clear. That concern would BTW also apply to any undiscovered very large bodies in our system with highly elliptical orbits.

Alternative Term

Is anyone else concerned that astronomers came up with the name 'dwarf planet' which is supposed to make things easier for the public and for schoolkids? Not only is it confusing to say that a dwarf planet is not a planet, but the name could make astronomers a laughing stock. Every smart ass kid in the classroom is going to say: 'Sir/Miss, dwarf planets, is that where dwarfs come from?' and all the kids will fall around laughing. Snow White and the seven Plutonians anyone? Somebody call Peter Jackson, his casting problems for The Hobbit (if it's ever made)are over - all he has to do is go to Pluto haha. It might well be a public relations disaster that would hold astronomers up to ridicule.

All joking aside, it is understandable that scientists like to have precedents for when they coin new terminology but 'dwarf planet' is not the answer. With all the talk of densities of rock and ice etc, the debate moved into the realms of geology and that is where the real precedents lie. Many terms in geology use the suffix 'ule' from Latin and Greek as a dimunitive. Here are some example- note that they have the relevant quality of roundness:

Globe - globule;
Sphere - spherule;
Grain - granule;
Node - nodule

Also of interest are some terms from biology.

An 'ovule' is an unfertilised or undeveloped seed (from Latin ovum), and
'sporule' is a small spore. It may seem strange for astronomy to borrow from such a source, but with talk of stars being 'born and 'dying' etc, maybe it is not so strange.

How about Planetule to describe Pluto (?), Ceres et al.

To the general public it would be easy to understand as meaning 'a very small or 'undeveloped' planet or planet like object'. It would square the circle of describing something that's like a planet, but doesn't make the grade to being a fully fledged one.

As to how to distinguish a planetule from a planet, that's another day's work, but at least it would solve the 'Snow White' problem!Neelmack 21:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Neelmack

Wikipedia:No orginial research. Michaelbusch 20:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I find the proposal very interesting, but I have to agree here is the wrong place to discuss it. You should contact your closest member of the IAU. I hope you will have success. Rgerhards 09:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I emailed several members of the IAU but got no replies. Does anyone know of a suitable website or forum where I can post my suggestion for discussion? Neelmack 19:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we need not take the so called terminology (scorn!) determined by IAU too seriously, just wait and see how the humankind use the word planet – I believe that faulty term won't be used, and Wikipedia is obligued to use terms in a way that reflect the actual usage. Said: Rursus 14:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I remind both of you that this is the talk page for the article Dwarf planet, not a forum for discussion of the article's subject. For that debate, please work off-line. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not a dwarf planet is a planet.

i personally believe that dwarf planets should be considered planets because their relationship to planets is the same as that of dwarf stars to other stars and dwarf stars are considered stars. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.96.73.129 (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

According to this http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/dwarfplanet/index.html it isn't. Abtract 18:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Dwarf star means many different things: white dwarf, red dwarf, brown dwarf. A white dwarf weighs within a factor of ten as much as the sun, as does a red dwarf, and both fused hydrogen at some point. A brown dwarf is different: there is no hydrogen fusion, the masses are much lower. If you wish, the relationship between a planet and a dwarf planet is like that between the Sun and a brown dwarf: one important physical boundary in mass has been crossed, but another has not. Personal opinion is also not grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia. Michaelbusch 19:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Red dwarfs have a mass less than 1/3 of the sun--which is itself a yellow dwarf. But are we bere to discuss stars or planets? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the claim "The category dwarf planet is not a subset of the category planet" can be defended. I feel there are clearly three categories: ("Dwarf planet", "nondwarf planet") both members of the set of planets, and "small solar system bodies." The reason that I say this is that the Earth is currently a nondwarf planet but will become a dwarf planet whenever some clutter (including human clutter and junk) intrudes onto our orbit, until th point the planet cleans it up again; while Pluto is a dwarf planet that could become a nondwarf planet is someone were to pop out there with a big net and clear up its orbit, and Neptune and Jupiter are dwarf planets because of the Trojans at their L4/L5 points. A planet can move from one category to another freely, without changing its own form in any way: and in fact, any dwarf planet, given enough time, will become a nondwarf planet by clearing its own orbit. It is silly to say that a planet can become a nonplanet just by changing the things it shares its orbit with, and vice versa. It is silly to say that two planets at eachothers' L3 points are automatically dwarf planets because they share the same orbit. It is acceptable, however, to say that the categorisation of the TYPE of planet changes depending on its orbital companions, though, just as it can change from being a binary planet to a regular one without changing its essential planettiness. 90.192.153.137 22:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You're letting linguistics fool you. By the IAU's definition of the two terms, dwarf planets are not planets. Also, it'd take a lot more than a few billion tons of debris in our orbit for the Earth to be classified as a dwarf planet. (Mars would be at greater risk.) Look at the cleared the neighbourhood article for more on that. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The Solar System or Our Solar System

