Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::::I think all of the editors involved here should refrain from contributing to this page. Clearly this is an edit war and since the issue cannot and should not be resolved on Misplaced Pages by just two people, or one admin (]) who has clearly ganged up on another, they need to leave it alone and take a break from editing. Kwami is not necessarily to blame here, as Ckatz has a history of repeatedly edit warring and stalking certain pages. He may need some counseling or help. Does Misplaced Pages have a psychological counseling resource for over zealous admins? Maybe they need one. - ] (]) 17:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
::::I think all of the editors involved here should refrain from contributing to this page. Clearly this is an edit war and since the issue cannot and should not be resolved on Misplaced Pages by just two people, or one admin (]) who has clearly ganged up on another, they need to leave it alone and take a break from editing. Kwami is not necessarily to blame here, as Ckatz has a history of repeatedly edit warring and stalking certain pages. He may need some counseling or help. Does Misplaced Pages have a psychological counseling resource for over zealous admins? Maybe they need one. - ] (]) 17:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::I disagree. CKatz has a history of vociferous editing but at heart here is Kwami's inistance that his point of view be heard above all others. I have deliberately stayed away from this discussion because I do not believe it will be resolved outside of arbitration, an opinion others involved in this dispute do not yet hold. However, much as I respect Kwami as an editor (and I do, very much) I think he has overstepped himself in his obsession with this dispute, which is not only esoteric and virtually incomprehensible to anyone who hasn't been studying the topic for the last 6 years, but would place Misplaced Pages in the position of taking a stand in a still-unresolved argument among astronomers, which it should not do. <b>]]<font color="#00b">]</font></b> 17:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::I disagree. CKatz has a history of vociferous editing but at heart here is Kwami's inistance that his point of view be heard above all others. I have deliberately stayed away from this discussion because I do not believe it will be resolved outside of arbitration, an opinion others involved in this dispute do not yet hold. However, much as I respect Kwami as an editor (and I do, very much) I think he has overstepped himself in his obsession with pushing his POV in this dispute, which is not only esoteric and virtually incomprehensible to anyone who hasn't been studying the topic for the last 6 years, but would place Misplaced Pages in the position of taking a stand in a still-unresolved argument among astronomers, which it should not do. <b>]]<font color="#00b">]</font></b> 17:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
== Petition ==
== Petition ==
Revision as of 17:59, 24 February 2012
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dwarf planet article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Extrasolar Dwarf Planets can't exist ??? Huh ?? Too Solar centric ...
I have an issue with the definition in this article. I mean, there are possibly numerous of these objects in our Solar System. One would imagine that there would be countless of these in the galaxy. But the fact that only those orbiting the Sun can be classified seems ridiculous. How is it possible to observe that exodwarf planets have cleared their orbital neighbourhood or that they have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium ? Shows just how flawed the definition is. Once Mercury sized objects are found orbiting a star, there seems to be no way of telling whether it is a dwarf planet or not (and therefore a planet). Recently confirmed KOI-961.03, not much bigger than Mars could well share its orbit with large planetesimals. We will never know and they will likely remain planetary candidates forever. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Please read WP:NOTFORUM. However, the IAU has released two different definitions. One for extrasolar planets and one for the Solar System. In their definition of extrasolar planets, which sets an upper limit for size, it specifically states that the lower limit would be the same as that defined within the Solar System. So basically they said that yes, extrasolar dwarf planets do exist. Serendious13:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just calling it as I see it. There is absolutely no reference to "extrasolar" in this article whatsoever. So I'm not the IAU, but just because the IAU defines it one way doesn't mean it makes sense or that the differentiation shouldn't be addressed somehow here. The article should mention that there are two separate definitions. I'm not a mind reader and don't certainly don't expect that other readers would be either. Anyway two separate definions ? IMHO thats absurdly redundant. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Ckatz reverted my rewording of the reasons for criticizing the IAU def of planet, but his "more accurate" wording is unclear. Ruslik, for example, seemed to think that Stern objected to Pluto being classified as a DP. Actually, it was Stern who proposed the term DP for bodies like Pluto. What he (and others) have objected to is the exclusion of DPs from planetary status. AFAIK, that is the only sig. critique: others, such as the potential ambiguity of 'clearing the neighborhood', are just consequences of this exclusion. — kwami (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Moving on
Okay, the RfC has expired with no-one new commenting on it.
Kwami, it seems pretty clear to me (and to others, based on the comments on this page) that there just is not support for the changes you want to make, nor for the manner in which you have been editing. It would appear that the only way we can properly move forward is for you to recognize that and accept it. --Ckatzspy09:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Besides the fact that there is support, please read WP:democracy. This article has blatant NPOV issues, as demonstrated with multiple RS's. If we cannot work out how to properly follow WP policy together, then we need to go further up DR, presumably to arbitration. The main issue is that the table in this article not be divided artificially, that we not equate the IAU with WP:truth, but only treat it as a widely respected RS. More important than other sources, but not the only professional opinion. — kwami (talk) 09:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Kwamikagami, the consensus is that the dp articles have been adequately modified to reflect the sources, even if YOU do not like how they read. Please quit beating a dead horse.-- Kheider (talk) 11:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Kwamikagami, you are going to find the "Joe Q. Misplaced Pages" does not care for the needless POV editing. We do reflect our sources and I am sorry that you feel that so many dwarf planet / planet articles are biased. Since August 2011, you have FAILED to get a consensus to make major changes to the dp articles. All the "probable dp" articles have been edited to include the sources without making out right claims. Can you please just drop the subject for 6 months and may be there will be some new sources to work with. Everyone following this "6 month debate" has grow tired of going in circles because YOU are not satisfied with the wording. -- Kheider (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I think all of the editors involved here should refrain from contributing to this page. Clearly this is an edit war and since the issue cannot and should not be resolved on Misplaced Pages by just two people, or one admin (Ckatz) who has clearly ganged up on another, they need to leave it alone and take a break from editing. Kwami is not necessarily to blame here, as Ckatz has a history of repeatedly edit warring and stalking certain pages. He may need some counseling or help. Does Misplaced Pages have a psychological counseling resource for over zealous admins? Maybe they need one. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. CKatz has a history of vociferous editing but at heart here is Kwami's inistance that his point of view be heard above all others. I have deliberately stayed away from this discussion because I do not believe it will be resolved outside of arbitration, an opinion others involved in this dispute do not yet hold. However, much as I respect Kwami as an editor (and I do, very much) I think he has overstepped himself in his obsession with pushing his POV in this dispute, which is not only esoteric and virtually incomprehensible to anyone who hasn't been studying the topic for the last 6 years, but would place Misplaced Pages in the position of taking a stand in a still-unresolved argument among astronomers, which it should not do. Serendious17:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Petition
There is a tag in the lead reading "cite petition here". The petition website www.ipetitions.comSLASHpetitionSLASHplanetprotestSLASH is blacklisted as spam. So, I don't think it can be linked directly. DrKiernan (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The actual signature page from that site is here. It's letting me link here on this talk page.
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
