Jump to content

Talk:Solar System/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Solar System
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gman124 (talk | contribs) at 14:38, 9 March 2009 (merged Talk:Solar system/Archive 8 here). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

This article within the scope of the WikiProjects Systems

Hi, I have put this article under the scope of the WikiProject Systems because of the formal relation, but more because of the inspiring and motivating example this article can give our project and it's participants (to come). We are still a small and beginning group, and working to get our own toko going. In due time I hope we can also deliver a valuable contributions here from our point of view. In the mean time I wish all of you all te best. Best regards - Mdd 21:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Definition of north and south

We should explain how north and south are defined for other objects than earth. I assume it is defined as the same direction as earths north pole. Are the rotational axes of all planets parallel? --Apoc2400 01:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Kinda. The only planets that could be said to be upside down are Venus (which rotates from left to right instead of right to left) and Uranus (which, depending on your point of view, is either 82 degrees tilted and rotating right to left, or 98 degrees tilted and rotating left to right. Serendipodous 13:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
So, is north and south for a planet defined from the planets orbit around the sun, or as parallel to earth? Which was does north point for Venus? --Apoc2400 07:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it (keep in mind that I'm not a scientist) "north" is based on what we call "north" on Earth. In space, there is no "up" or "down", so theoretically an alien visiting us could come at us from "below" and thus conclude that north was south and south was north. North and south are completely arbitrary concepts anyway, and are based more on the prejudices of cartographers than anything else. There's no real reason why maps can't be upside down; they just aren't. If, say, the Maori had been the culture to colonise the globe, then North and south could very well have been opposite. Serendipodous 12:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The cartographers that have given us the reversed map ? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There are varying definitions of "north"; see North_Pole#Defining_North_Poles_in_astronomy. --P3d0 13:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This content has since been moved to Poles of astronomical bodies. -- Beland (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there some way

to upload this video onto Wikipedia? I think it's better than the sequence of still images we now have. Serendipodous 15:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"Future" section

This was added a short while ago:

The sun will stay in main sequence for about another 3 billion years. Eventually when it reach giant star it is expect to almost reach Earth's orbit. However the current research shows, the loss of the sun's gravity, mass, and probably atmosphere will cause all the planets to move further from the sun. Although Mercury is likely to escape to higher orbit, but it can definitely not escape from being engulfed by the sun because it can still expand large enough, the remaining gravity can still drag the planet down and still swallow it up in 5 billion year's time. In about 7 billion years from now the sun is expected to reach 110 times its current diameter. The Earth and even Venus will be able to escape to higher orbit to escape from being enveloped by sun. Venus is expected to reach 1.1 AU which will travel slightly beyond the current orbitof the Earth, while the Earth will escape to 1.4 AU which is almost as big as the current orbit of Mars. However all the oceans on Earth will boil up and its atmosphere will be stripped away.

... Anyone want to take a crack at reworking it, or is it too specific for this article? Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 23:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Not necessary; the future of the Solar System was broken off this article over a year ago and is now at Formation and evolution of the Solar System#Future Serendipodous 17:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually few informations is wring in 5.5 billion years sun will swell up to 100 times its current diameter. Earth will move out to 1.55 AU, and Venus will move out to 1.1 AU. sun suppose to stay in main sequence for about another 2.5 Gyrs. in 5.5 Gyrs sun will become RGB. Mercury will just stay in the same orbit the whole time and get destroyed, disintegrate, engulfed and destroy its magnetic field is too low for the planet to escape to higher orbit. Mercury will be swallowed up before the sun enters the RGB, almost after the Earth undergoes similar surface conditon as Venus. --Freewayguy--Comm 90 00:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I came here looking for information on the future of the Solar system (including information about the stability of the planets' orbits), and when I couldn't find it, I came to the Talk page to ask someone to add it. We should at least have a brief summary section with a pointer to the main article. --P3d0 (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
OK. Revised the formation section. Bit truncated and choppy, but I think all the absolutely necessary info is there. Serendipodous 20:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Definition of a planet???

Here's some food for thought... According to the definition of a planet in this article, six of the existing planets should not be considered planets. Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune have not cleared their path! There are still objects orbiting around them and, inadvertedly, block the way for such a body to clear through. Am I right? Shouldn't they be as Mercury and Venus with nothing in their way?

Of all the wacky things I have heard about the Solar Sytem, I have never heard such a thing that would disclude our own home as a planet. Until now, that is.

If anyone agrees with me, please note so.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Son of the right hand (talk • contribs) 21:13, 22 June 2007

Please read What is a Planet? by Steven Soter from the January 2007 issue of Scientific American. It's quite well done and made a believer out of me.  :) Oh, and please sign your posts with ~~~~ Thanks. --EarthPerson 21:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't beleive that there is any objects in the way of any of the planets, exept for pluto, of course, my grade 8 science and technologies teacher told me so, if there were things in the way of our orbit, we would be considered a dwarf planet! androo123 16:56, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

About the planets?

I don't agree with this revert. Who says that section is only about the planets? I think we should reinstate the text. --P3d0 20:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The section read (and currently reads) as follows:

"The five closest planets to Earth – Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn – are amongst the brightest objects in the night sky and were called "πλανήτης" (planētēs, meaning "wanderer") by the Ancient Greeks. They were known to move across the fixed stars; this is the origin of the word "planet". Uranus is also visible without optical aid at its brightest, but it is at the very limit of naked-eye detectability and therefore evaded discovery until 1781."

