Revision as of 19:39, 22 September 2009 editPhyschim62 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers33,631 edits →Discussion: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:22, 23 September 2009 edit undoIridia (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers2,154 editsm →Solar massNext edit → | ||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
*'''Oppose''' If there's one "astronomical mass" article that should remain independent, it's this one. The solar mass effectively serves as the standard for all the other masses. ] ] 08:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC) | *'''Oppose''' If there's one "astronomical mass" article that should remain independent, it's this one. The solar mass effectively serves as the standard for all the other masses. ] ] 08:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
*'''Oppose''' This is quite a commonly used mass and the standard for stellar masses in addition to masses of black holes and galaxies. There are enough users who would want to know about solar mass with out the extra 'baggage' of other less commonly used masses. From the stand of precedence all other standard units have their own separate pages. ] (]) 15:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC) | *'''Oppose''' This is quite a commonly used mass and the standard for stellar masses in addition to masses of black holes and galaxies. There are enough users who would want to know about solar mass with out the extra 'baggage' of other less commonly used masses. From the stand of precedence all other standard units have their own separate pages. ] (]) 15:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
*'''Oppose''' This one is fine by itself. There's a clear distinction in astronomy between the units used at stellar scales and those used at planetary scales. ] (]) 00:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
===Jupiter mass=== | ===Jupiter mass=== |
Revision as of 00:22, 23 September 2009
Measurement (defunct) | ||||
|
Astronomy Start‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Physics Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Merge other mass articles with this one?
With "concerns" about the stubbyness of some mass articles, should the Solar mass article be merged into this?
Should other mass articles; Jupiter mass, Earth mass, Lunar mass be merged into this article?
This could be done under a heading "Other units used in Astronomy". HarryAlffa (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Solar mass
- Oppose I think there is enough out there that it can be kept as a standalone article. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose If there's one "astronomical mass" article that should remain independent, it's this one. The solar mass effectively serves as the standard for all the other masses. Physchim62 (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose This is quite a commonly used mass and the standard for stellar masses in addition to masses of black holes and galaxies. There are enough users who would want to know about solar mass with out the extra 'baggage' of other less commonly used masses. From the stand of precedence all other standard units have their own separate pages. TStein (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose This one is fine by itself. There's a clear distinction in astronomy between the units used at stellar scales and those used at planetary scales. Iridia (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Jupiter mass
- Oppose I think there is enough out there that it can be kept as a standalone article. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support merge into an article on planetary mass. Physchim62 (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose: It is used enough for the description of planets to keep as a separate article. Physchim62's idea would work as well. I would prefer both the standalone Jupiter mass and the planetary mass.TStein (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Earth mass
- Neutral 76.66.196.139 (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support merge into an article on planetary mass. Physchim62 (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support Physchim62's suggestion. I am not an astronomer but it does not seem useful enough of a unit to keep on its own. TStein (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Lunar mass
- Support though the article currently says it is about the IAU defined units... perhaps two articles are in order, one for the IAU units, and one for other units... 76.66.196.139 (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support merge into an article on planetary mass. Physchim62 (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support Physchim62's suggestion. I am not an astronomer but it does not seem useful enough of a unit to keep on its own. TStein (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
I would prefer a separate article on planetary mass rather than merging them here: they are empirical quantities rather than a system of units. Physchim62 (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me.TStein (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Is the mass of Jupiter an IAU standard? I didn't see it listed in the referenced document.—RJH (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- The mass of Jupiter is not a standard. The best estimates come from it being an adjusted parameter in solar system ephemerides, in which the unit of mass is the solar mass. You can also create separate "Jovian" ephemerides, but I think the accuracy of these is much less that the ones based on the solar system as a whole. Physchim62 (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Is the mass of Jupiter an IAU standard? I didn't see it listed in the referenced document.—RJH (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)