Jump to content

Talk:Planetary system

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Star system, stellar system, solar system, planetary system ...

[edit]

Hello! I've noted recent statements about why this distinction has been so characterised; however (perhaps I'm missing this), I do not see any cited references (particularly from astronomical references) substantiating these distinctions. Please corroborate and verify. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 09:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! Further to my prior request (unanswered) and after some digging, my search for authoritative definitions for some of these terms has born some fruit:

  • Solar System – A group of celestial bodies comprising the Sun and the large number of bodies that are bound gravitationally to the Sun and revolve in approximately elliptical orbits around it....
— Collins Dictionary of Astronomy (ISBN 0-00-710297-6), p. 382
— Oxford Dictionary of Astronomy (ISBN 0-19-860513-7), p. 420
— The McGraw Hill Dictionary of Astronomy (ISBN 0071410473), p. 125
This definition implies it can be correctly used for systems with more than one star, e.g., binary systems, with their constituents. Whether it can be used for one star alone and associated bodies is not wholly clear, in which case star system is likely more appropriate; however, a logical assumption can also be made that stellar, being an adjectival form of star (or stars, as per Oxford English Dictionary), can be used in a similar way to solar when referring to the Sun (Sol).
  • star system – Strangely, I could not (yet) find printed references/definitions for this term; see solar system and stellar system
  • planetary system – ... A system of celestial bodies in orbit around a star including planets, moons, asteroids, comets, and dust.
— The Universal Book of Astronomy, from the Andromeda Galaxy to the Zone of Avoidance (ISBN 0471265691), p. 394
... A system of planets and other bodies, such as comets and meteroids, that orbits a star. The Sun and its planetary system together comprise the solar system.
— Collins, p. 314
Note the distinction between solar and planetary system, viz. the Sun (or central star). This clearly does not include the central star(s) as part of the system, so references to the stars and their planets (in an extrasolar context, in toto) can more correctly be dubbed as star system or stellar system, and even improperly, as 'solar system' (e.g., as commonly referred to, like in Serenity).

In some respects, some of these clearly differ with definitions and interpretations already presented in the appropriate Wp articles. Based on this information and unless there are reputable opinions/citations to the contrary, I will be making these appropriate editions to the relevant articles. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 01:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to the above, well, somewhat, one sentence claims: "Our own planetary system, which contains Earth, together with the Sun comprise a unique star system: the solar system.". I'm pretty sure nobody can provide a proper source about our system being unique, at least more unique than any other. I suspect it was supposed to say it has a unique name, but so does the Alpha Centauri system. The solar system article's "Although the term "solar system" is frequently applied to other star systems and the planetary systems which may comprise them, it should strictly refer to our system specifically" is closer to the truth. I'll leave it be for now, considering the above critique. Retodon8 22:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you doing this research? People who write dictionaries have already done this. Betaneptune (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there; thanks for your note. I'm all for clarifying and editing thereof: the desired aim of the sentence you cited is to point out that (our) solar system is a unique star/stellar system amongst many, as "solar" should only be used when referring to the Sun and objects in its vicinity. I guess there is a bit of duality in all of these terms: many stars may have planetary systems, but none precisely like ours (e.g., life as yet identified, etc.). I'm sure there are a few citations that attest to that. Make sense?
Besides: some of the lengthy discussions I've been involved in recently have had a similar effect as to receiving a shot in the solar plexus. :) Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 22:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A star system or stellar system comprises 2 or more stars. Whether or not they have any planets orbiting them is irrelevant. Nurg 05:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC). (I retracted & deleted some further comments I made here.) Nurg 06:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no sense to call a solar system a planetary system. A planetary system is a system of planets. A solar system consists of a sun and everything within its influence, which includes planets, moons, asteroids, meteoroids, dwarf planets, Kuiper belt, Oort cloud, the solar wind, and perhaps other stuff I can't think of offhand. This is what dictionaries say (at least webster.com). Seems to me the only reason the term "planetary system" has even come into use is the discovery of "exoplanets". No one has ever called our solar system a planetary system until recently. Scientists studying exoplanets will talk about planetary systems because that is the planets that can now be seen! And it is they that constitute a planetary system, which is only part of a solar system. Stars are old hat. The focus on remote solar systems is their planets. Some will claim scientists call solar systems planetary systems, but they may well be referring only to the planets. There are videos of Neil deGrasse Tyson calling them solar systems. If one wishes to call solar systems planetary systems then ours should be called the solar planetary system. The article should be renamed "Solar system". Betaneptune (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"a solar system" is incorrect; there is only one Solar System, and it has Sol (the Sun) at its centre. "a sun" is also incorrect; there is only one "Sun", which is a star. LordOfPens (talk) 05:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a short rebuttal, as perhaps no one will read my long rebuttal!
[SHORT REBUTTAL]
So the argument is that using the term "solar system" to mean a solar system is "incorrect" because solar contains "sol" which is the "name" of our sun (a term nobody ever uses, BTW). But by the same reasoning, the term "planetary system" is incorrect because the term contains "planet", which means planets and not the rest of a solar system. So if "sol" limits the term solar system to our solar system, then by the same logic, planetary system limits the term to planets, and a solar system contains many objects other than planets. Who ultimately gets to decide this anyway?
Sorry. One more quickie: If you lived on a planet in another solar system, say around the star Deneb, would you use the terms sunrise and sunset or Deneb-rise and Deneb-set? "What time is Deneb-rise?" Doesn't sound too good.
[END OF SHORT REBUTTAL] Betaneptune (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[SECOND SHORT REBUTTAL]