The change added notes about Vesta, Saturn's moons, and the invention of the telescope - all interesting, but it bulks up what was a clear and succinct paragraph. --Ckatzchatspy 20:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This page should be semi-protected

I'm not sure if this is a valid measure of vandal attraction, but once the first fifty edits in the history section consist entirely of reverted vandalism, I think it's time to put a lock on it. Serendipodous 07:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know. The vandalism isn't overwhelming (~2 or 3 edits per day, all quickly reverted), and that "semi-protected" tag is kind of ugly. Gnixon 16:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Definition of the Solar System

I find it irritating that the Solar System is defined in the opening sentence by its contents. It is given no context of location or significance; there are billions of other star systems in existance, why is this one special? If you look at the articles of the planets, they say 'this is a planet in the Solar System', and when you look at this article, it says 'the Solar System contains these planets'. It's like saying 'black is the opposite of white' and 'white is the opposite of black', it's a comparitive definition that makes no sense to people unfamiliar with the concepts referred to. --84.64.77.228 02:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Our Solar System isn't special. It's just the star system we happen to be in. Is saying "Venus is a planet in the solar system" and "The solar system contains the planet Venus" any different from saying that "The lung is an organ in the vertebrate body" and "The vertebrate body contains lungs?" Serendipodous 07:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's different. The latter statements imply that the lung is an organ in every vertebrate body. The former implies that there is only one solar system. --P3d0 04:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
There is only one Solar System. The Solar System is the star Sol and its planetary system, hence the capital letters. Believe me I've gone through this many times in the past. The problem of definition arises because, oddly enough, there is no commonly accepted generic term for stars plus planetary systems. You'd think after ten years of extrasolar planet discovery they would have worked it out by now, but they haven't. Serendipodous 06:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, that answers my question. Shouldn't this be explained in the article?
Not sure how. It's impossible to prove a negative, so I can't see how we could say that there is no official generic term for "solar system" unless we found a source explicitly saying so. Thing is, no source I've ever found has ever said that. Serendipodous 21:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
How better can one define the Solar System than to say that it is this collection of astronomical bodies orbiting that particular star? There is nothing special about the region of space we currently occupy (fringe theories about the aether, geocentrism etc. aside), nor about our coordinates relative to the galaxy or universe as a whole. Description (of our position or whatever) is not definition. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 17:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC):
Isn't the generic term for a star plus planetary system "Star System?"

This article's main image is a bit out of date

It gives the impression that Pluto is a major planet. Perhaps someone could photoshop the Kuiper belt into the last orbit? Serendipodous 18:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall there being a version of that image where Pluto had been airbrushed out, which struck me as being somewhat reminiscent of Stalin-era photos of Kremlin staff (you know the sort of thing: Foobarov is out of favour, so we must remove him from the official history). Maybe that image is still on the servers? Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 17:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. If the image should be planets only, then pluto should not be present. If dwarf planets are considered significant, then ceres, sedna, and all the other known ones should be included. As is, the image is self-contradictory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.161.164 (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Factual Errors

The picture of the Solar system on the bottom includes Eris, Pluto, and ceres, even though it shouldn't. They were designated as not planets, but dwarf plnaets and what happens to Wikipedia when later we find much more dwarf planets? Keep adding them? I mean, dwarf plnaets, I suppose, are much samller and thus easier to be made and thus there would be an abundance of them. The picture should take the dwarf plnaets out.—Preceding unsigned comment added by PRhyu (talk • contribs)

That image was provided by the IAU upon reaching their decision last year. Planets are listed on the top, dwarf planets on the bottom. Should they add new dwarf planets, which probably won't be until 2009, then doubtless they will release a new image to illustrate it. When they do, we'll swap it out. Serendipodous 07:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

converting metrics in scientific articles

I'm seeking consensus at MOSNUM talk for a change in the wording to allow contributors, by consensus only, to use unconverted metrics in scientific articles. Your opinions are invited. Tony 15:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Renaming the article to Solar system

It seems to me that this article should be renamed from Solar System to Solar system. It seems common in all direct related articles like for example:

It seems that you only keep use capitals in a article title if it really an own name. But I'm not expert in Wikipedia rules & conventions. What do you think? - Mdd 22:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion, but I think perhaps the rationale is that a "solar system" is any system orbiting a star, while the "Solar System" is the proper name for the solar system that we inhabit. --P3d0 22:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't think of that. - Mdd 22:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Definition of solar system

It should be mentioned that solar system can also refer to all other star systems, and generally does, at least in American English. In American English, our solar system is almost always refered to as our solar system or the solar system. Notice the our and the.

Webster's definition of sun: "1. a) the self-luminous, gaseous sphere about which the earth and other planets revolve and which furnishes light, heat, and energy for the solar system: it is the star nearest the earth, whose mean distance from it is nearly 93,000,000 miles: its diameter is about 864,000 miles; its mass is about 333,400 times, and its volume more than 1,300,000 times, that of the earth  b) the heat or light of the sun [to lie in the sun]  2. any star that is the center of a planetary system  3. something like the sun, as in warmth, brilliance, splendor, etc.  4. [Poet.]  a) a day  b) a year  5. [Poet.] a clime; climate  6. [Archaic] sunrise or sunset."

Notice especially the definition of the sun under 2. The definition of sun is ambiguous, like a lot of the English language, and should be mentioned in the sun and solar system articles. Excluding that information is an example of Wikipedia's bias.

Also look at the Merriam-Webster Online definition for solar system: "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." These sources are much more reliable than Wikipedia, an encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to.

Dictionaries don't employ official definitions; they draw citations from any and all printed works, not just scientific ones. The distinction between "the Solar System" and "a solar system" is one that is employed frequently in popular culture, but it is not one that has been officially accepted by astronomers. Yet. Serendipodous 05:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Pluto

Pluto should still be a planet!! It is a dwarf planet and orbits around the sun! Why is it classified as an asteroid?! (and please please please dont delete this article!) --70.110.4.132 22:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Plutsave

It's not classified as an asteroid, but as a dwarf planet. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 22:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

Could someone explain something to me that I have not been able to immediately figure out on my own after quick review of several articles. Is our solar system a galaxy? or are there several solar systems in a galaxy? Does the word "solar system" refer only to OUR solar system? If not, what is the name of our solar system? and what is the name of our galaxy? and what is the milky way? a series of galaxies that we can see from Earth?

