Talk:Solar System

"But there is no objective basis for this definition" - actually the def. that evicted Pluto is pretty objective - enough self-gravity to become relatively spheroid, and to "sweep" its orbit clear of debris.  ħ uman  21:24, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
 * The lack of objectivity comes from how arbitrary the criteria is. Oh, and the fact that Neptune hasn't swept such debris as Pluto itself from its orbit. 69.73.47.181 (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The orbit of Neptune and Pluto are dramatically different. They don't cross or interfere with each other (it's an illusion caused by 2-dimensional projections), so indeed Neptune has cleared its orbit. Also, don't confuse "arbitrary" with "subjective". They're not the same thing. We can make an arbitrary distinction between "space" and "not space" using a judgement of 100 miles, but that doesn't make the length of the mile subjective. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 11:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This article needs a section about its formation and evolution. I'll see whqt I can add logged-in. --93.191.139.10 (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure — just keep this in mind. I.e., stick to what is relevant for refuting pseudoastronomy (including YEC), for example. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Asteroid belt woo
Given that 'going through an asteroid belt and being subject to an avalanche of objects with much clanking (and which, strangely, never shatter the windscreen) is a SF staple perhaps there could be a brief paragraph on the subject. Anna Livia (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Asteroid woo 2
Getting ahead of the creative-pseudo-astronomers will mention. Anna Livia (talk) 11:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The above has unlinked - but 'bizarre asteroid' story. Anna Livia (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Planet 9 update
Where does this belong? Anna Livia (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)