"Solar System" contains Sol, but "solar system" doesn't! So with caps, it's ours. Without caps, it's any! This should make everyone happy. Strict naming with strict logic.

[END OF SECOND SHORT REBUTTAL] Betaneptune (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[BEGINNING OF LONG REBUTTAL] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betaneptune (talk • contribs) 20:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not incorrect. I've heard this argument before and it is bogus. Look in the dictionary. Is there only one solar plexus, too? Who is this lucky dude? Actually, by your logic there is no such thing as a solar plexus. webster.com 1b: a celestial body like the sun : STAR. If you think that's wrong then you should throw out your dictionary. (^_^) And no one uses the name Sol. Have you ever heard someone use it other than to claim it's the sun's name? (Both "the sun" and "our sun" are legitimate uses of the word sun. Words are flexible. They can have more than one meaning, and that meaning can vary with the context.)
If you're going to be so demanding of a name, that it represents only what's contained in the name itself, then a planetary system is a system of planets only. Think about it. Because solar contains Sol, we must limit it to our sun. But when the term planetary system is used to include a star, exoplanets, asteroids, meteoroids, comets, etc., somehow all of a sudden it's okay to use a name to mean something more than what the name says it is. This is inconsistent logic!
A solar system is so much more. It includes everything under the influence of its sun. Yes, "its sun" is a legitimate term here. I've seen sun and solar system used for other solar systems in respectable astronomy books and/or magazines and used by no less than Neil deGrasse Tyson. Look in the dictionary. Webster.com 1 b: a celestial body like the sun : STAR
If you can't have solar system because solar contains "Sol", then you can't call a solar system a planetary system because so-called planetary systems are really exoplanetary systems! And you also can't have planetary system because in this article it implies things other than planets. If you are going to be so literal about the "sol" in "solar system" then you should be equally literal about planetary system and define it as a system of planets and only planets. Meteoroids, asteroids, moons, comets, Kuiper objects and such are not planets. Therefore a planetary system, being a system of planets, doesn't contain them, and therefore is not a valid substitute for solar system.
I don't understand why dictionaries are to be ignored, or even declared to be wrong. We might as well throw them out if we think we are better than them. What about solar plexus? It has absolutely nothing to do with the sun, yet no one objects to its use in wikipedia. And what about planetary nebula? Why hasn't that been renamed? It has absolutely nothing to do with planets. Yet no one objects.
Again: for emphasis:
Using planetary system to mean solar system is wrong, because its very name implies only planets, which by your definition is wrong, even though it is clearly right; but we can't use solar system to mean a solar system, because sol is in solar. And since Sol is capitalized, why isn't it Solar system? And they're not planets; they're exoplanets. You could go all out and call them exoplanetary exosystems! (^_^)
You can't claim to be consistent when you certain logic to disregard a perfectly legitimate term and replace it with one which by the same logic is actually worse.
Dictionaries exist for a reason. There is no justification to choose one's favorite sense of a definition and rule out all others for reasons of inconsistently applied logic. (^_^) Betaneptune (talk) 07:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a reference using the term "other solar systems". I have found that some sites call any star with planets and other orbiting bodies solar systems. I have also found some that limit it to our solar system. Again, if solar system has to be limited to our solar system because solar contains sol, then a planetary system has to, by the very same logic, be limited to planets, which doesn't include all the other bodies in a solar system. If we can't call them solar systems then we need a better term than planetary system.
https://www.britannica.com/science/solar-system/Studies-of-other-solar-systems

