[Petrochemicals]

Wait, so in Venus, the sun rises in the west and sets in the east?

Doesnt thesunrotate clockwise at the south pole and anti clockwise at the north ?

[Halc]

Wait, so in Venus, the sun rises in the west and sets in the east?

Doesnt thesunrotate clockwise at the south pole and anti clockwise at the north ?

That's what I initially thought, but Janus correct me.
I looked it up and found this poor statement:

The International Astronomical Union (IAU) defines the geographic north pole of a planet or any of its satellites in the Solar System as the planetary pole that is in the same celestial hemisphere, relative to the invariable plane of the Solar System, as Earth's north pole.

That essentially says that the orbital plane of Earth determines which pole is north.  That works fine for our solar system, but I find it a poor definition because there is no Earth in other solar systems.  A simple counter-clockwise rule like that would serve better for all objects anywhere.
I suppose one could extend Earth's orbital plane vector through the universe, allowing one to determine north so long as you know the orientation of the solar system from wherever you find yourself.  This information may not be available.

[Janus]

Wait, so in Venus, the sun rises in the west and sets in the east?

Doesnt thesunrotate clockwise at the south pole and anti clockwise at the north ?

That's what I initially thought, but Janus correct me.
I looked it up and found this poor statement:

The International Astronomical Union (IAU) defines the geographic north pole of a planet or any of its satellites in the Solar System as the planetary pole that is in the same celestial hemisphere, relative to the invariable plane of the Solar System, as Earth's north pole.

That essentially says that the orbital plane of Earth determines which pole is north.  That works fine for our solar system, but I find it a poor definition because there is no Earth in other solar systems.  A simple counter-clockwise rule like that would serve better for all objects anywhere.
I suppose one could extend Earth's orbital plane vector through the universe, allowing one to determine north so long as you know the orientation of the solar system from wherever you find yourself.  This information may not be available.

Alternatively,  you could just apply the counter-clockwise rule to the net rotation of the star system you are dealing with and then assign North to the bodies in that system accordingly, relative to the rotation plane of the system as a whole.

[Halc]

Alternatively,  you could just apply the counter-clockwise rule to the net rotation of the star system you are dealing with and then assign North to the bodies in that system accordingly, relative to the rotation plane of the system as a whole.

Alternatively, you could just apply the friggin right hand rule to any rotating object, which is unambiguous.
I'm not saying you're wrong, just griping about the standard they decided to adopt.  For an object in question, does it orbit something or is it a free object?  There are definitely cases that are borderline.  If it orbits something, do you count the orbital plane of the thing orbited, or the system as a whole?  There are mutli-star systems where the orbital plane of one star differs significantly from the orbital plane of that star around the other stars, again with borderline cases of a star being in orbit or just in a chaotic relationship with its neighbors.

Just pointing out that the current rule has some very ambiguous cases, whereas the right hand (counter-clockwise) rule would not have had them at all.