Thanks. dearly 02:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The solar system is not a galaxy. A galaxy is a gravitational union of a hundred billion stars. The Solar System is one star and the planets around it. Our Solar System is one star in the Milky Way galaxy, which probably contains a hundred billion other similar systems. The Solar System (with capital letters) is the name of the star system we live in. Some people use the term "solar system" (no capital letters) to describe other such systems, but that isn't official. Serendipodous 06:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

New Image

File:PIA03153.jpg
montage of planetary images taken by spacecraft managed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, CA. Included are (from top to bottom) images of Mercury, Venus, Earth (and Moon), Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. The spacecraft responsible for these images are as follows: * the Mercury image was taken by Mariner 10, * the Venus image by Magellan, * the Earth and Moon images by Galileo, * the Mars image by Mars Global Surveyor, * the Jupiter image by Cassini, and * the Saturn, Uranus and Neptune images by Voyager. * Pluto is not shown as no spacecraft has yet visited it.

This new Image might be useful.--Nemissimo 16:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Planet Orbits

I was looking for an article or image that explains planet orbits. Preferably approximate scale image for inner planets, showing ellipses and sun position? is there one in wikipedia, or should there be one? -- 16:32, 11 November 2007

Well, there's this. Not sure what you want. Do you want distances? There's an old image from this page that I took down because it swamped the text. You can see it here Serendipodous 21:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thanks. what i had in mind is the fact that planet orbits are not circular but more of the ellipse (as keppler told us), yet its hard to see on images of large scales. on all images they look very circular. for example in December Earth is closer to sun that in June. yet i couldn't find a wikipedia diagram that shows that. thanks -- 17:01, 12 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.106.237.2 (talk)

...would be nice if someone could add the link to the excellent Hindi version of the article - thanks? Watasenia (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If you provide a URL, I'll provide the link. My Hindi is rather limited… Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Photos of the sun

As an earlier attempt at commenting was reverted (probably mistook as vandalism even though the comments were hidden from normal view), here's another go:

Is the shot (probably taken by a compact digital camera) in current form truly encyclopedical? Consider Image:The sun1.jpg (which is currently used) and the previous Image:The Sun.jpg. What do they show? A burnt out highlight, some blue sky and lens flare. In comparison, perhaps these do not quite fit in? As the article history only goes back to April 20 2007 I can't determine if they were included in the version that underwent the FA process. Cheers, 88.148.207.23 12:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

They were. Or at least earlier versions of them. Serendipodous 13:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sol System

Isn't that like the name most people use in fiction when we found other star systems i can try to find references but i doubt it --24.107.202.65 (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Some scifi books have used it, most notably the Foundation series, but it's not used much in reality. Serendipodous 00:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Header: Greco-Roman mythology references

Either referring to the Greco-Roman mythological origins of various planetary designations is inappropriate in the header, or including the Greco-Roman mythological names for Earth alongside the other planetary designations is necessary to fairly present information on the subject. I've tried both options to no avail. Discuss. Adraeus (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what your problem is. This is the English Wikipedia. In the English language, all the planets save Earth are named for Graeco-Roman mythic figures. English hardly ever uses "Terra", except in science fiction, and rarely even then (not to mention the fact that "Terra" isn't a god). Gaia is irrelevant save in reference to the Gaia hypothesis. Serendipodous 22:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Gaia and Terra are both Greco-Roman mythological names for Earth, which only became the name for this planet in circa 1400. The Gaia in the Gaia hypothesis isn't a factor here. As for Terra not being a god, what are you, blind? Adraeus (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe, mythologically speaking, Tellus is the more common term. I still don't understand what you're talking about. The Earth wasn't even recognised as a planet in 1400. This article states a simple fact; the planets are named after Greek and Roman gods, except Earth. Your claim that it is irrelevant is preposterous. The origins of the names of the planets are perfectly relevant to the article. Serendipodous 23:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

10. a. Considered as a sphere, orb, or planet.

  • c1400 Rom. Rose 5339 Erthe, that bitwixe is sett The sonne and hir [the moon].
  • 1555 EDEN Decades W. Ind. Cont. (Arb.) 45 A demonstration of the roundenesse of the earth.
  • 1658 CULPEPPER Astrol. Judgem. Dis. 18 The Earth is a great lump of dirt rolled up together, and hanged in the Air.
  • 1726 tr. Gregory's Astron. I. 403 The Place of the Aphelion or Perihelion of the Earth.
  • 1796 H. HUNTER tr. St. Pierre's Stud. Nat. (1799) I. Introd. 32 The Earth is lengthened out at the Poles.
  • 1854 BREWSTER More Worlds Introd. 2 The earth is a planet.

Nevermind the Online Etymology Dictionary. [1]

I also never said that the origins of the names of the planets are irrelevant to the article. I said that they were irrelevant to the header of the article unless their reference was made complete with a reference to Earth's Greco-Roman mythological names. Adraeus (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how you can't possibly comprehend that identifying the Greco-Roman names for what is now called Earth alongside planetary designations, whose historical names were retained, does not complement the information and presentation of the information in the header. Adraeus (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