Currently, the second paragraph says:

The term "dwarf planet" applies only to objects in the Solar System.[2] and is quite distinct from "planet" and "small solar system body".

I would like to suggest changing this to

The term "dwarf planet" applies only to objects in our solar system,[2] and is quite distinct from "planet" and "small solar system body".

Yes, I am aware that "the Solar System" (with capital letters) refers to our own solar system, as opposed to any other solar system in the universe. However, the average man on the street might not be aware of such a distinction. Since the intent of this paragraph is to say that the term "dwarf planet" only applies to our own solar system, I feel that it is appropriate for us to make this point clearer in this one specific instance.

I had been bold and made this change myself, but was reverted by Ckatz. I'm therefore bringing the discussion to the Talk page. (Incidentally, Ckatz also restored the incorrect full stop before the reference marker, which I had replaced by a comma.) Bluap 19:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if it wasn't clear, but I think you misunderstood my edit summary. What I meant was that there is only one system that is properly referred to as "solar" - ours, the "Sol" system. There aren't other "solar systems", so using "our" would be incorrect for either "Solar System" or "solar system". It also means that when we say a term such as "dwarf planet" applies only to "the solar system", we are being specific. That was the basis for undoing your edit. (My apologies for not noticing the comma - minor changes in punctuation aren't easy to see in the diffs.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahh - I see that I was getting confused between solar system and planetary system. (Interestingly stellar system redirects to star system, while I would have thought that a redirect to planetary system might have been more appropriate.) I'll get my thinking cap on, and find a new way of wording those couple of paragraphs. Bluap 21:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Dwarf planet" … does this definition only apply to this (Sol's) solar system … and is not used for any other planetary star system found in space? I am seeking clarification, thank-you. Nonprof. Frinkus 06:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As per the article (third paragraph), "As defined, the term "dwarf planet" does not apply to other planetary systems." Hope this helps... --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops, thank-you very much. :) I thought that was an err, because I've been dumbly lost about the logical requirements for a new yet so awfully specific category, other than naming rock/ice balls to big to ignore. I will update my numbers, merci. Nonprof. Frinkus 06:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

New dwarf planet

..According to BBC. See title: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6268799.stm

--TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the BBC made a mistake on the headline... I couldn't find any mention online about it being reclassified. Potentially, yes, but that dates back to the fall. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That article is very badly garbled (see Talk:2003 EL61). EL61 is not classified as a dwarf planet by the IAU. Michaelbusch 19:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Besides, classifying anything as a "dwarf planet" is a mistake. Its a planetary body, the size of Pluto. Said: Rursus 14:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Eris' Mass

Can we get a citation for Eris' mass? I have not been able to verify this figure anywhere. All other sources say that it is unknown and astronomers are going to use the moon's orbit to calculate the mass. Notably, the Eris page does not give a figure, either. I'd love to be proven wrong; I just need a source. -- Joshua BishopRoby 00:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I just added the citation, to Mike's 2006 paper on satellites of KBOs. Michaelbusch 00:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I added it to the Eris article as well. Michaelbusch 00:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

