This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
How can you have "poseidology" etc. - the term implies "geology" of Neptune - yet the planet is entirely gaseous.
I (weirdo) have never heard the term "planetology". "Planetary astronomy" or "planetary science" is WAY more common, and I think the page should be moved to one of those with a redirect. -- zandperl 20:01, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Planetary science is the much more common term.-- Pharos 07:51, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think that the subject of planetary science should actually be called planetary geology, since it is a type of geology. That name would be more specific, too instead of just a science it would be a type of science (geology). I have also researched planetary geology and found that many sites use that wording. But really, in all honesty, who cares what its called? We all know it is the study of planets and as long as we understand that concept, its name doesnt' really matter all that much.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.135 ( talk • contribs)
Good move - now what about the Category:Planetology? It needs renaming also. I missed the vote, but planetology sounds too much akin to astrology to me :-) - Vsmith 15:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have to admit that I was somewhat bothered by the introduction to this topic; it is way too biased towards "astronomy". In fact, both planetary astronomy and planetery geology are part of "planetary science". In todays modern word, astronomy has very little to do with planetery science, as most measurements are made by spacecraft, not astronomers using telescopes. Also, most reasearch about the planets today has a strong geological bias. The disciplines of "remote sensing", "geophysics", "geomorphology", "atmospheric science", etc., all try to decipher the geologic evolution of the planet.
Perhaps I am nitpicking, but when I tell people that I study the Moon, they naturally assume that I am an astronomer. Does analyzing gravity fields, topography, basaltic volcanism, planetary differentiation, and impact cratering make me an astronomer? I don't think so. Lunokhod 20:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
"When the discipline concerns itself with a celestial body in particular, a specialised term is used, as shown in the table below (only heliology, geology, selenology, and areology are currently in common use):
This table is REALY FUNNY. NO ONE USES THESE TERMS. In my humble opinion, it is really bad practice to replace the prefix "geo" by another term for the other planetary bodies. This horendous practice started with the Moon, by using the prefix "seleno". Since the Moon occupies a special place in planetery science and the exploration of the solar system, this was understandable. However, the situation quicky got out of control, when new "words" were invented for the lunar geothermal gradient, earthquakes, geology, geomorthology, geoid, etc. Since the first spacecraft visited the Moon, we have investigated numerous objects, such as Io, Europa, Ganymede, Titan, Iapetis, Eros, etc. Now what should we call the geological studies of these bodies??? Io-ology?
I have no objection to keeping the table, as it is really funny. Seriously. However, I think that we need to preface this with something a bit stronger than "only heliology, geology, selenology, and areology are currently in common use". Indeed, areology is not that common. Lunokhod 21:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I've tagged this as needing verification. Much of this article is curiously worded, I think it would benefit from being looked at to make sure the correct terms are used everywhere. I've done some copyediting already but my knowledge of the field is limited. Rpvdk ( talk) 10:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Does this section make sense? -- 70.181.45.138 ( talk) 20:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I am with NASA's Planetary Science Division and have accepted the job of presenting NASA's planetary science on wikipedia. After looking at the existing Planetary Science entry it seems to me inappropriate to edit that page. Instead it would make sense to me to prepare a new page titled 'Planetary Science at NASA' and use it to present the missions and research and analysis programs of NASA in this area, and then link it to the Planetary Science page.
I have never prepared or edited for wikipedia, nor do I know it's established etiquette. I am seeking advice. Thanks in advance. Mrgfan ( talk) 22:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay. This article needs a significant amount of work. I'm proposing reorganisation along the following lines:
Take out the existing first-level headings.
Since planetary scientist redirects here, I think we should also have
And finally:
Iridia ( talk) 18:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
This text was recently deleted from thermodynamic equilibrium, but maybe someone here knows where it should go:
<!-- note that "Equilibrium Temperature" redirects here, which makes this the most relevant place for this. --> :<math>\sigma\cdot T_{\mathrm{p}}^4 = \frac{\sigma\cdot T_{\ast}^4}{4\pi\cdot d^2}\cdot\frac{4\pi\cdot R_{\ast}^2}{4\pi\cdot R_{\mathrm{p}}^2}\cdot\pi\cdot R_{\mathrm{p}}^2(1-A_{\mathrm{p}})</math><ref>C. Barbieri, 2007</ref>
David Hollman ( Talk) 17:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
There is an article at AfD that may interest you. The article is here Modern Mars habitability. Please comment at WP:Articles for deletion/Modern Mars habitability
Robert Walker ( talk) 15:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Different disciplines, surely. Most planetary scientists are geologists who publish in geological journals. Serendi pod ous 07:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
How can you have "poseidology" etc. - the term implies "geology" of Neptune - yet the planet is entirely gaseous.