A planet is a wandering star. By definition, it moves. Even after 1543, when Copernicus first proposed the idea that the Earth might be moving, it was at least a century before the Earth was considered a planet. A sphere, yes. Not a planet. But again, what is the issue here? This is the English Wikipedia, not the Latin or Greek Wikipedia. That sentence describes the name origins of the planets in the English language. The other planets are named after Greek and Roman gods, and Earth isn't. "Terra" and "Gaia" are hardly ever used in English, and never were common (Greek didn't become widely understood in the English-speaking world until the 1500s) and therefore are not notable enough for inclusion. Serendipodous 23:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
People perceive reality in their language. Their "sphere" was our "planet." (By the way, stop telling me this is the English Wikipedia. I've been a major contributor to the English Wikipedia for years. I don't care for your insults.)
The issue is that Mercury, Mars, Uranus, etc., are Greco-Roman names for planets, once considered spheres, too. Gaia and Terra are Greco-Roman names for what we call Earth. They might not be commonly used anymore, but they remain a significant part of history and are relevant alongside other Greco-Roman names. Don't be a revisionist. Adraeus (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Believe me, there is a big difference between "sphere" and "planet" in geocentric cosmology. Earth was a sphere, but it was not a planet. Early astronomers were very familiar with both words, and never once considered Earth a planet. And how is not including the fact that Earth was very occasionally referred to by its Greek/Roman name in English "revisionist"? Neither the Greeks nor the Romans ever considered Earth a planet. Why is it even relevant, let alone necessary? Serendipodous 23:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(resetting indent)Adraeus, I think you're overlooking the fact that this article is intended to be an overview of the Solar System as a whole. The information you're adding is, in that context, not relevant here. Moreover, it is already mentioned in Earth (in the lead sentence), which is the more appropriate place for details. There are many, many, many details that have had to be trimmed simply to keep the article to a manageable length. --Ckatzchatspy 00:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Table

The anonymously added table was a variant of one that existed as part of this article years ago, but was ultimately removed. It and its sister tables can now be found at the page Attributes of the largest solar system bodies. If the table is to be reinstated, I think it should be discussed first. Serendipodous 15:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Serendipodous, for that history. I almost reverted it, but just copyedited it instead. Thanks for the institutional memory. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 15:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Debate of planet classification

A comment was added to the article stating that the definition of a planet is hotly debated. Is this really the case? I know that some people didn't like the re-classification of Pluto - but it seems that the definition of a planet given in the article is pretty standard and accepted. Comments? PhySusie (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it. This is not the place to discuss this. Wikipedia has three other articles devoted to this topic: Planet, Definition of planet and 2006 definition of planet. Serendipodous 07:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

New image

Overall, I like the new lead image (it's certainly more scientifically accurate than the last one) but it makes Mercury's orbital inclination out to be about 45 degrees, when in fact it's about 7 degrees. This exaggeration is misleading. Serendipodous 12:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we swap the two - put the new one in "Terminology", and restore the other one to the lead? No offence to the creator, but the image quality is stronger in the original one (and may better suit the lead). --Ckatzchatspy 21:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Declining Orbit?

Is the earth theorized to be in a declining orbit? Why is there no detected decline in orbit? What's the theory behind why the planets weren't aborbed into the sun a long time ago? Could we add something to this article the gravitational balance of the solar system, and a calculation as to how much mass would need to be vaporized before we would expect an upset in that balance? 68.75.88.171 (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like it might be an interesting thing to cover, but it would probably be better placed in Formation and evolution of the Solar System. Serendipodous 08:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually the orbits of the planets are expanding, due to the Solar mass loss. Saros136 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Image with orbits to scale?

I noticed that while there's a lot of nice images here, the article lacks an image of the solar system showing the relative distances to the sun and the relative sizes of the planets at the same time. That would obviously be a bonus. --Strappado (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The article does have such an image; in the layout and structure section, there is an image captioned, "orbits of the objects in the Solar System to scale." Serendipodous 18:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that the size of the planets and the size of their orbits are on completely different scales - you can't show them usefully on the same diagram. If you can see the orbits, the sizes of the planets are too small. If you can see the size of the planets, the orbits are way (way way) off the page. The compromise is in the article - one diagram shows the relative sizes of the planets, another shows the relative sizes of the orbits. PhySusie (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Oops. Sorry, misread the OP. Yeah, that would be hard to do. I wonder what the scales would be like if we set Mercury at one pixel? Serendipodous 18:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

opening paragraph

Could we include the vast number of man-made objects which currently orbit the sun in the opening paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oddzag (talk • contribs) 22:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The number of man-made objects orbiting the Sun isn't all that vast; certainly not when compared to the number of man-made objects orbiting the Earth. Serendipodous 05:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Transit of Mercury image

This is a very odd image to use for the "Sun" subsection. The title makes no explanation of the fact that the image is of the Sun, with one of the blurred dots being Mercury, so the uninformed reader (which is who the article is for - someone who is looking up "Solar System" can't be expected to know what a "transit of Mercury" is) might assume that the image was of Mercury. Also as previously mentioned the transit of Mercury is not discussed in the article. Rachel Pearce (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Instead of assuming something one just may hit the link,or to go to the image caption and hopefully to learn something new and interesting of course assuming one wants to learn.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
That isn't how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Articles aren't supposed to introduce material without explaining it. It's unfair and confusing. Serendipodous 16:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. But the editor who placed it there seems insistent that it is more informative, though of what I'm not certain. I'll revert it again and direct the editor to the talk page. Serendipodous 09:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • IMO The image not only has no encyclopedic value whatsoever, it has a negative value. What one could possibly learn from that image? The only thing that could be learned from this image is how not to take a similar image in order do not damage both your camera and your eyes. The image quality is horrible. It is full of camera artifacts.On the other hand the image is highly encyclopedic. It shows not only the sun, sunspots and Mercury, but also Limb darkening. The image is a great illustration of the size of the Sun compare to Mercury. It is easy to correct the caption under the image and provide the link to the Transit of Mercury article. Then maybe somebody would go there and learn something new.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This article isn't about sunspots, limb darkening, or transits of Mercury. It's about the Solar System. Such material is better covered in the Sun article itself. We can't assume that any reader, staring at this picture, would have a clue what sunspots, transits, or limb darkening are. If that picture were to be included, it would have to have some relevance to the article, which means that this already-gargantuan article would have to be expanded to discuss sunspots, limb-darkening, and transits of Mercury. I have no interest in doing so, and I doubt you do either. This article's section on the Sun is little more than a brief explanation of what the Sun is, which is all it needs to be, so a simple picture of the Sun is really all that's required. Serendipodous 16:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The article talks about sunspots, about Mercury and about the Sun. The Sun has sunspots and limbs darkening. If a reader is interested in learning solar system, he would hit the links and learn something new. My image is of the Sun. Do you call that an image of the sun? It is not what the sun is about. This image looks like a picture made by a 2-years old. No encyclopedia that respects itself would put such an image in the Solar System article. As I said earlier IMO that image is not only bad, but might be also harmful.BTW you've never answered what one supposed to learn from the current image of the sun?--Mbz1 (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The article doesn't go into any detail about what the Sun is "about". Why introduce new ideas not covered in the article? It's not the reader's responsibility to compensate for our lack of explanation. Serendipodous 21:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I've told you that introducing new ideas could make some readers to want to learn more and it is what education is about. You've never responded what ideas and values the current image of the sun has.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a picture of the Sun. It isn't filtered; it isn't altered. It requires no further explanation. I would have preferred such a picture of the Sun from space, but there aren't any in the Commons. Serendipodous 08:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • You've never answered my question What one suppose to learn from that so-called picture? Why to look at the article and not just at the sky? Wikipedia is encyclopedia and not a children picture book. BTW the only pictures of the sun taken from the space are taken with filtered telescopes. There are no other way to take the image of the sun.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No other picture could be as encyclopedic. All other pictures of the Sun are taken with filters, so you can't see the Sun doing it's most important job: shining. An image of the Sun that looks like a star is better than an image of the Sun that looks like a beach ball. Serendipodous 17:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Directions of spin of each planet

