I am hereby declaring that “Solar System” isn’t well-defined
The same as “lexical category” or “edible”.
The same as “lexical category” or “edible”.
Actually, I’d say that solar system is defined by science, isn’t it? Those objects which are withing the rotation of our sun?
in fact, it’s defined as:
the sun with the celestial bodies that revolve around it in its gravitational field
...
Well, “planet” isn’t well-defined (given how Pluto is in there), therefore someone could add their name to the Map.
The only reference to the solar system in the rulest is in the sentence “the values of Station are limited to any one planet or moon located within the Solar System only”. “Flying monkey” is no moon.
You’re right that an explicit list would have been helpful here, though.
actually, I’m pretty sure we could find definitions for them. And while Pluto isn’t a true ‘planet’ it is a dwarf planet, which would, I’d think, fit the category.
Also, while they are not as well defined as we might like them to be, there is an issue that “Flying monkey” is not a planet nor a moon in the solar system. thus, it cannot be added.
I think rather than stating they’re not defined, period, individual cases should be brought forward as they merit and the rule adjusted to fix that.
Dwarf planets and planets aren’t the same thing. I could argue that Pluto shouldn’t be included. But I don’t care.
Klisz:
And thus, “flying monkey” could be added to the Solar Map.