Difference between revisions of "Template talk:SolarSystem"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
(→Pluto) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:I think as long as we can not be too sure on Plutos status, lets just keep it for historic reasons, that we have nine planets. Of course BadWolf is right: There are many objects around now, which are also a possible candidate for a planet. But we have dozens of possible classifications on plutos class, which not all people currently can agree on. Lets have the historic nine planets and other objects (major comets, KBOs, TPOs, MFOWLLP) until we have something official which differs --[[User:Urwumpe|Urwumpe]] 01:31, 16 April 2006 (MSD) | :I think as long as we can not be too sure on Plutos status, lets just keep it for historic reasons, that we have nine planets. Of course BadWolf is right: There are many objects around now, which are also a possible candidate for a planet. But we have dozens of possible classifications on plutos class, which not all people currently can agree on. Lets have the historic nine planets and other objects (major comets, KBOs, TPOs, MFOWLLP) until we have something official which differs --[[User:Urwumpe|Urwumpe]] 01:31, 16 April 2006 (MSD) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::Nothing ''official'' about the status of a planet. Where did you get this? I removed it for two reasons, both I think good enough. 1) hardly any astronomers now consider it a planet as it perfectly matches the requirement of a Plutino. 2) This is an OrbiterWiki and Orbiter has eight planets. --[[User:BadWolf|BadWolf]] 03:50, 20 April 2006 (MSD) | ||
==Redesign== | ==Redesign== | ||
Revision as of 23:50, 19 April 2006
Pluto
I have reverted BadWolf's edit, which removed Pluto from the planetry listings, and classed it as "other", for the reason that, whilst Pluto's status as a planet is debatable, it is still officially classed as one. Any comments/disagreements should be aired here. --GW_Simulations 00:39, 16 April 2006 (MSD)
- I think as long as we can not be too sure on Plutos status, lets just keep it for historic reasons, that we have nine planets. Of course BadWolf is right: There are many objects around now, which are also a possible candidate for a planet. But we have dozens of possible classifications on plutos class, which not all people currently can agree on. Lets have the historic nine planets and other objects (major comets, KBOs, TPOs, MFOWLLP) until we have something official which differs --Urwumpe 01:31, 16 April 2006 (MSD)
- Nothing official about the status of a planet. Where did you get this? I removed it for two reasons, both I think good enough. 1) hardly any astronomers now consider it a planet as it perfectly matches the requirement of a Plutino. 2) This is an OrbiterWiki and Orbiter has eight planets. --BadWolf 03:50, 20 April 2006 (MSD)
Redesign
Lets make the template a bit broader and include the most relevant examples for objects of each class. Eg, have the sun away from the category "Other" and name its category: Star or Central star. For comets, NEOs, KBO, etc, lets just have 5 major examples (eg Halley) and a link named "more..." for a complete listing of such objects, eg via a category. --Urwumpe 01:55, 16 April 2006 (MSD)
- That would give us a huge template. But it is a good idea, maybe just one example though? --GW_Simulations 17:39, 17 April 2006 (MSD)