Talk:Planetary system/Archive 1

Sweet spots
I'd like to see some information about gravitational "sweet spots" and the formation of planets, but lack the expertise. - RJ 6/29/05

Is "star system" an official term for planetary systems as well, or is this just a science fiction term? Either way, it would probably be useful to denote the answer.--Mitsukai 2 July 2005 00:51 (UTC)

What orbits what?
The first sentence in this article is, "a planetary system consists of all non-stellar objects such as planets, moons, asteroids, and comets orbiting a star". But doesn't a moon orbit a planet, not a star? Majopius (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Technically no. Even asteroids can have moons. See Minor planet moon. And even though the moon is orbiting the planet, it is also orbiting the sun. Pluto, for example does not orbit the sun directly as its barycenter is outside of its solar orbit. Large natural satellites could be considered satellite planets or terrestrial satellites. Initially I put moon in brackets and associated it with planets to clarify, but on second thought, technically natural satellites should be the term used. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Pluto
Pluto should still be considered a planet. I think so because it has been a planet ever since it was founded. Does anyone agree?? --72.66.186.22 17:35, 28 May 2007 Pluto Saver

No. That's a terrible reason. It's a ball of ice and there's probably dozens, if not hundreds or thousands more in the Kuyper Belt and Oort Cloud. Don't get sentimental over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.138.77.33 (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well its wrong to just ignore a planet just because its alike other things. --72.66.186.22 17:35, 12 March, 2009 Pluto Saver

System of non-stellar objects orbiting multiple star system
In this article, it says that a planetary system is a system of non-stellar objects which orbits a [single] star. But what do we call a system of non-stellar objects which orbits multiple star systems? Perhaps this article is also meant to include planetary systems in multiple star systems, no? ќמшמφטтгמ torque 08:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent point ! I've now fixed this in the lead. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 09:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Planetary system
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Planetary system's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Encyclopaedia": From Extrasolar planet:  From Planet:  

Reference named "Wolszczan": From Discoveries of extrasolar planets:  From Planet:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request is empty and is not needed since the page is not under protection. RudolfRed (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Definition revisited .... possible conflicts between articles
The current definition asserted by the article "A planetary system is a set of gravitationally bound non-stellar objects in orbit around a star or star system." while sounding reasonable, may well be too general. For instance, it presents problems when read in the context of the definition offered by the star system article ie - "A large number of stars bound by gravitation is generally called a star cluster or galaxy, although, broadly speaking, they are also star systems." According to these definitions galaxies have planetary systems, both rogue planets as well as other interstellar objects such as nebulas and the like, and that then the definition becomes circular definition, because planetary systems also orbit galaxies.

Anyone able to propose a reasonable solution to this ... perhaps by tweaking either definition ?

--EvenGreenerFish (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement in the lede
The opening section currently says: "Before the 16th century and Copernican heliocentrism, human knowledge of planetary systems was limited to heliocentrism and the Solar System". This is misleading; before the acceptance of Copernicus' and Kepler's understanding of the solar system, it was not seen as heliocentric at all but earth-centered. And moreover, there was next to no overall, empirical knowledge of the planetary system as a system of bodies obeying physical laws that operated in the same way up among the planets as they would here on earth. It would be interesting to find out if astronomers in the 3rd century or the 13th century actually thought of the planets as huge solid spherical chunks of matter, or just as "lights" or beacons created by God to guide men, but certainly no one had any clear idea of what kind of matter the planets were made of, their sizes, or what kind of forces held them in place. Understanding of the planets, in those days, was essentially pre-scientific and this should be made clear in the article. 83.254.151.33 (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

If this is a solar system...
Then what's a system of a planet and its moons called? I assumed the "solar" in "solar system" meant there was a solar object as the center. Therefore, a planetary system is one where a planet is the center. What is this actually called? If, say, I want to reference "Saturn and all its rings and moons".--Aesculathehyena (talk) 07:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I was always taught in science class that what you refer to is a satellite system. Not a term that is particularly commonly used (and no wikipedia article), however, probably because Earth only has one natural satellite and the best known examples are in our own planetary system ... In reference to Saturn, you would use Moons of Saturn, because even rings are actually composed of moonlets which are themselves moons.  The larger moons, such as Titan or the Galilean Moons are referred to as regular objects, the rest are irregular.Solar System BTW is simply the name of a planetary system - i.e. our own, rather than the other way around. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Because "moon" is a synonym of "satellite", "moon system" is also a possibility. These terms are used at moons of Saturn. You could also combine "system" with the name of the primary, which can also be in adjectival form, such as "Saturn(ian) system", "Jupiter/Jovian system", "Pluto(nian) system", which is not that uncommon. And small objects can also be regular objects, just as large objects can be irregular objects: The small inner moons of the giant planets are regular satellites (e.g. Saturn's Enceladus, Iapetus, Polydeuces, Methone, Jupiter's Amalthea), but the large Triton of Neptune is an irregular satellite. The difference is not one of size, but that regular satellites formed in the giant planets' subnebulae and are hence all more or less in the planet's equatorial plane, whereas irregular satellite were captured from solar orbit (Triton is originally a Kuiper belt object). --JorisvS (talk) 08:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The "Solar" in "Solar System" is an adjective describing the Sun (Sol). You seem to be confusing "solar" with "stellar". --LordOfPens (talk) 05:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Planetary system
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Planetary system's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "frebel": From Milky Way:  From HE 1523-0901: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Planetary system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081002085400/http://ptp.ipap.jp/link?PTPS%2F158%2F24 to http://ptp.ipap.jp/link?PTPS%2F158%2F24
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150622070127/http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/handle/2014/35943 to http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/handle/2014/35943

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion affecting this WikiProject - The Sun
There is a discussion about whether should redirect to  or to. THe discussion is at Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 25. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="color:#7f2ed1">The editor <u style="color:#bfa6d8"> whose username is <u style="color:#7f2ed1">Z0 06:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)