Talk:Planetary mass

Merging proposal
This is nice and comprehensive. Support merging Jupiter mass and Earth mass here. Iridia (talk) 02:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) I'm wondering if we should bring standard gravitational parameter in here as well, as that is what is actually measured. Physchim62 (talk) 12:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * From what's written in the article, I don't see why standard gravitational parameter should be merged here, since it can be used in cases that this article does not cover. Better to just link to it with a detailsLink or main template. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Jupiter mass

 * Oppose I believe there is enough data out there on the use of the term, and its prominence to be able to keep it as a separate article. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Jupiter mass is a commonly used unit of mass for extrasolar planets, etc., and a separate article is more convenient and useful to a reader who just wants to know the value of the mass unit. Spacepotato (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose A redirect to a sea of text is not a good idea. Needs Short, headlined section for redirect if merge is on. Will change my mind if this is the design. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support It is indeed commonly used: that's why it deserves a proper section in this article, which will place it in the context of how it is determined and why it is relevant. An info box can go at the top of the article to provide a quick reference for the values. I'd like to think this article could be a bit more descriptive for the layperson than Allen's Astrophysical Quantities. Iridia (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Jupiter mass" is used as a unit of measurement, so this is not fit for merging.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Earth mass

 * Neutral I can see it could be merged here, though, the term seems to be gaining prominence. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Rationale same as above. Spacepotato (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose A redirect to a sea of text is not a good idea. Needs Short, headlined section for redirect if merge is on. Will change my mind if this is the design. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Rationale same as above. Iridia (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Earth mass" is used as a unit of measurement, so this is not fit for merging.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
A problem with merging articles is the redirect from the original being guaranteed to hit the section it is aimed at - what if someone changes the section name etc?

I'm not even sure if this is a good idea, so feel free to shoot it down :), but what if on the articles which are merged we leave a "stub" article (but not categorized as as such) and a simple link to this article and appropriate section, but also a note on the article not to expand it? Something like a disambiguation page sometimes does, it explains the common usage, then gives links. HarryAlffa (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The discussion seems to have ended about six months ago, so I've removed the merge tags. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Pluto
I notice on the first table that Earth/Moon is described together, is the value for Pluto just Pluto or is it Pluto-Charon? 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That point needs to be made a bit clearer: the value in the first table is for Pluto-Charon. There is a value for Pluto alone in a footnote. Physchim62 (talk) 08:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, the point that needs to be made clear is that all the ephemeris values are "system masses" – that was the point I tried to make in the "Earth mass and lunar mass" section, but it obviously needs looking at again. The difference is only really relevant for Earth/Moon and Pluto/Charon, where the satellites are so large relative to the planet and, for Earth/Moon, where the data are so precise. For other planets, you just get a slight change in the last decimal places of the kilogram mass, which is the one that most readers will want. If a reader needs a precise value for the mass of Jupiter alone, without its satellites, I assume that s/he will know where to get it from! Physchim62 (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It might be clearer if the "Earth mass and lunar mass" section was before the first ephemeris table: it's a little bit hidden as a subsection. Iridia (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter for the gas giants, Mars, or Eris, since they outmass their companions (moons) by such a great amount, but for Earth and Pluto, it should be listed like the Earth entry. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Article name change - Planetary masses?
I think the article is great, and I see someone has awarded you a well deserved barnstar for it, but... I'm just thinking this is a descriptive article and not a definition of a "unit" - like Jupiter mass - so, eh... Maybe the easiest way is to give you a re-write of your lead to illustrate my thinking;
 * Planetary masses within the Solar System are usually measured in the astronomical system of units, where the IAU unit of mass is the solar mass, the mass of the Sun. In the study of extrasolar planets, the unit of measure is typically the mass of Jupiter for large gas giant planets, and the mass of Earth for smaller, rocky terrestrial planets.

Then maybe list the Planetary mass names, then how they are derived. What do you think? HarryAlffa (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've certainly shyed away from calling the Jupiter mass a "unit of measurement"… For me, planetary mass is a physical quantity, and that's how I've tried to describe it. For extrasolar planets (and even within the Solar System these days) it is measured in SI units. You can, of course, then divide by the mass of Jupiter to get a figure in Jupiter masses, especially for widespread consumption, but that's not actually how you measure it. Physchim62 (talk) 06:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Since it's widely used to describe the mass of exoplanets, I would say it is a unit of measurement, as with many things, unit conversion takes place (or not, and then a Mars probe crashes into Mars because of nonconversion between US and metric) when the units used originally are not what are used in the description. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Does image of Vesta need mention of Eris?
Since Pluto is now a dwarf planet, should the caption given to the image of Vesta mention Eris? The distinction between asteroid and dwarf planet escaped my first, admittedly inadequate, reading! Because I failed at first to notice that the restriction "in the asteroid belt" eliminates Eris and Pluto from consideration. Presumably Eris and Pluto are not asteroids, but it's not quite obvious enough. Besides, I have a brother in law whom I'd like to persuade that the demotion of Pluto is fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.41.45 (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Planetary mass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091208011235/http://maia.usno.navy.mil:80/NSFA/CBE.html to http://maia.usno.navy.mil/NSFA/CBE.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)