Betaneptune (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Planetary systems are star systems. They are the same things. https://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v5.pdf and here https://vixra.org/pdf/1205.0107v9.pdfAirpeka (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look and did a Cmd-F search for the terms. Nothing there says anything about this. In fact, by star systems in the first ref he seems to be talking about systems of stars. And he's only one random guy anyway. Neil deGrasse Tyson, e.g., at least some of the time calls other solar systems solar systems. Why is Wolynski to be preferred over Tyson?
Again, the same logic that purports to reject the term solar system actually rejects the term planetary system even more so. Planetary nebula has absolutely nothing to do with planets. But the discoverer thought it did. Now we're stuck with a bad name. We have a chance now to get it right, but people insist on "planetary system", which by its own words means only planets. A solar system also has meteoroids, asteroids, moons, solar wind, Kuiper belt, comets and such. And aren't they exoplanets? Why not call them exoplanetary systems? But I'm glad we don't. Betaneptune (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current name of the article is just as bad as what it should be, or why "planetary system" is a bad term

[edit]

Sorry for starting a new section for this, but I am still awaiting a good reason for why "planetary system" is to be preferred over "solar system" for the title of this article. Both suffer from the same logic. Again: The supposed reason for preferring "planetary system" is that the term "solar system" contains "sol", and therefore applies only to our solar system. But I counter that the term "planetary system" contains "planet" and therefore can refer only to planets. Yet in this article it is being used to represent everything within the influence of a solar system's sun. Can someone please respond and explain why "planetary system" is to be preferred, given that it suffers from the same argument that "solar system" does? (Actually, if you want to nitpick to an even further degree, "solar system" contains "sol", whereas our sun is supposedly called "Sol". Note the difference in capitalization! Therefore, "solar system" it's a fine name for this article [any capitalization in the title being due only to the fact that it's a title, just like with any other ordinary word]). Betaneptune (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If a solar system limits its name to our solar system because it contains "solar", then why doesn't planetary system limit its name to planets due to its containing "planet", when an actual solar system has many other types of objects? Still waiting! The argument fails. Betaneptune (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All planetary systems are star systems. They are the same things. The terms "planet" and "star" are outdated by a couple thousand years. https://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v5.pdfAirpeka (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Planets and stars are clearly not the same things. Outdated by 2000 years? Really? Are you serious? If star systems and planetary systems are the same thing, they are both wrong by the arguments I have already given. Anyway, you have not pointed out anything wrong with my argument. In fact, if those terms are outdated, you, too, think the article is badly named. Your link, BTW, comes up empty. Betaneptune (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Someone changed the name of this section! Seems like an improper thing to do. I partly changed it back to what I think I originally called it. Anyway, I couldn't find what you claim in that reference. Outdated terms? You use them anyway!
What are we to call these things if not stars and planets? And it still does not address my objection, that the purported reason for rejecting the term "solar system" for solar systems also applies to the term "planetary system," but even more so. When I hear the term planetary system used in this manner, I think of a solar system with only planets in it. There is a big hole where the solar system's sun should be. When I hear the term solar system, I think of its planets, its sun (or star, if you prefer), and all the objects it contains.
Even if it is or becomes the accepted term, it is a dumb term. I'll just have to assign it to the set of other dumb terms, like "planetary nebula," which has nothing whatsoever to do with planets. It was mistakenly assigned to the things and only later found to be totally wrong. (At least a correction was made for what used to be called the Andromeda nebula.) But we have a chance to get it right this time, yet many insist on using the same logic they use to reject the term "solar system" that applies equally, if not even more so, to the term "planetary system." If someone can rebut that I'm all ears. I'm talking rebuttal to the logic, not the mentioning of random references.
Again, the only reason the term even came up is that the planets of other solar systems were the new things to be discovered. And when you study just them, it makes sense to call it that. Just like our planetary system consists of eight planets, and nothing more. Yet again: Many insist on using the same logic to reject the term "solar system" that applies equally, if not even more so, to the term "planetary system." And continuing with the logic, why are they not called exoplanetary systems, since it seems we need to call planets outside our solar system exoplanets?
I don't think the reference you gave should serve as the final word. It appears to be more of a rant than anything else.
People like to look for references here. The dictionary has already done that for you! That's the purpose of dictionaries. If you disagree then you should throw yours out!
From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/solar%20system
": the sun together with the group of celestial bodies that are held by its attraction and revolve around it
also : a similar system centered on another star"
Again, the dictionary people have already done the research for this, so people commenting here should stop wasting their time struggling to do the same.
Please don't feed the trolls. Especially when they look a lot like sockpuppets talking to themselves. I'd delete this whole section if an IP hadn't posted here apparently in good faith. Lithopsian (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the other commenters, but I am not a troll or a sock puppet. I have a legitimate point: The same argument about how the term solar system is bad applies even more so to the term planetary system. Short and sweet: If solar system can apply only to our solar system because it contains "Sol", then planetary system can apply only to planets because it contains "planet." So "solar system" is the better and more sensible term. I have yet to see a valid refutation of this. Therefore I suggest we rename this to "Solar System" or at least something other than "Planetary System."
There are many badly named terms. Here we have a chance to get it right.
Betaneptune (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lithopsian - Please don't call me a troll. I have a perfectly legitimate argument. If you find fault with it, please do post. But evidently you can't find a legitimate argument against it. It's easy to call someone you don't like a troll. Or maybe you're doing it because you don't like my argument. And your evidence for such is pretty flimsy anyway -- esp. since it's wrong.
We had a chance to get this right, but the powers-that-be insist on doing it wrong as I have explained above. It's like when people use Latin plural suffixes where they really don't apply in an effort to look "smart." That's what this is.
So "planetary system" needlessly joins the ranks of other badly named things: planetary nebula, perpetual motion machine, solar plexus, space quantization, and I'm sure more I can't think of offhand. Oh, some claim electromotive force is badly named. But it's too late to fix those. At least merriam-webster agrees with me. I'd trust them over Wikipedia any day of the week.
If it appears I'm talking to myself, it is only because no one can come up with a good counterargument. I'm all ears if anyone has one. But no, no one does. Because there is none. Go ahead. Keep the clearly misleading name. The needlessly wrong name. So be it. Betaneptune (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edge of a solar system

