No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
– [[User:Bcoleridge|Bcoleridge]] 15:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC) |
– [[User:Bcoleridge|Bcoleridge]] 15:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
− | :Just the show. Even if "accepted astronomy" ''had'' any such stars, or any info about any real-life planets around those stars, for one thing that info wouldn't be suitable at Memory Alpha, and for another thing "accepted astronomy" uses letters, starting with b. [[Special:Contributions/76.247.44.68|76.247.44.68]] 16:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC) |
+ | :Just the show. Even if "accepted astronomy" ''had'' any such stars, or any info about any real-life planets around those stars, for one thing that info wouldn't be suitable at Memory Alpha, and for another thing "accepted astronomy" uses letters, starting with b, generally in order of discovery, not orbital distance. [[Special:Contributions/76.247.44.68|76.247.44.68]] 16:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:48, 4 November 2008
Hi, I was looking at an article on the Ceti Alpha and Tau Cygna systems and I have a question about the numbering of the planets. Does the number indicate the planet's position from the sun in terms either of accepted astronomy or information gained from the show? Thanks.
– Bcoleridge 15:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Just the show. Even if "accepted astronomy" had any such stars, or any info about any real-life planets around those stars, for one thing that info wouldn't be suitable at Memory Alpha, and for another thing "accepted astronomy" uses letters, starting with b, generally in order of discovery, not orbital distance. 76.247.44.68 16:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)