I would love to see the directions of spin of each planet listed in a table somewhere, ideally along with as much other information as possible, including year length, day length, obliquity, eccentricity, and direction of spin of moons (if applicable). This information is currently scattered and I am not quite knowledgeable enough to consolidate it.

Directions of spin could be given as "North" or "Up" for Earth's rotation around itself each day, and "North" or "Up" for Earth's rotation around the sun. North/up is a nice way to use the right-hand rule, and I find it less ambiguous that clock/counterclockwise. North/up could also be called "counterclockwise when viewed from above/looking down at the Northern hemisphere."

Specific questions: What direction does Earth's rotational axis precess in? I assume from the difference in sidereal and tropical years that it must precess "down/South." And what direction does the anomalistic precession (the precession of the apsides) go? I also assume that is "up/North" from available, albeit indirect data. I could answer these questions myself, but not as fast as most of you. Plus, I want the table for the good of the world, not just the answers in a talk page for me. Thanks.Fluoborate (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you want this article. Serendipodous 10:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ice Giants

Isn't it that Uranus and Neptune are no longer called Gas Giants (Jovian Planets), but now called Ice Giants? From what I know, it's because they were found to be made of frozen gases like the KBOs rather than gaseous gases like the Jovians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.219.236 (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Uranus and Neptune are referred to as ice giants, yes. Some consider ice giant to be a different classification than gas giant, others consider it a subclass of gas giant. They are called ice giants because their atmospheres contain far less hydrogen and helium than Jupiter and Saturn and a far higher proportion of volatile compounds such as water, ammonia and methane. Astronomers refer to these compounds as "ices" whether they are actually ice or not. Uranus and Neptune are also far smaller than Jupiter and Saturn; their combined mass is barely a third that of Saturn and barely a tenth that of Jupiter. Serendipodous 19:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Dwarf Planets

This page says that our solar system has exactly three dwarf planets. It is missing entries such as Xena [2]. National Geographic says that there are 44 dwarf planets [3].

MassimoH (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"Xena" is the informal nickname given to the dwarf planet Eris before it was officially named. The issue of the number of dwarf planets is contentious. The defining characteristic of a dwarf planet (as opposed to a mere Kuiper belt object or asteroid) is that it is large enough to be round. But how can you tell whether or not a tiny lump of ice three billion miles away is round or not? Telescopes aren't really up to the job. The simplest solution would be to do what Mike Brown does and say that any object beyond a certain diameter, which would then be large enough to be round, should be called round. This would mean there were, as NatGeo says, about 44 dwarf planets. Unfortunately, there's a problem with this method: gravity alone cannot determine whether or not an object is round. Neptune's moon Proteus is larger than Saturn's moon Mimas, yet Mimas is round and Proteus is not. The reason is that Proteus is a lot colder than Mimas, and colder materials resist gravitational collapse more strongly than warmer ones. Also, icy objects like KBOs become spherical more easily than rocky objects like asteroids. Simply fixing a diameter, then, is not enough to qualify. So the IAU came up with a rather stupid solution. Any object with an absolute magnitude less than than H=1 (which meant it was exceptionally bright) would be called a dwarf planet. This would mean that there are unlikely to be more than four official dwarf planets in the outer Solar System: Pluto, Eris, 2003 EL61 and 2005 FY9. Neither of the last two have been officially classified as dwarf planets yet, and probably won't be until they get names. Serendipodous 17:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow, what a knowledgeable response. Thanks! Maybe the main article can contain an extra sentence or so that clarifies the issue a little better?

MassimoH (talk) 02:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue's a bit too complex to be explained in a few sentences. The articles dwarf planet and plutoid cover the issue fairly well. Serendipodous 06:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
This honestly makes me think that decisions are being made only to keep the number of entities with 'planet' in their name to a minimum and not for any scientific reason. This was the main argument for the whole dwarf planet thing in first place, that it would be awful for schoolkids to have to memorize several dozen planet names. Zazaban (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced sections

There are a lot of unsourced sections in this article, particularly towards the end. Are any specific editors maintaining it?-Wafulz (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What unsourced sections? Serendipodous 20:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, should've clarified. A lot of subsections are unsourced.-Wafulz (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Aside from "Discovery and exploration", which sections do you think need more sources?