[edit]

I think this is a notable topic. For now I've redirected this to Solar System#Farthest regions, since the article here doesn't discuss it at all, but in the long run this should have a section here (if not its own, stand alone article). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Exoplanet, page 2" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Exoplanet, page 2 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 24 § Exoplanet, page 2 until a consensus is reached. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generic use of 'solar system'

[edit]

I've skimmed through past discussions here, talk:Solar system, and their respective archives, relating to debate around the term 'solar system'. I don't entirely agree with points raised on either side of the above debates, with some on one side being frankly silly, and those on the other being unpersuasive.

I have believed for many years that 'a solar system' and 'solar systems' are valid generic terms referring to "planetary systems" in general, while 'our solar system' obviously refers specifically to our own. Indeed if I retrieve my old school textbook from when I was around 15, it only talks about our own and always prefixes 'solar system' with 'our'. Of course that textbook is somewhat childish.

A more respectful educational resource I also have access to is a copy of 'A level Physics for OCR', published in 2015 by the 'Oxford University Press' for British students aged ~17/18. The OCR stamp is one of the the main British educational exam boards, the parent organisation of which (Cambridge University Press and Assessment) is part of the University of Cambridge, one of the world's leading universities. On page 362 there is a continuation of a list of 'objects within the universe', with a 'solar systems' entry stating the following:

Our Solar System contains the Sun and all objects that orbit it (planets, comets, etc.). It is one of many. In 2014 over 1100 other solar systems (sometimes called planetary systems) have been discovered.

Note that this helps support the argument that a solar system is the same thing as a planetary system and includes the star(s) orbited, which is another point of confusion raised in past discussion.

I agree that 'the Sun' and 'Sol' are names for our star, and I can accept that the word 'solar' may well have derived from the Latin 'Sol' meaning Sun, and thus that 'Solar System' may well have developed as a reference to our local system, presumably long before the existence of other systems was known. However these facts do not invalidate the simple fact that for decades at least, the term has since been "repurposed", at least in British educational resources, such that in proper noun form ('our solar system' or 'the solar system') it refers specifically to our system, while in countable noun form ('a solar system' or 'solar systems') it refers collectively to both ours and all other similar systems throughout the universe.

