Talk:Puffy planet

"Gas dwarf" versus "Puffy planet"

I arrived at this page by clicking on the Gas Dwarf link in the Gliese 581 c entry. It seems to me to be a misnomer in this instance. None of the three examples of a Puffy planet cited are even smaller than Jupiter, the largest gas giant in our solar system, less dense, but no "dwarf" in the lot, except in an exoplanetary sense, but that's because we're only now starting to be able to find smaller planets, rather obviously.

Full Disclosure: I teach introductory astronomy using Starlab (K - 12+) and my own publications at the college level. In these publications I offer some astronomy speculation and a glossary for it. However, my use of the term "gas dwarf" is reserved for terrestrial planets that have a runaway greenhouse effect, the example being Venus...and maybe if we're not careful, future Earth. I won't provide any specific information here on what journals I'm talking about or what website has this information and you can't tell what my actual name is from my user name, so I'm doing my best to avoid a conflict of interest. But I want to open the discussion on the point I've raised, which is, is a "Puffy planet" really a "gas dwarf".

Other editors, please chime in. Wilnap (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial note: The only place in Wikipedia where the term "Gas dwarf" is to be found right now seems to be Talk:Gliese 581 c where the planet's depiction has been debated. I think both the main article and this talk-page are in need of an expert. Omnipedian (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verification

I'd also suggest that there is an alternative viewpoint to self-referential editing in the Wikipedia that might be termed a "confluence of interest", but I would agree that acceptance of such hypothetical citations should be reviewed by other editors first before becoming posted for the wide world to see, and students and researchers to rely on. Flagging such entries and circulating them among regular editors to test interest in such verification might be easily achieved. Here I make the case that expanding knowledge can begin with an individual, but of course, must involve some consent among others to have relevance. And of course, the potential for abuse and attempts at free advertising in a real conflict of interest would exist and present difficulties. We're still living in the Spam Age, after all, but then maybe that's just an opinion. Wilnap (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick investigation of the web-available astronomical literature I wasn't able to find many academic references to the subject: e.g. here, HD 209458 b is said to be "probably [...] hot and puffy", and here a short description of what constitutes a "puffy planet" is given. My point is that I don't doubt that the term exists as an astronomers' unofficial jargon, but that apparently there is perhaps no scholarly source where this term is technically described and defuzzified. Of course, I'll be glad to be proven wrong. Omnipedian (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]