Talk:Sudarsky's gas giant classification

= Applying this system to exoplanet articles =

I've noticed that this system is being applied to extrasolar planet articles. If you are going to do this, please make sure you have a reference where the particular Sudarsky class is assigned (note that Extrasolar Visions is a speculative site, and the speculations there should not be presented as fact). As far as I have found, the only place where the classes in this system are applied to specific planets is the paper outlining this system. Even then this should be presented as a theoretical calculation, not as a fact - these planets have not been directly observed, so saying what the dominant cloud type is is impossible. Chaos syndrome 23:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Where exoplanets have been measured for appearance, or should have been measured but can't be seen (hinting at low albedo), or have been measured for atmosphere: I've been putting their stats in the article text to show how well Sudarsky's predictions have held up. As a bonus these measurements give real results for "appearance of extrasolar planets". -- Zimriel (talk) 04:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

= Page & Wiki Maintenance =

Merge to gas giant?
Seeing as the consensus seems to be objection, I'll retract the merger suggestion. Chaos syndrome 10:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OBJECT I don't think Sudarsky is prevalent enough to merge into gas giant, besides, it'd clutter the gas giant article alot. Zzzzzzzzzzz 03:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. I think this article is too speculative to be included to the gas giant article, which is mostly for the gas giants in our Solar System.--Jyril 10:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * object agree with jyril, but interresting stuff. -Pedro 03:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

"No class II,III, ect.. gas giants are known in our solar system."
Is it really necessary to leave open the possibility that a planet the size of Jupiter might be hiding in the inner solar system somewhere? Algr 06:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No. That's silly. Reyk 01:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Faulty reference links
Just a heads up, the link to Sudarsky's paper leads to a 404 -Ilmu011 (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Edited the system
I've done some tweeking to David Sudarsky's system. So it includes Neptune's class, the Venus & Mars temp. giants, plus the NH4SH giant & the Iron giant. &mdash; Hurricane Devon  (  Talk  ) 00:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't add this to the article, since it is original research which not allowed.--Jyril 12:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, this isn't for the artical. This for the talk.  I had this idea, I just whanted to see what you thought of it. &mdash;  Hurricane Devon  (  Talk  ) 13:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, no problem. I'm interested in how did you come up with this classification? AFAIK iron giants have been discussed before, but others are unknown to me.--Jyril 10:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I redid the scale to make it look better. I also came up with a concept to use this with terrestrial planets. Since we won't know much about these terrestrial exoplanets, we could use Sudarsky's scale. Like dwarf galaxies, we put a lower case d in front of the roman no. (Ex: OGLE-05-390Lb: dO, IL Aquarii d: dIII).

Quick question, is it wrong to put Sudarsky's scale on , because some people, especialy exovisioners, are more into Surdarsky's scale? &mdash; Hurricane Devon  (  Talk  ) 23:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would strongly oppose including the Sudarsky system in the extrasolar planet template, because it is speculative. Infoboxes should primarily be used for a short summary of data rather than presentation of speculation. Chaos syndrome 23:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

What about Uranus and Neptune?
The article says that Jupiter and Saturn are class I, but it never says what Uranus and Neptune are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.185.18.21 (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
 * It says they're ice giants, lacking the mass and internal properties to qualify. But then, maybe this wasn't clear back in '06.
 * Mind you now we have HD 149026 b, and maybe even Gliese 436 b. Are they gas giants? Probably not, but they probably have the cloud deck, and so outward appearance, of a gas giant. To my mind that qualifies at least HD 149026 b for this article. But we should hold off on Gliese 436 b for now. -- Zimriel (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Methane and Sulfurous cloud jovian
You should add two more classes to the main article as in above subtitle as I seen in extrasolar visions. BlueEarth 21:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

=Advancements post Sudarsky= Someday we are going to have to replace classes IV and V with pL and pM: --Zimriel (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

='Iron giant' redirect'= - The phrase 'iron giant' redirects here. It should at least contain a line at the top of the page saying this and 'for the film, see The Iron Giant'. by User:Sordyne (fraid I can't be bothered signing in just to sign this) 15-02-2009

Appearance of ice giants
How would hot and warm ice giants appear? Any major difference from that of gas giants of similar temperatures? --JorisvS (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Sudarsky's gas giant classification. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20071016161601/http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu:80/Media/releases/ssc2007-09/ssc2007-09a.shtml to http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media/releases/ssc2007-09/ssc2007-09a.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sudarsky's gas giant classification. 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/20081217111141/http://www.astro.phys.ethz.ch/papers/berdyugina/exoplanet_hd189733b.pdf to http://www.astro.phys.ethz.ch/papers/berdyugina/exoplanet_hd189733b.pdf

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) 01:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

… their clouds are made up of water vapor
This trash is present since the first revision! Not a result of some semi-vandal edit as initially suspected. Whereas users of the great English Wikipedia fix punctuation and internal links for thirteen years. How can believe that any of these did learn physics at least at school? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

"Appearance of extrasolar planets" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Appearance of extrasolar planets and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 28 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 22:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)