If some dictionary authors defined the countable noun form of 'solar system' (lacking a 'the' prefix) with a description of our own system, then I'd suggest that was simply a mistake on their part. It's not clear from the above discussion that any actually did so.

If we take a look at some online common dictionary definitions:

I note that 'solar systems' is already a redirect to this article.

I would like to see the following minor changes to acknowledge the common use of the generic form, and thus avoid confusion for readers looking for information about it:

  • A change of the introduction of this article from "A planetary system consists of..." to "A planetary system, or solar system, consists of..." (I'm perfectly fine with it keeping its current name).
  • A move of the Solar System article about our system to The Solar System, i.e. the appropriate proper noun form.
  • And then solar system can be a redirect to this article (alongside the existing solar systems redirect).

Naturally I have no issue at all with the proper noun form 'the Solar System' being used within articles to refer to our system specifically, since that is the correct form to do so. I have no issue with such capitalisation. DiscreetParrot (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The language on this page seems fine and conforms to MOS:CELESTIALBODIES. See my note at the Solar System talk page. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Planetary system" refers only to the objects in orbit around a star. The Solar System comprises both the objects in orbit around the Sun and the Sun itself. For some reason, despite needing one for 30 years, there is no official generic term for "solar system", and it is not Wikipedia's job to invent one. Serendipodous 16:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As argued below, 'solar system', despite originating from the word 'sun', is well established as a common/countable noun. Nothing is being invented here. The Sun is considered an intrinsic part of our Solar system, so it stands to reason that as a common/countable noun it generically refers to a star with some orbiting objects.
Regarding your suggestion that 'planetary system' refers only to the collection of orbiting objects, prior to my edits in the past couple of days to this page and Solar System their introductory texts were rather inconsistent and confusing in this regard. After a little pondering and researching, I went with the argument that it did include the star, and edited accordingly, though re-reading this article it's still perhaps ambigous. Now you've got me questioning this again. Unfortunately the IAU don't seem to publicly provide a definition. The quotation I provided above from the OCR textbook indicates that it's a synonym for 'solar system'. I've found NASA stating "our planetary system is called the solar system". This indicates that it includes the star. Some definitions, like this, describe that it's a 'system' wherein objects are in orbit of a star, and thus logically the system includes the star (that also indicates that our Solar System is an example). A definition like "a system of objects gravitationally bound to a star" could be argued is ambiguous. Do you have any suitable resources that support the argument that the term does not in fact include the star? I'm struggling to find anything. DiscreetParrot (talk) 04:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • FUN FACT: This exact same linguistic debate happened 100 years ago (please review RfCs from that period ;)). When spiral nebula/island universes were established people said "We can't call them "galaxies" because galaxy's root meaning is "milk" meaning the white looking stuff in the night sky meaning only our Milky Way/island universe can be called "galaxy"" - Well, the mutability of the English language took care of that. We are in that same boat now. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a question of semantics. The generic lower case solar system and planetary system are defining different things. A planetary system is the collection of substellar material in orbit around a star. A solar system (lower case) would be a star together with all the material around it. A proper generic term for "solar system" would be "star system" or "stellar system", which unfortunately is already in use to describe multiple star systems. Serendipodous 17:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A generic term for "solar system" would be "solar system", already in the dictionary. Again, its the same as "galaxy", we just proved they exist, now its going to take a while for the English language to shake out. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Solar" means "of or pertaning to the Sun". The Solar System is the Sun together with its planetary system. The analogy of "galaxy" doesn't work, because our Galaxy isn't literally made of milk. But the Solar System is literally the Sun's system. Serendipodous 19:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Up till 1923 Galaxy was the proper name for only one thing, the Milky Way --> the "Galaxy". Galaxy was literally the conglomeration of stars where the Sun resided. Whether its how it looked (milky) or what was originally at the center (Sun), its not a matter of where a word drives from, its how its used now. Even after Hubble there was pushback on calling anything else a "galaxy" (per "Miss Leavitt's stars: the untold story of the woman who discovered how to measure the universe" page 109). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fully accept that 'solar' derives from 'sun', and I can appreciate the pedantic argument that it's thus arguably wrong for 'solar', as in 'solar system', to be used for anything other than our own system. However, this is a pointless argument to make; the ship has long since sailed; 'solar system' as a common/countable noun has been well established in common vernacular, dictionary definitions, educational texts, and supposedly even the astronomical field of science itself, for a very long time.