I (weirdo) have never heard the term "planetology". "Planetary astronomy" or "planetary science" is WAY more common, and I think the page should be moved to one of those with a redirect. -- zandperl 20:01, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Planetary science is the much more common term.-- Pharos 07:51, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think that the subject of planetary science should actually be called planetary geology, since it is a type of geology. That name would be more specific, too instead of just a science it would be a type of science (geology). I have also researched planetary geology and found that many sites use that wording. But really, in all honesty, who cares what its called? We all know it is the study of planets and as long as we understand that concept, its name doesnt' really matter all that much.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.135 ( talk • contribs)
Good move - now what about the Category:Planetology? It needs renaming also. I missed the vote, but planetology sounds too much akin to astrology to me :-) - Vsmith 15:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have to admit that I was somewhat bothered by the introduction to this topic; it is way too biased towards "astronomy". In fact, both planetary astronomy and planetery geology are part of "planetary science". In todays modern word, astronomy has very little to do with planetery science, as most measurements are made by spacecraft, not astronomers using telescopes. Also, most reasearch about the planets today has a strong geological bias. The disciplines of "remote sensing", "geophysics", "geomorphology", "atmospheric science", etc., all try to decipher the geologic evolution of the planet.
Perhaps I am nitpicking, but when I tell people that I study the Moon, they naturally assume that I am an astronomer. Does analyzing gravity fields, topography, basaltic volcanism, planetary differentiation, and impact cratering make me an astronomer? I don't think so. Lunokhod 20:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
"When the discipline concerns itself with a celestial body in particular, a specialised term is used, as shown in the table below (only heliology, geology, selenology, and areology are currently in common use):
This table is REALY FUNNY. NO ONE USES THESE TERMS. In my humble opinion, it is really bad practice to replace the prefix "geo" by another term for the other planetary bodies. This horendous practice started with the Moon, by using the prefix "seleno". Since the Moon occupies a special place in planetery science and the exploration of the solar system, this was understandable. However, the situation quicky got out of control, when new "words" were invented for the lunar geothermal gradient, earthquakes, geology, geomorthology, geoid, etc. Since the first spacecraft visited the Moon, we have investigated numerous objects, such as Io, Europa, Ganymede, Titan, Iapetis, Eros, etc. Now what should we call the geological studies of these bodies??? Io-ology?
I have no objection to keeping the table, as it is really funny. Seriously. However, I think that we need to preface this with something a bit stronger than "only heliology, geology, selenology, and areology are currently in common use". Indeed, areology is not that common. Lunokhod 21:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I've tagged this as needing verification. Much of this article is curiously worded, I think it would benefit from being looked at to make sure the correct terms are used everywhere. I've done some copyediting already but my knowledge of the field is limited. Rpvdk ( talk) 10:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Does this section make sense? -- 70.181.45.138 ( talk) 20:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I am with NASA's Planetary Science Division and have accepted the job of presenting NASA's planetary science on wikipedia. After looking at the existing Planetary Science entry it seems to me inappropriate to edit that page. Instead it would make sense to me to prepare a new page titled 'Planetary Science at NASA' and use it to present the missions and research and analysis programs of NASA in this area, and then link it to the Planetary Science page.
I have never prepared or edited for wikipedia, nor do I know it's established etiquette. I am seeking advice. Thanks in advance. Mrgfan ( talk) 22:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay. This article needs a significant amount of work. I'm proposing reorganisation along the following lines:
Take out the existing first-level headings.
Since planetary scientist redirects here, I think we should also have
And finally:
Iridia ( talk) 18:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
This text was recently deleted from thermodynamic equilibrium, but maybe someone here knows where it should go:
<!-- note that "Equilibrium Temperature" redirects here, which makes this the most relevant place for this. --> :<math>\sigma\cdot T_{\mathrm{p}}^4 = \frac{\sigma\cdot T_{\ast}^4}{4\pi\cdot d^2}\cdot\frac{4\pi\cdot R_{\ast}^2}{4\pi\cdot R_{\mathrm{p}}^2}\cdot\pi\cdot R_{\mathrm{p}}^2(1-A_{\mathrm{p}})</math><ref>C. Barbieri, 2007</ref>
David Hollman ( Talk) 17:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
There is an article at AfD that may interest you. The article is here Modern Mars habitability. Please comment at WP:Articles for deletion/Modern Mars habitability
Robert Walker ( talk) 15:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Different disciplines, surely. Most planetary scientists are geologists who publish in geological journals. Serendi pod ous 07:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)