From the cited article: "One faint source is seen near 2003 UB313 (Eris). ... We thus conclude that the source is a satellite moving with 2003 UB313. With only a single observation of the satellite of 2003 UB313, we cannot yet measure or constrain the mass of 2003 UB313, but we can estimate likely orbital parameters to aid further study." (emphasis mine) The article is about the sighting of the satellite, not the measurement of its orbit or the calculation of the dwarf planet's mass. -- Joshua BishopRoby 01:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Further in the article, they estimate Dysnomia's period as 14 days. I asked Darin Ragozzine, one of Mike's students, if they had an orbit and consequently a mass & density, and he told me they did, and referenced that paper. It may be that I mis-understood him with regards to the reference, but they have the period and the mass. Michaelbusch 03:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, but you can't really cite the conversation that you had with an astronomer. I assume you mean the following passage: "If the semimajor axis is 14% greater than the current separation, and if 2003 UB313 has the size estimated by assuming an albedo and density similar to Pluto's (Brown et al. 2005a), the satellite will have an orbital period of approximately 2 weeks." They're not deriving the mass of Eris based on the orbit, they're deriving the orbit based on the mass of Eris, assuming Eris has the same albedo and density as Pluto, which is a mammoth assumption to make. Michael, can you provide a citation for the mass of Eris, not an estimate of the mass of Eris, or shall we put 'unknown' in there because the mass is, in fact, unknown? -- Joshua BishopRoby 17:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

They have the orbit now. I will check for more recent references. Note: we will never have anything other than an estimate for the mass of Eris or any other planet. Michaelbusch 18:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The relevant paper would be M.E. Brown et al., 2007 in prep., which will be a paper giving the mass of Eris. It has not been published yet. Given this, we should place estimated tags (the mass and density given follow from the size and Dysnomia having a 14 day period. Presumably the paper will be more precise). Michaelbusch 18:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael, could you please check out the recent addition to Eris (dwarf planet) (specifically the new sub-section "Mass and Density"). I suspect it could use a rewrite, but as it pertains to what you're discussing here, you're probably better suited to check it. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned it up some. Hopefully, Mike will put out his paper giving the better mass value soon. Michaelbusch 20:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Tables

I've noticed that the table showing the dwarf planets and the table showing the dawrf planet candidates do not match, on the dwarf planet table the names of the categories follow the Y-axis along the left while the candidate table has its category names along the X-axis at the top. Could someone change these two tables to make them similar? Ryan shell 18:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC) 18:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That won't really do, both tables have a label column and three content columns, if either one is transposed, there will be far too many columns for the data to fit a sane web page view. Leave it as is. 128.227.68.14 15:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

4 dwarf planets?

I've been reading a special ASTRONOMY magazine, the 50 Greatest Mysteries of the Universe, and it says that the solar system has eight planets and 4 dwarf planets. Is it that they've made a typo error, or is it just me cause this article still mentions only 3 dwarf planets. — Alastor Moody _{(T + C + U)} 04:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a typo exactly. It's a common enough statement. Loosely it's true anyhow. Pluto and Charon orbit each other. The IAU because it had two proposals mixed people up. You'll also see some include already without IAU approval other planetoids too like Sedna. Yisraelasper —Preceding comment was added at 11:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Dwarf planet

(I moved this from my talk page in case anyone else wants to participate)

Hello... sorry, but I had to revert your edit at Dwarf planet. Charon is a unique case in that it is thought to possibly be part of a double-planet system (well, double dwarf planet now), based on Charon's large size relative to Pluto. This is not official, as the IAU has made no formal decision in this regard. However, it has been mentioned as a possible candidate for dwarf planet status, and was actually under consideration for designation as a planet under the initial IAU proposal last August. Hope this helps. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Sorry about the lack of an edit comment at Dwarf planet - my bad.