EDIT: Could you, to make my job easier, tag each uncited fact with [citation needed] ( {{cn}} ), so I can get an idea of how many are needed?Serendipodous 05:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Map

The map does not show Makemake, this should be fixed. Zazaban (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

the largest...

i propose to eliminate the tags from the list of dwarf planets at the beginning of the article that say "the largest..." to make it similar to the above list of planets --SquallLeonhart_ITA (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's really no reason to do so, and it is relevant information. I'd support leaving it as is. --Ckatzchatspy 22:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
As do I. Serendipodous 05:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sun's expansion

This site say by 6 to 7 billion years from now sun's expansion can be between 200 and 700 times the size of now (between 1.0 and 3.5 AU). This means sun's expansion have a possiblity to encompass Mars orbit and it may give it a chance to swallow the planet up. When the sun evolve into a white dwarf star and if Mars still exists; then Mars is likely to be the innermost planet.--Freewayguy Call? Fish 21:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

FG, you've already gone through this over at Formation and evolution of the Solar System, which is the article to discuss this issue in anyway (this article contains a summary of the information in that article, so there isn't any point in adding any more information). Serendipodous 05:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

List In Order From Sun

Novices reading this article may very well think that all the dwarf planets are beyond Neptune, because the first list is the three-categories lists (terrestrial, gas-giant & dwarf) which is described as "In order of their distance from the Sun".

I think the primary list must be the order from the Sun of all the planets, dwarf planets and gas giants.

The list of three categories of objects I don't think can be thought of as the primary one.

Removing The List of Dwarf Planets

Removing this list has helped stop novices becoming confused that ALL dwarf planets orbit beyond Neptune, and it looks a lot "cleaner". HarryAlffa (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What I'd Like After First Paragraph

In order of their distance from the Sun, those named celestial objects bound to it by gravity (excluding moons) are:

Good Idea?

I thought it a reasonable (if not a good idea) to list the order of these objects in distance from the Sun, it is quite a major feature of the Solar System after all!

Then could come the paragraph: "In broad terms, the charted regions of the Solar System consist ...", then the lists of the categories.

HarryAlffa (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC) and HarryAlffa (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That would work if dwarf planets were planets, but they aren't, so including the dwarf planets among the planets is incorrect. Serendipodous 21:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I did write "major named bodies" at first, but you undid me! I was then inaccurate in my rewrite for this page (which I've now changed above). Just to be clear - I am trying to improve the article! Not just change for change's sake. I hope you are not feeling proprietorial about the page. HarryAlffa (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not being proprietorial. All I care about is factual accuracy. "major named bodies" doesn't mean anything. What is "major"? There are seven moons in the Solar System larger than all the dwarf planets, and they all have names. Serendipodous 22:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Good point. I've changed it above using the language from the first paragraph. HarryAlffa (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC).

The proposed list just makes clear and complete the hard to read list of objects in the image. HarryAlffa (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This needs fixing - as is, it isn't appropriate for a FA-class article. The image description should not be in the main body. I'll try to repair it later tonight. --Ckatzchatspy 00:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that including a list of the dwarf planets at all in the lead is cumbersome, particularly since the number of known dwarf planets will likely continue to rise over the next few years. The lead should describe the major orbits: all the planets (by definition), as well as the asteroid belt, scattered disk, etc.; that is, essentially as it was.

Both the lead image and the image in the "Terminology" section make the order of the bodies in the Solar System amply clear. I agree that the long list intermixing dwarf planets with planets is not an improvement. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 00:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The lead image is incomplete, and the names of the objects are difficult to read. The incompleteness of the image supports your view that a list of dwarf planets would be cumbersome to maintain. So why has this image been included for so long? I think a list of objects, including dwarf planets, in order from the Sun is a primary motive for novices to astronomy looking at the article. It would be helpful to them to have a simple list of these at the start of the article - which must be part of the reason to have had the image there all this time. It is unlikely that there will be many more dwarf planets found in the asteroid belt, so including Ceres would not be an editorial burden. For the Kuiper Belt perhaps saying "Pluto and other dwarf planets ..." would be a satisfactory solution to maintainance. - HarryAlffa (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Any list that combines dwarf planets and planets instills in the novice the false assumption that dwarf planets are planets. They are not planets and should not be included with the planets. Yes, they're called dwarf planets, but, I repeat, they are not planets. Serendipodous 14:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
But you don't object to the list in the lead image using this reasoning?
The list I have above makes clear which are planets, dwarf planets, or gas giants. So not all combining lists behave as you describe them. Again I say that a list of the named celestial objects in their order from the Sun is a pretty good idea for the introduction to this subject. -HarryAlffa (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

New List

Can we combine both a category list & a named object list? I would propose to replace the current list with this;

{===============

In broad terms, the charted regions of the Solar System and their constituents, in order of their distance from the Sun are:

