definition of a planet

[dstebbins]

As I look here, I notice the first criteria for planethood was that it must orbit the Sun directly. Does that mean that all objects outside our solar system, which, technically, do not orbit the Sun, are automatically not planets?

 

Just goes to show how non-credible Wikipedia is.

[iNow]

As I look here, I notice the first criteria for planethood was that it must orbit the Sun directly. Does that mean that all objects outside our solar system, which, technically, do not orbit the Sun, are automatically not planets?

 

Just goes to show how non-credible Wikipedia is.

 

Why don't you log in and fix it then? That's the beauty of wiki. It's only wrong until someone who knows better puts the onus on themselves to make a correction.

 

 

I suppose it's easier to complain than to do something to improve a situation.

 

 

Btw... that's not wiki's definition, it's the IAU's.

 

http://www.iau.org/

http://www.iau.org/iau0603.414.0.html

[fattyjwoods]

yea good idea, change it. but the bad thing about wiki is that some young kid would turn up and screw the artical from head to toe.

[iNow]

yea good idea, change it. but the bad thing about wiki is that some young kid would turn up and screw the artical from head to toe.

It's a good thing there are admins.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators

[fattyjwoods]

mmm yep. but its annoying of course an they arent paied so its just volunteer work

[Sisyphus]

Doesn't take an admin to prevent that. If somebody messed with an article as important as "planet" it would be reverted in less than a minute.

[dstebbins]

Wow, I've heard of internet morons but this is ridiculous.

 

That statement was in the first section, meaning I CAN'T change it. Log on and see for yourself. There's no "edit" link for the opening sections in ANY article. Idiots.

 

And to think, no one has yet to see that. Wow.

[iNow]

Wow, I've heard of internet morons but this is ridiculous.

 

That statement was in the first section, meaning I CAN'T change it. Log on and see for yourself. There's no "edit" link for the opening sections in ANY article. Idiots.

 

And to think, no one has yet to see that. Wow.

 

Well, I see an edit link. Either you missed it, they've locked your ability to make edits, or I'm special. I dunno... maybe some combination of those.

 

 

Btw... you linked above to a sub-article. Here's the main page for "definition of a planet:"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_planet

 

 

 

Why is that chimpanzee throwing feces on passers-by?

[swansont]

As I look here, I notice the first criteria for planethood was that it must orbit the Sun directly. Does that mean that all objects outside our solar system, which, technically, do not orbit the Sun, are automatically not planets?

 

Just goes to show how non-credible Wikipedia is.

 

I guess you missed the in the solar system part.

[Sisyphus]

Wow, I've heard of internet morons but this is ridiculous.

 

That statement was in the first section, meaning I CAN'T change it. Log on and see for yourself. There's no "edit" link for the opening sections in ANY article. Idiots.

 

And to think, no one has yet to see that. Wow.

 

Seriously, what the hell are you talking about. You can edit it, with the "edit" button. But don't, because it's correct. That is current the IAU definition of a planet. It mentions exoplanets, which, by the IAU definition, are something different (so far).

 

Moron...

[the tree]

Does that mean that all objects outside our solar system, which, technically, do not orbit the Sun, are automatically not planets?

There is more than one solar system with a sun.

 

That statement was in the first section, meaning I CAN'T change it. Log on and see for yourself. There's no "edit" link for the opening sections in ANY article.

See attachment.

 

Idiots.

That's nice. Now hows about you tell us one thing we've got wrong so far in this thread that justifies that, and compare it to you declaring the non-existence of something without making the slightest bit of effort to look for it.

[dstebbins]

Well, I see an edit link. Either you missed it, they've locked your ability to make edits, or I'm special. I dunno... maybe some combination of those.

 

If I lost some of my editing privileges, then I lost them the moment I signed up.

 

Fine. Is there any way for me to prove that I'm right without giving you my username and password? Perhaps some way you can see exactly what I'm seeing without actually logging into my Wiki account?

[swansont]

If I lost some of my editing privileges, then I lost them the moment I signed up.

 

Fine. Is there any way for me to prove that I'm right without giving you my username and password? Perhaps some way you can see exactly what I'm seeing without actually logging into my Wiki account?

 

Take a screenshot and post it, like the tree did?

[dstebbins]

^^^And how do I do that?

[insane_alien]

see that key marked 'PrtSc'

 

it has its uses.

[the tree]

As a general note, the article isn't even semi-protected, I can edit it whilst not logged in as well, via the same link.

 

Please post your screenshot, highlighting the empty space between discussion and history where edit this page apparently isn't.

[Country Boy]

As I look here, I notice the first criteria for planethood was that it must orbit the Sun directly. Does that mean that all objects outside our solar system, which, technically, do not orbit the Sun, are automatically not planets?

 

Just goes to show how non-credible Wikipedia is.

 

Perhaps it goes to show that you do not read carefully. The item you refer to specifically says that it is giving a definion of planets IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM.

[Phi for All]

Wow, I've heard of internet morons but this is ridiculous.

 

That statement was in the first section, meaning I CAN'T change it. Log on and see for yourself. There's no "edit" link for the opening sections in ANY article. Idiots.

 

And to think, no one has yet to see that. Wow.

Warning given. If this is directed at the other posters you are trolling. If it's directed at Wikipedia you are drawing fallacious conclusions.

 

A different approach is suggested, one which protects your face from getting egg all over it.

[swansont]

Perhaps it goes to show that you do not read carefully. The item you refer to specifically says that it is giving a definion of planets IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM.

 

My irony meter is pointing to post #9.

[insane_alien]

my irony meter exploded quite some time ago.

[Phi for All]

The handle off of which the OP flies so dramatically seems to have been precipitated by those distracting bullets in the definition. They do tend to draw the eye and make us skip the explanatory bits.

 

Let's back off a bit, I smell a mea culpa in the offing. Let's not make it more difficult.