Jump to content

Talk:Definition of planet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleDefinition of planet is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 31, 2011.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 25, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
June 4, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
October 28, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
March 1, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
March 9, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
August 27, 2008Featured topic candidateNot promoted
August 27, 2008Featured topic candidateNot promoted
Current status: Featured article
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Definition of planet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

[edit]

Hi, this page has a notice that there is a discussion to move it, but there is currently no such discussion that I could find, so I'm putting it here. I firmly oppose a move, because the definition of a planet has received much significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Additionally, I think the article is too detailed (and long) to fit in a section in the Planet article, thus it merits its own standalone article (see WP:SPINOUT). We could shorten the article, but I think that would take away useful information that is already at a pretty decent summary level, and it still doesn't address the fact that the subject is notable. For what it's worth, WP:NOT#DICT mentions this page specifically. Icebob99 (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC) A quick ping Erkinalp9035, since you made the edit that added the move notice. Icebob99 (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware of WP:NOT#DICT and you can remove move request. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Definition of planet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Definition of planet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Definition of planet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to put this in here somewhere. I just have no idea where to put it

[edit]

It's just so strange. First of all, I have no idea how they arrived at this conclusion. All that's happened to Pluto is the same thing that happened to Ceres 150-odd years ago. How can they argue that this definition is unprecedented? And what would that even mean? All definitions are unprecedented. That's why they're definitions. If they weren't, they'd be redefinitions. Serendipodous 18:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW - related edit-of-interest is copied below - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from "main page edit (revision as of 22:07, 8 September 2018)"

In September 2018, new research suggests that Pluto should be reclassified as a planet since the standard for classifying planets (ie, A planet is any object in orbit around the Sun that is dominant in its immediate neighbourhood) is not supported in the research literature.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Staff (7 September 2018). "Pluto should be reclassified as a planet, experts say". Science Daily. Retrieved 9 September 2018.
  2. ^ Staff (7 September 2018). "New research suggest Pluto should be reclassified as a planet - University of Central Florida". EurekAlert. Retrieved 9 September 2018.