===============} -HarryAlffa (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Makemake Pluto and Eris are KBOs. Your list {list now edited} implies they're not. And the image doesn't use the same reasoning. It separates the planets and the dwarf planets.Serendipodous 20:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I offered this combined list in the spirit of compromise and cooperation. I thank you for your previous objections because I think this new list is better than my original or the current list. Like the image, it clearly identifies, and gives the relative positions of the dwarf planets, and it also includes the relative positions of the Asteroid and Kuiper belts, something the image and neither list did before - well done us! I have further amended the list as per your objection to imply that those dwarf planets in the Kuiper belt are KPO's, and added the Scattered Disk containing Eris. -HarryAlffa (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I personally like the current list; though if we were to use this one it should be made into a table so that the information wouldn't take up as much room (i.e. vertical vs. horizontal) -- Phoenix (talk) 05:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The description of the current list as, "in order of their distance from the Sun are", does lead an Astronomy novice (surely the target audience, at least for the introduction) to think that ALL the dwarf planets orbit beyond Neptune.
Web designers will tell you that having a lot of white-space helps a human to absorb the information better - it's not as if screen space costs anything. The linear arrangement of the list intuitively informs the reader of an ever increasing distance from the Sun while progressing through the list.
In fact now you've got me thinking of "detail density" and detail level. I think the second paragraph is too densely packed and goes in to too much detail. It lies about itself when it says "In broad terms ...", and then gives details of composition of the regions!
I would replace the second paragraph with, "In broad terms, the charted regions of the Solar System and their constituents, in order of their distance from the Sun are:", and follow this with the list of regions and their constituents; I've now changed the list above to reflect this. -HarryAlffa (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
(Jumping into this discussion a bit late; I've had limited time the last few days but have been following the discussion.)
We need to remember that this is the lead and should follow the style guideline WP:LEAD. Particularly: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points." (emphasis added) In the lead, a list is rarely appropriate at all, and I really don't think it's needed here. As I mentioned above, the names of dwarf planets are definitely not needed; in the grand scheme of things, the dwarf planets aren't terribly important.
I think a pargraph something like "In order of their distances from the Sun, the terrestrial planets are Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars. The outer gas giants (or Jovians) are Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Some of the largest objects in the asteroid belt, Kuiper belt, and scattered disc are classified as dwarf planets." I think this sentence effectively summarizes the presence of the dwarf planets and their role in the Solar System without excessive detail; the information is covered and organized quite logically in the body of the article. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 14:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the most important fact about the solar system is the eight planets, and they should be clearly listed by themselves in the intro, with no breakdown by type. Many readers will come to this article looking for just that list and they should get it up front in its most simple form. The types of planets and the wide variety of other objects should then be introduced. Minor planets should come next simply because of the interest in Pluto. We should then begin to present the whole picture, perhaps beginning with a better diagram.--agr (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I generally agree. However, I think we have to be careful about choosing the content of the lead based on popular interest. It's best if we stick to what our sources say and present the facts; we should trust our readers to read what the article says. Wikipedia is not here to bust common misconceptions. If we focus on popular misconceptions, we may wind up inadvertently strengthening them, particularly among readers who didn't have those misconceptions before reading the article.
(Note: this comment is partially in reply to other threads in this discussion.) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 14:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Alex, you said lists where rarely inappropriate, then your suggested replacement text contained 2 lists! You've proven that you cannot write about the Solar System without a list of planets!
The proposed bullet point list is clear, consise and gives up more information the more a novice studies it, rather than a comma seperated list which is rather indigestable!
Arnold, I agree with you about the planets, that was my initial "improvement", but debate on this page has forced the evolution of the list above.
I think the proposed bullet point list gives the order of the regions, planets, gas giants, dwarf planets, asteroids, KPO's and scattered disc objects. It does it all, and it does it more concisely than the current second paragraph + the three current bulleted lists! -HarryAlffa (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. I think the bulleted list is inappropriate and unnecessary: there are only four items in each list, which I don't think is hard to ingest at all in prose. I also think that the current second paragraph clearly and concisely summarizes the major components of the Solar System.
I agree that listing the eight planets (in some form) in the lead is entirely a good idea. (I don't think there's any disagreement on that point.) I think that the gas giants and terrestrial planets are fundamentally different objects and ought to be separated; I don't think that adds to confusion. However, I feel less strongly about that last point. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 15:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
(I said lists are "rarely appropriate in the lead", not "rarely inappropriate".) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 15:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Apologies for the "inappropriate" typo.
The three current bulleted lists mislead the novice reader to think that all the dwarf planets orbit beyond Neptune. The dwarf planet list is also too detailed.
The second paragraph lists seven regions and descripes the composition of three of them, giving a list stretching to fifteen data items! Then you seem to be suggesting that eight more items are "condensed" (at least in screen-space if not in kilobytes) into prose?
The Open University course I've done, which included theories on Human Compter Interaction and Interaction Design, tell me that a bulleted list is far better here.

-HarryAlffa (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the current version tries to do too much in the intro. We have the rest of the article to explain these concepts. I also think we should avoid editorializing comments like "Dwarf planets are unlike other categories of named celestial objects in that they populate more than one region of the solar system..." which is also just plain wrong (e.g. comets and asteroids). All we have to say is the the dwarf planets are in several regions. As for terrestrial vs gas giants, the scientific community calls them all planets and that should be our starting point. --agr (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the intro tries to do way to much; the current version is not at all concise (as the lead is supposed to be). The lead does not need to stand alone as a full description of the topic, only a concise summary (re this edit summary). I think it is fairly clear that there is a strong consensus amongst all but one of the editors here that the verbose version is not a good starting point, so I am reverting. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 20:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
You cannot say that my version was verbose! Are you confusing the amount of screen-space it occupied with verbosity? It contained the same or a lesser amount of text! Almost all of the current second paragraph was subsumed into the new list and in a great deal less text. -HarryAlffa (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with agr that saying "the dwarf planets populate several regions" is far more consise! Although in my own defence I would say that my description became somewhat inflated to accommodate criticism!

For clarity; I meant individually named objects like Makemake or Ceres; perturbed objects, like comets, can't be said to populate the other regions they are passing through; asteroids only populate the Asteroid belt. -HarryAlffa (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

@HarryAlffa: I think the current list, separating planets and dwarf planets, is slightly better than your suggested "new list" since it is more readable (not a "list of lists") and somehow "catchier". I put the planets in a single list and added the "smaller" attribute in the sentence leading to the dwarf planet list, so that it becomes (hopefully) clearer that planets and dwarf planets are two different categories, and each category's list is ordered for itself. Also, the total order is already provided by the picture given. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Since there are likely hundreds or even thousands of dwarf planets waiting to be discovered and then waiting some more to be classified, I think the template should be:

In broad terms, the charted regions of the Solar System and their constituents, in order of their distance from the Sun are:

