Difference between revisions of "Talk:Planet"
From Conservapedia
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:Oh yeh, I agree (i'm not happy with the revised definition at all) but I just thought I'd get the ball rolling, when I have more time I'll get to a more thorough article unless someone gets to it first. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 14:02, 26 March 2007 (EDT) | :Oh yeh, I agree (i'm not happy with the revised definition at all) but I just thought I'd get the ball rolling, when I have more time I'll get to a more thorough article unless someone gets to it first. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 14:02, 26 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Duly noted. Thanks for the heads-up. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 14:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 18:03, March 26, 2007
It should be noted that the IAU definition of a planet is currently undergoing close scrutiny and debate. After all, according to the current definition, Neptune shouldn't be a planet either. (Pluto's and Neptune's orbits cross over each other.) ColinRtalk 14:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
- Oh yeh, I agree (i'm not happy with the revised definition at all) but I just thought I'd get the ball rolling, when I have more time I'll get to a more thorough article unless someone gets to it first. Airdish 14:02, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Duly noted. Thanks for the heads-up. --Huey gunna getcha 14:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
