Difference between revisions of "Talk:Planet"
From Conservapedia
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Duly noted. Thanks for the heads-up. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 14:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT) | Duly noted. Thanks for the heads-up. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 14:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | There is a subtle difference between the definition for a planet in our solar system or one orbiting a star other than the sun. The rationale for giving a "loose definition" was to avoid getting lost in minutiae. Changing to "is" is fine until a proper article is done. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 14:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 18:10, 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)
There is a subtle difference between the definition for a planet in our solar system or one orbiting a star other than the sun. The rationale for giving a "loose definition" was to avoid getting lost in minutiae. Changing to "is" is fine until a proper article is done. Airdish 14:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