Delaszk (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Heliopause

The second paragraph should be clear about the heliopause being "a named ovoid region of space where the solar wind meets the interstellar medium and not known to contain objects". All the other regions named are known to contain objects. The Oort Cloud is still theoretical, but the theory includes objects. HarryAlffa (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The heliopause is not a region, it's a thing; it's the edge of the bubble created in the interstellar medium by the action of the Sun. And it does contain objects. Quite a few billion solar particles, in fact. Serendipodous 10:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
It's more accurately described as an interaction rather than a thing, you cannot assert that interaction is an inaccurate descriptor! I suppose you might say it is a thing, like the asteroid belt, but I think this would be wrong. The asteroid belt occupies a region of space obviously, but the Heliopause is the region of space where the interaction happens - and this region changes depending on the solar wind.
I don't believe your assertion that "a few billion solar particles" are objects, is a useful one in the context of describing the Solar System. HarryAlffa (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
And what? Are you going to argue that an interaction would contain objects? By definition it wouldn't. There's no point in bringing it up, any more then there is in saying, "The atmosphere contains no continents." Serendipodous 14:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you that the Heliopause contains no objects. My opening proposal was {now with minor edit} to describe the Heliopause as "a named ovoid region of space where the solar wind meets the interstellar medium and not known to contain objects".
So we are now in agreement that the region contains no objects.
"The first sentence on the Heliopause in the Solar System article says, "The heliosphere is divided into two separate regions." Then names the Heliopause as the outermost region.
So unless you want to rewrite the Heliopause section, or main Heliosphere article, and change the description of it as a region, and you want to include celestial objects, then you are in agreement that the Heliopause can be described as:
"a named ovoid region of space where the solar wind meets the interstellar medium, and is not known to contain objects". - HarryAlffa (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Plenty of objects have orbits which take them through the heliopause. Sedna for one. Eris's orbit probably takes it into the termination shock. There are probably thousands of objects crossing the heliopause right now. But the heliopause is not a population, like the asteroid or Kuiper belts. You're trying to compare apples and oranges. Or maybe apples and machine guns. Serendipodous 19:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
So we agree that the Heliopause is a region?
Yes, these object cross the Heliopause. I agree. The Heliopause does not contain them. Comets cross the inner region of the Solar System, but you would not say that it contains comets.
You said the the Heliopause is unlike the Asteroid or Kuiper belts. Yes. I agree. The Asteroid and Kuiper belts contain objects.
However, I would amend my proposal to "the Heliopause is an ovoid region of space named for the interaction of the solar wind with the interstellar medium, and not for any population of celestial objects." -HarryAlffa (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Why? It's cumbersome and unnecessary. The article already explains what the heliopause is. Why add a line essentially saying that an apple is not a machine gun? Serendipodous 20:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
So you have no objections to the meaning?
If people do not know the difference between apples and machine guns then a line explaining that difference would be useful. I expect a number of people will not have heard of the Heliopause, and the context of the paragraph concentrates on the objects constituting the regions of the Solar System, so pointing out that the Heliopause is named for reasons other than for a population of objects seems pertinent and contrasting. Such contrast creates interest.
So that explains why it is necessary.
Cumbersome. No, it contains the data, reasons and interesting contrast. Any shortening would go beyond succinct into loss of either data, reasons, or contrast. -HarryAlffa (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Like the various collections of objects, the heliopause is an important part of the Solar System, so it's worth mentioning in the lead, but we shouldn't explain it beyond a mention. All these terms are both wikilinked and discussed in detail in the body of the article. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 15:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you are suggesting that the Heliopause is a collection of objects, but that could just be the way you've phrased it. It is surely a point of interest that it is NOT named for any population of celestial objects, therefore worth explaining for that reason alone, and for any assumptions the reader might make given the inner regions are named for their populations of objects. -HarryAlffa (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
No, I was contrasting the heliopause to the various collections of objects. Perhaps it is a point of interest, but this is the lead! It's not a place to include every point of interest. We can't spend our space in the lead trying to anticipate every possible assumption some reader might make.
The heliopause section of the body of the article (Solar System#Heliopause) perhaps could take a little bit of expansion; I think it's a bit short on context. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 17:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
"The readers assumption", thing I could have put better. The article leads the reader to believe that the Heliopause is another collection of objects. Surely you can see this is obvious; a long list of regions stated to contain objects, then the last two items (Heliopause and Oort cloud) listed without explanation; how is the novice meant to know what these last two items are? He must assume, due to the lack of contradiction, that they are both collections like the previous items in the list - and he'd be half right.
You quoted (for a different section of this talk page) that the lead should include, "why the subject is interesting or notable", from wiki recommendations for the lead.
You said you were contrasting the Heliopause; exactly my point! Contrast creates interest; "it's the only ..." is always memorable!
You said:
  • "not a place to include every point of interest"
  • "I was contrasting the heliopause to"
  • "perhaps it's a point of interest" {because of the contrast?}
  • and intimated that the lead should include points of interest
There are only two points of interest I want to include:
  • "The dwarf planets are the only ... "
  • "The Heliopause is the only ... "
Can't you see that the very points you make arguing against including these points logically support putting them in? -HarryAlffa (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Heliosphere

On further thought, I think using the word "heliopause" in the introduction at all may be causing us to talk past one another. It's not so much the heliopause that's interesting; it's the heliosphere/interplanetary medium. Perhaps this wording of the second paragraph is better:

In broad terms, the charted regions of the Solar System consist of the Sun; four terrestrial inner planets; an asteroid belt composed of small rocky bodies; four gas giant outer planets; a second belt, the Kuiper belt, composed of icy bodies; the scattered disc; and ultimately the hypothetical Oort cloud. The stream of charged particles from the Sun, called the solar wind, creates the heliosphere which permeates the Solar System.

Thoughts? —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Serendipodous 19:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
It misleads the novice into thinking that the Heliosphere stretches all the way out to the Oort cloud, see Unresolved Problems With The Lead below. -HarryAlffa (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Solar_System/Archive_3&oldid=276040093"