Thank you for your courteous explanation, but I'm actually aware of these facts. Since the IAU hasn't made an official ruling, Charon is still orbiting Pluto (similar to how Pluto was still a planet while the debate about it's status carried on, and it changed whenn they made it official.) I agree with the proposal because the barycenter of their interaction is actually not inside either one, whereas the Earth/Moon barycenter is inside the diameter of the Earth making it obvious that the Moon is the one orbiting the Earth. However even though the proposal makes sense we ought not act like it has already been announced. Anynobody 07:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - the remaining mention of Charon under the table of candidates is probably enough (and less confusing than the text you removed later in the article.) Cheers (and thanks for the nice note on my talk page!) --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome, I was thinking that mentioning the discussion in the IAU about Pluto/Charon and a brief explanation of why they are possibly(probably IMHO) not in a d. planet/sat relationship would be informative(with a source of course). I was just browsing when I came across the basic issue we're discussing and hadn't planned to do much editing here, right now I'm just taking a quick break from the articles I am editing to see what else is going on Wikipedia so if you want to write something about it in it's own subsection of candidates I'd say go for it. (Reason for giving it a subsection is dwarf planet rule four is no sats so it needs to be made clear this is under debate.) Anynobody 09:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting dwarf planet candidate list

I thought some editors might find this interesting. They figure that 2002 UX25 is not a candidate, and that 1996 TL66 and Huya are. Of course, most of their candidates are up in the air, but just thought it was worth bringing up here. --Patteroast 00:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Are these in our solar system?

This page doesn't make it clear if dwarf planets have only been discovered in our solar system, or if they've been discovered in other solar systems, too. It would be nice if someone could fix this so it's more clear. Thanks, Fredsmith2 20:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Currently, the ability to discover dwarf planets outside of our solar system is beyond our abilities (other than possibly through a very lucky transit event). So, the question remains though (and I don't know the answer to this) does the definition of dwarf planet necessitate that the object be in our solar system (as the lede suggests)? Clearly, the definition as put forth by the IAU suggests this is the case ("is in orbit around the Sun"), but the definition of planet has the same wording, so I'm not sure what's appropriate here. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think what the resolutions mean is that the IAU has adopted actual definitions only for objects orbiting our Sun. If you look at the IAU document that is referenced in the article Extrasolar planets, you will see that they are far less precise regarding objects orbiting other stars. They use terms like "planetary companion" and mention that some of these objects may be "brown dwarfs" or other types of objects. It makes sense not to classify these objects, since we humans are really still at the very beginning of discovering them and figuring out what they are, and in most cases we haven't even "seen" them. The history of planetary discovery in our own Solar system suggests that caution is the correct approach; when Ceres, Pluto and other objects were first discovered, they were immediately classified as "planets", then eventually, as new objects were discovered, the astronomers figured out that this approach was not working. There's no rush in defining these things, we've got the rest of eternity. 6SJ7 01:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. Could someone who knows how to word it, please reword the first paragraph so that it reads that these are in our solar system? I'm a surgeon, not a bricklayer or an astronaut. Fredsmith2 00:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It's already in the first sentence. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's not beyond our abilities. The condition is, it has to orbit a pulsar. And yes, the IAU definition requires it to be in the Solar System, and so the planet. There is a draft resolution (2003) for the definition of planet outside the Solar System. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

sizes

I did a quick search to get diameter estimates. I left something of a mess, with multiple estimates, some of which are probably dated, in the hopes that someone who knows the reliability of the data would be able to clean it up a bit. kwami 14:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

nomination

The article has been nominated for Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive.Nergaal (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the things to clean up is the sortable table. The sorting doesn't work with exponentials. kwami (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Somebody should check this link and update the article

http://www.sc.eso.org/santiago/science/OPSWorkshop/Contributions/Oral/S2_Tancredi_talk.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nergaal (talk • contribs) 17:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a Satellite?

What does the IAU mean by "is not a satellite" in its definition of dwarf planet? This seems to directly contradict the first clause of the definition stating that it "is in orbit around the Sun."[[1]] By the standard definition of satellite, "a celestial body orbiting another of larger size," a dwarf planet orbiting the sun should indeed be considered a satellite.[[2]]
Cgnu 08:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this too. The IAU website only lists the first three conditions. The fourth condition is mentioned on the NASA website but not on IAU. Can someone with more knowledge in the field enlighten us? My understaning is that satellites are in orbit around the sun (as well as a planet) and therefore the fourth condition is necessary to exclude the satellites from the definition of dwarf planets. Alex.g 22:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.g (talk • contribs)

"Dwarf" is the wrong term for what the IAU had in mind

The use of "dwarf" in this context is an adjective so a "Dwarf Planet" is still a Planet and not a separate classification of solar system objects.

