Talk:Planemo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Articles for Deletion debate
This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. Owen× ☎ 00:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Merge with Planet or Definition of planet?
I've been trying to figure out a way to include Gibor Basri's theory in the definition of planet article. What do you think?Serendipodous 17:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Definition link?
I don't understand the point of hotlinking to the wikipedia article defining "Definition". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.228.85.35 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 27 December 2005.
- Wikipedia:Build the web -- KTC 02:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Thank you for this article. I've heard this term quite a bit. I am against any merge btw. 70.177.68.209 04:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] definition??
The BBC article in external links seems to define the term as a planet-like body that does not circle around a star. Our article doesn't mention anything like that?--Sonjaaa 21:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- The Beeb article is somewhat misleading. A planemo is any object within a certain size range. If it orbits a star then it is a particular type of a planemo called a planet. Its like a square is still a rectangle, but just usually referred to as a square, whereas non-square rectangles are usually referred to as rectangles. 195.137.85.173 17:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Isn't Chiron (and possibly other centaurs) missing from the list of possible Solar System planemos? Sodbuster41 22:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Sodbuster41. August 23, A.D. 2006
- Nope, its about 100-200km in diameter, way too small to be round from self-gravity.
[edit] "Advantages" section
I've removed the "Advantages" section - it was uncited, worded in a POV manner, and it directly contradicts a cited statement in the lead about the low level of acceptance of the term. Here is the text:
"It can be considered helpful as it creates a designation for so-called "interstellar planets" that are otherwise not covered by suggested definitions for 'planet', and it also creates a category to group large, compositionally-similar moons with their planetary counterparts. Many scientists back the term as it lends itself to a universal definition of planet based on physical characteristics, rather than other definitions which create dividing lines using arbitrary size limits.
--Ckatzchatspy 09:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hygiea Vs. Proteus
- Why Hygeia is considered a planemo and Proteus is not.--Pedro 23:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Proteus is twice as light as Higeya and is not a spheroid. The last one might be it. Rotten Venetic 11:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cha 110913-77344
Fixed grammar in that section Rotten Venetic 11:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