I have spent quite a bit of time since posting this googling, and scouring MOS, its talk pages, and its many talk archives, looking at past discussions for arguments supporting such use being wrong, and found nothing other than this etymological argument. DiscreetParrot (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the generic term 'moon' is in use we don't move the Moon article to The Moon and have a separate article for moon. Instead we have the article Natural satellite. It's the same with Solar System and planetary system. Fdfexoex (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See point 2 of Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(definite_or_indefinite_article_at_beginning_of_name). Use of 'moon' as the specific proper noun 'the Moon' has a very different meaning to use as a common/countable noun. So considering point 2 of those conventions, there's actually a strong argument for Moon to be moved to The Moon. Then, depending upon whether or not we want to favour the more technical term or the more common term, either Moon would be a redirect to Natural satellite or Natural satellite would be moved to Moon and made a redirect itself.
To me it feels very strange for an article about our Moon (i.e. the Moon) to have an article link and title of simply 'Moon', just the same as it feels very strange for an article about our Solar System to hold a link and title of simply 'Solar System' (where the capitalisation doesn't really stand out as indicating use as a proper noun). It's jarring. It just feels totally wrong, and it's out of step with those guidelines. Even if we're not intending to use the indefinite form as a link/title, favouring the more technical term, I still feel quite strongly that these are examples where the definite article should be included within the link and title when discussing these specific proper nouns. DiscreetParrot (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the use of 'solar system' as a common/countable noun within common parlance, dictionaries, and educational texts as mentioned above, the following reddit post, supposedly by "an astronomer", claims that the term 'solar system' is also commonly used as such within the field of astronomy. They provided some references, including to some actual scientific papers at Cornell University. DiscreetParrot (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Moon too? Aside from the fact that nothing about this can be decided on this talk page, your information above about dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc., seems incorrect, at least in a quick online search (I'm not going to link things right now, this topic has been tediously discussed at Wikipedia). The major dictionaries define Solar System as Wikipedia does. Unlike Wikipedia, which accepts it as a proper name per MOS:ASTRONOMICALBODIES, many lowercase it, but they seem to all define "solar system" as pertaining to the Sun and its orbiting companions. As do Britannica and other encyclopedias. Recall that "our" is not an option, per MOS:OUR. Anyway, it's great that you have put your attention on this as you have done some very good edits at the Solar System page, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Britannica encyclopaedic entry does indeed specifically discuss our system, and uses lower case, but note that they seem to have a contributor/editor system just as we do, and so I don't consider that to be in any way authoritative or reliable. Correction is sorely needed there to add the word 'the' to the article title. It also contradicts their own dictionary entry, which I linked to above and quote below.
Their dictionary states the following:
solar system
noun
plural: solar systems
1: the solar system: our sun and the planets that move around it
2: [count]: a star other than our sun and the planets that move around it
I.e. there's the proper noun form, which in general context refers specifically to our system, and there's the countable noun form which is more general and can be expressed as a plural 'solar systems'. They don't require capitalisation to help indicate proper noun use.
Note also that our wiktionary entry gives the same information: wikt:solar system
Since we're not discussing changes to wikipedia style, I don't quite agree that the changes I'm proposing can't be hashed out here.
I'm just using 'our' here in discussion, not proposing to use it in articles. DiscreetParrot (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does the same thing, at Solar System (disambiguation). And poor Britannica, laid low by this upstart site, is not crowdsourced but chooses its editors (and its many intrusive advertisers). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. Here's how the Natural satellite handles a similar concern in its lead, "Natural satellites are colloquially referred to as moons, a derivation from the Moon of Earth." I'm not suggesting that 'solar system' should be used in place of 'planetary system' anywhere on Wikipedia, or that your concern about clarifying the term for the readers is misplaced. Just that if used it should be done sparingly and carefully and in context with the surrounding wording (can't think offhand of where it would possibly replace 'planetary system'). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

for the meaning that Serendipodous is talking about, i commonly see Sol system, which is clear enough.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Planetary_system&oldid=1298154542"