Appendix talk:Planets

page

re: some astronomers have suggested Pluto of that decision.

I know what he's trying to say because I'm familiar with the story. But I can't parse this sentence.
—Długosz

I couldn't parse it either, so I rewrote it. Ortonmc 20:10, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Why is a day on Venus measured with a NEGATIVE? It seems odd.

Venus' rotation is in the direction opposite to the vast majority of rotations and orbits in the solar system. Still, I don't think that the negative sign (though it is used both here and in the planetary articles on Wikipedia) accurately conveys this notion (though on Wikipedia the minus sign links to 'Prograde and retrograde motion'), since even a backward-turning planet makes a full turn in a positive quantity of Earth days. Does anyone else think that there is a better way to make this note? Oh, and I am for now adding the negative sign to both Uranus and Pluto's day counts, as they also rotate backwards.

Bleah. That three-planet list is according to Wikipedia:Retrograde. Wikipedia:Venus and Wikipedia:Uranus both use the minus sign but Wikipedia:Pluto does not. Can anyone else verify which planets actually move which ways? Ktvoelker 15:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Why is Sedna in this list? I don't remember the Astronomical society ever calling it a planet. The fuss about it being a planet was created by the mass media in the search of a popular story.

Duplication

Why are the numerical details duplicated in the other tables? This is completely pointless and bad (duplications invariably diverge), given that the only information differing in the tables is the names of the planets (and the headers).

I am going to be bold by moving the translated planet names to columns in the English table and throwing away the rest. — Paul G 15:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I'm going to be even bolder and delete the astronomical information. This is encyclopedic and can all be found in Wikipedia. Wiktionary only gives linguistic information. — Paul G 15:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Pluto = dwarf planet

I see the little tiny note at the bottom of the table that says that Pluto has been reclassified as a dwarf planet, but when compared to the text at the top, in the table, and everywhere else, it appears that we consider Pluto a full-fledged planet still. The note is not enough. We should remove all references to Pluto except a small reference stating that Pluto used to be considered a planet but no longer is. One of the beauties of a wiki is that we can keep it current. Let's do that here. --Cromwellt|Talk|Contribs 17:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Jimp 08:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, no. As was discussed in the tea room, we describe language use here. The formal status may have changed, but in the general public, no one considers Pluto to no longer be a planet. More importantly, hundreds of thousands of texts exist that refer to Pluto as a planet. --Connel MacKenzie 08:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure that no one considers Pluto to no longer be a planet. I (along with the IAU) consider Pluto never to have been a planet. Cromwellt too, it seems, has accepted the new IAU definition. You point out those hundreds of thousands of texts. Of course, they are still valid. In those texts the word has one meaning. Likewise, ancient texts which refer to the Sun and Moon as planets are still valid. Words change in meaning.

The page starts out with a bold statement of "fact". It claims "The planets of the solar system are those nine bodies traditionally labelled as such: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto." This is simply not true according to the new definition of the word. Let us not simply dismiss the old definition out of hand, no, nor let us do the same with the new one.

We describe usage here. Yes, and well we should. How about opening the page with a more balanced description of the current state of affairs rather than a bold statement which runs counter to the current usage of of the word by a significant authority on the matter (and, yes, a section of the general public to boot if I'm not mistaken)?

One may view the IAU's decision as an attempt at prescribing language usage. One's gut reaction may be to reject such an attempt, stick to one's guns and go on calling things what one has always called them. However, it is not counter to the spirit of descriptivism, of course, to describe a situation whereby people do accept a new definition prescribed for them.

I, for one, welcome the new definition. Not so much on account of the authority of the IAU but because finally we have some degree of consistancy with respect to the word planet (well, we will have if people accept it). Others may have accepted or rejected it for whatever reason they might have. I can't claim to know the level of acceptance of the IAU's definition amongst the general public but I don't agree that it's zero.

Jimp 07:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I propose that the introductory sentence be rewritten such that it makes no claim about what a planet is but instead describes what the page is about. Let the planet page define the word. Something more along the lines of the following might be better.

"This table concerns those nine solar system bodies traditionally labelled as planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto."

Jimp 07:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have done so. Jimp 08:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Better, in my view, but I'm still dissatisfied. What exactly do we mean by traditionally. Pluto had (or has) been called a planet for three quarters of a century. Is this much of a tradition? Until about four centuries ago the Sun and Moon were called planets. This seems more fitting of the term traditionally. Then there were others, e.g. Ceres, which were called a planet once. Jimp 03:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Table

The table should be split in two

1. the 8 planets of the Solar System (ie, 5 of the traditional planets + Earth + Uranus + Neptune)
2. the dwarf planets of the Solar System + traditional planets not already listed (ie. the Sun and the Moon)
3. third table for things once called planets that may have names in multiple languages (ie. the first few asteroids discovered)

65.94.252.195 12:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Language skew

This appendix is very skewed towards European and Latin-based languages. 76.66.193.224 22:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Missing languages:

Arabic , Greek , Latin , Sanskrit , Hindi , Thai , Malay , some dialect/language of Polynesian , Xhosan , some language of Bantu , Berber , Farsi , ancient Egyptian , ancient Mayan , some dialect of modern Mayan , Navaho , Cree , Denee , Objibwa , Iroquoian , Inuktituk , Turkish , Lithuanian , Basque , Ainu

76.66.193.224 05:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)