This leads to the conclusion that all of the so called "Dwarf Planets" really are extra planets above the traditional 9 we all used to know about before this change in classification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.240.178 (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You are interpreting "dwarf planet" in an English context. "dwarf planet" is a single term, without an adjective. Sure, if astronomers were English majors, they might have though of doing it a different way... but they're not. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Just the same in any other language. For example Russian "karlikovaya planeta", a direct translation of "dwarf planet" reads even more ugly than Eglish one (because it's too long in my mind) and can be interpreted as "very small planet". This is confusing both because dwarf planets are not too small (if to compare with minor planets for example) and are not planets at all in the current classification.--Dojarca (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree though (with the section title) that the word 'dwarf' is a poor choice. But then, there are lots of poor wording choices that have become idiomatic in English. kwami (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the use of dwarf in the English version kind of... offensive in regards to the perception of "dwarves" culturally? I know that calling a little person dwarf or midget is considered pejorative, for instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.118.190 (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"dwarf" is very common in astronomy. white dwarf star, dwarf galaxy, red dwarf star... The Sun is a yellow dwarf. There's also a term called "degenerate dwarf" 132.205.99.122 (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The word Dwarf Planet

The word Dwarf Planet is properly only for our solar system but it has gotten a looser usage too just like many words

Hello I realize that properly a Dwarf Planet is an object in the solar system. I was surprised and dismayed when I first learned that to a lesser degree it is being used for outside our solar system. That it has such a usage is all that is being pointed out by me. Yisraelasper (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.69.206 (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Preparing for GA/FA

I have worked on the article quite a bit. I need to add citations to where I allready placed the tags myself (i.e. the text is good but references are required for GA). If you have tips you are welcome to leave them here, or if you want to contrigute with references you are welcome too. Nergaal (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I am done with the article. You are welcome to wikify it. Once the review is done, I am going to nominate it for GA/FA.Nergaal (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

merge section?

The "largest objects" section of Trans-Neptunian object duplicates the "candidate objects" section of this article. Since the physical parameters of these bodies are so uncertain, and there are so many estimates floating around, I think we should merge here to keep our account and references consistent. kwami (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds ok. There is also the option of transforming the table into a template; this could mean that it might be harder to edit the values (a good thing against vandalizations?).Nergaal (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a template would be better. kwami (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of January 28, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass. The article is very easy-to-follow and user-friendly, while still offering technical data

2. Factually accurate?: Pass. The inclusion of citations is very good, although a few sections still require citation

possible citation [3]Nergaal (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass. The article properly addresses the topic in all respects

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass. The discussion of the controversy was written with a very neutral POV.

5. Article stability? Pass. Although the article has undergone SIGNIFICANT changes recently, it is a new article and this is understandable. As the article is largely complete now, I expect it will stabilize.

6. Images?: Pass. Some articles simply can't have that many photos, and this topic is one of them. The few present photos accurately provide the necessary information, so there is no reason to fail this section.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Codharris (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC

Anyone got any final suggestions before a FAC? Nergaal (talk) 11:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Hi Nergaal.
In the lead: "it is suspected that more than 70 other objects in the Solar System might belong in this category" and
"there are estimates that the number might increase to 200 when the region known as Kuiper belt will be fully explored, and might be around 2000 when also objects outside this region will be accounted for"
These claims should be clarified. Indeed, what kind of numbers are we talking about? We first estimate 70 more dwarf planets in the Solar System but then correct this estimate? This seems contradictory unless the first claim is tweaked to something like: Ignoring the Kuiper belt and other regions of the Solar System, it is suspected that more than 70 other objects in the Solar System might belong in this category. Randomblue (talk) 11:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

How is it now? Nergaal (talk) 08:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

disambig planetoid

Randomblue (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

why? it is just that the linked article is a stub.Nergaal (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives