Talk:Solar System/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Solar System. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Lead needs to be rewritten

Pursuant to the FAR for this article, I believe the lead needs to be rewritten. In its current state, I don't think the article is a "concise overview of the entire article", rather it's a

Change "the" to "our" in the lead?

"The Solar System", even with the latter two words capitalized, is ambiguous in that it could mean any general "solar system"; a system with a star. But since this generic label is indeed the actual proper term for our own solar system, should we not at least open with "Our Solar System"? Thoughts?. — ^`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE^` 06:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no official "generic" term for "Solar System". There is only one Solar System, so there is no need to specify that it is "our" Solar System. Serendi ^podous 08:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There is only one solar system since SOL means the Sun. But there are other star systems and planetary systems. The Sun is the center of the solar system and the giver of life. -- Kheider (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we should stay away from using the possessive "our" when describing astronomical objects. First, it implies ownership; second the language seems less encyclopedic, and third because applying "solar systems" to stellar planetary systems other than the Sun's is improper.—RJH (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but I've even heard astronomers let "solar system" slip when talking of exoplanetary systems. So it might not be that big a deal. Most seem to use either "star system" or "stellar system" when discussing exoplanets. My take on the "Our Solar System" idea is that "The" gives more emphasis (oomph) than "Our", which sounds a bit wishy-washy (as in "Our li'l kitty-cat Solar System"). ^.`^) Paine ^diss`cuss (^^`. 04:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that happen as well. Still, I think it's good practice to be a little more precise in word usage for the purposes of an encyclopedia than it might be in casual discussions.—RJH (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The

Is a proper way to put it.

Our

I think it belongs to life on Earth. Who else is entitled to claim possession of it?

Relax

Either way works!

Style

The start of the article should be properly proper, as it were. Later in the article usage can be relaxed! HarryAlffa (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Layout and images

I've made a few tweaks to image layout - hope no-one minds. Could someone add a footnote to this image? I have absolutely no idea what it shows and the article doesn't seem to mention it either. Thanks Smartse (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The present caption looks okay, and readers can click on the image for details. There is another similar image just above this one on the left. Are both really needed? If I had to choose which to stay, I would opt for this one. ^.`^) Paine ^diss`cuss (^^`. 21:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Gas, Ice, Rock

The reference about gases, ices and rock was added in some haste during a previous dispute with HarryAlffa, and I can't remember who added it or where he got the information from. If that person could come back and say where he got it I would be very grateful. Serendi ^podous 11:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I only added information about ices, you added information about rock (which was wrong), and ASHill included gases. Referring to melting points instead of boiling points is unique, therefore highly questionable. To mix both is just plain dumb, it's not self-consistent, I corrected that again recently, but someone reverted it. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Under no circumstances this classification can be based on boiling points. This is simply meaningless. Boiling points strongly depend on pressure, while melting points do not. What pressure do you assume, when you talk about boiling points? In the vacuum the liquid phase does not exist at all, so, what are you going to boil? Ruslik (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the inconsistency. This issue needs to be resolved somehow. It can't simply be deleted, because the Solar System article, and indeed all Solar System articles, use these terms continuously, precisely because the scientific papers we rely on for sourcing use these terms continuously. It might be that the IAU has no say in this issue, and that these terms are established by geologists. It might also be that there is no established definition for these terms, and we're just going to have to muddle through, like we do with terms like "asteroid" and "other solar systems". Serendi ^podous 17:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

A typical phase diagram. The dotted line gives the anomalous behaviour of water. The green lines mark the freezing point and the blue line the boiling point, showing how they vary with pressure.

Talking about the melting point of H and He just grates. The diagram shows melting point & boiling point varies with pressure. Maybe standard pressure is what Planetary Science Research Discoveries presumes when defining volatiles using boiling point. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

this astronomy page suggests that the terms "gas" "ice" and "rock" are shorthand for specific compounds. Hydrogen and helium are gas, water and ammonia are ice, and silicates are rock. Serendi ^podous 22:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow. And once again, Ruslik comes in with a source. Well that's sorted. :-) Serendi ^podous 13:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Plasma

I was reading the recent edit that changed "atomic hydrogen" to "molecular hydrogen", and it made me wonder... should hydrogen plasma also be mentioned in this section? It is the plasma of the Solar wind that is present. Is it too small an amount to be mentioned? ^.`^) Paine ^diss`cuss (^^`. 19:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The solar wind is mentioned later on, so I don't think it needs to be mentioned there. Besides I don't think the solar wind really qualifies as "hydrogen", since it's mostly (I think) just protons and electrons.Serendi ^podous 21:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, protons and electrons make up the Solar wind. It's in plasma form, though, the "fourth state of matter". So if I'm not mistaken, the plasma of the Solar wind is ionized hydrogen. I'm not sure, though, what the concentration is. Only that it spreads out beyond the planets to form the "heliosphere", a plasma bubble around the Solar system. The paragraph in which the recent edit occurred begins, "Planetary scientists use the terms gas, ice, and rock to describe the various classes of substances found throughout the Solar System." I'm just wondering if this would be improved by making it read ". . . use the terms gas, ice, rock and plasma to describe . . .", and then like the others, just a very brief explanation about plasma? It would need an expert's fine tuning, which unfortunately, I am not. ^.`^) Paine ^diss`cuss (^^`. 04:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Plasma is a formal scientific state of matter, alongside solid, liquid and gas. The terms gas, ice and rock are largely informal shorthand for substances in the solar system. To mix the two would be potentially misleading. Serendi ^podous 07:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Except gas, a 'formal state of matter', is already mixed with ice and rock which are not. I don't see why including plasma would be misleading - are people really that likely to conclude that ice or rock is a state of matter because it appears on a list with plasma? Olaf Davis (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The classification into gas/ice/rock is only about chemical composition, and nothing more. The phase of the matter is irrelevant. The plasma can be made of gas/ice/rock too. Ruslik (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

My experience is that 'rock' and 'ice' are only ever used to refer to solid matter - indeed, I wouldn't really know what a 'rock plasma' would be. A plasma whose ionic abundances are similar to elemental abundances in rock? I'd be very surprised to come across it used to mean that, but perhaps that's down to my ignorance. Is that what you mean? Olaf Davis (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the plasma with rock abundances will be rock plasma. Meanwhile iron in the Earth core is not solid. Ruslik (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

And would a planetary scientist call the iron in the core a 'rock' too? (After this I promise I'll stop indulging my curiosity on the talk page!) Olaf Davis (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

See definition of 'rock' in the article. Ruslik (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Quote from Earth

What's the "" note supposed to accomplish? Olaf Davis (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Should we replace the above line by referencing Is there life elsewhere?? -- Kheider (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Lets. Serendi ^podous 15:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It accomplished exactly what it was supposed to - prevent mindless reversion. Why did Serendipodous remove it and leave an edit note of, "Earth: You don't need to justify yourself with that, Harry. It's a bit grandiose, but it's not wrong"? Who needs to make these kind of snide comments? HarryAlffa (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Mostly you, it seems. Serendi ^podous 21:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Skip to TOC

I added the {{skiptotoctalk}} template for those editors who like to "get right down to it". ^.`^) Paine ^diss`cuss (^^`. 23:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Solar System lead is terrible

This Featured Article (!!) lead could be used in the MoS in "How not to write a lead". The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, it should not give one sentence for every single component! HarryAlffa (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I asked YellowMonkey how he passed the lead at a recent FA review, but he didn't reply. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually he did, on his talk page. Serendi ^podous 17:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I knew you would say that. But "Your first point is very misleading." is not a reply. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't realise you'd already got into an argument with him. Serendi ^podous 18:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You've been to his talk page and seen the extent and nature of it, don't you think the misrepresentation of "argument" is tantamount to out-right lying? HarryAlffa (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually no. I thought your initial response to him was remarkably uncivil. But then you obviously have a very different definition of civility than anyone here. Serendi ^podous 11:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

As usual, exaggerated, deliberate, dishonest misrepresentation unworthy of a Wikipeadian, tantamount to out-right lying. See YellowMonkey HarryAlffa (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You obviously have an issue distinguishing stating a fact from stating an opinion. I was not stating a fact. I was stating my opinion of your behaviour. Take it as you will. Serendi ^podous 14:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Move to close this - it has become disruptive in nature. This is the second (third? fourth?) attempt by the same editor to rewrite the lead per his preferences, despite receiving little or no support for his proposals. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Typical, deceptive misrepresentation. HarryAlffa (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Close this RFC as forum shopping. Ruslik (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You have to laugh at RfC=Forum Shopping :) HarryAlffa (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz, why be afraid of a wider audience? I said this previous lead was no good, but you swore blind it was fine, over time it became even worse, as soon as I took it for a FA review it was changed, so how right were you? Not very. The article has been controlled by the same 3 or 4 editors for the last year or so (two, three, four?). The FA Review only had one or two additional editors from the usual suspects and they were critical of the lead as it was - hence the (not very good) change. HarryAlffa (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is self-evident that the lead falls down, but would like a MUCH wider audience to assess this, which I hope will result in a better article. HarryAlffa (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Harry, no-one here is "afraid" (as you put it) of having fresh eyes look at the article. What is tiresome is your insistence that yours is the only correct viewpoint. You've argued here, through your "summary" articles, and at the FA review pages, only to find that there isn't support for what you want. And yet, you've opened yet another venue with this RfC. You've also been doing much the same thing with regards to the Manual of Style and linking - insisting that you are correct, and others are wrong, despite almost complete opposition. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I notice the weasel words in there. More personal attacks and misrepresentation, pretty close to out-right lying. HarryAlffa (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Mostly you, it seems. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I support the lead as it is. While it may set forth a few controversial items as truth, such as the only partially settled "Definition of planet" issue and the up and coming "Earth's Moon is actually a major planet" issue, the lead is, after all, the first impression a reader sees. And when talking about a Featured Article such as this, no major changes in the lead or in any other part of the article ought to be made without extrememly close scrutiny, discussion on the Talk page, consensus of all involved editors and formal dispute settlement if necessary. Sorry Harry, you may be correct about the lead needing work; however, since this is a Featured Article, as a serious editor of Wikipedia you are expected to abide by Wikipedia:Defend the status quo. And you will need more support before you're able to justify any major alterations. ^.`^) Paine ^diss`cuss (^^`. 23:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Paine, I am correct, but I nor anyone else serious or not, is bound by any type of essay. The essay Wikipedia:Defend the status quo has nothing to do with the style of the Lead, it is about quality of information, and the lead isn't wrong, it is simply not a summary.

Comment The lead looks pretty much fine to me as it stands now. It describes in summary fashion what is covered in the article body and gives an overview of the salient features of the solar system. Possibly some of the paragraphs could be shortened a bit to make room for a brief summary of what is in the Galactic context and Formation sections. If that was done, then people could just read the lead and have everything they need to know about the solar system. Franamax (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Could you further summarize existing paragraphs to make room? HarryAlffa (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment A Request for Comment should be a neutrally-worded polite solicitation of opinions from outside editors, with a view to clarifying or achieving consensus where simple discussion has failed. As such, this is a complete failure, as its wording is likely to polarise respondents and to make reaching consensus more difficult. So for example, while I might be agreeable to making some improvements to the lead paragraph as it now stands, I would strongly disagree with the opinion that the lead is in a "terrible" state. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me: I came here straight out of the blue, from an RfC list I'd never seen before, via some odd path from my Watchlist. And, while the lead might have been a bit slow, a bit long and slightly pedestrian, and while even the most brilliant leads can usually benefit from periodic re-examination and tweaking, this one was quite interesting and told me, as a layman who has no particularly strong interest in astronomy, just about everything I'd want to know and everything I might want to investigate further, even if I hadn't known or wondered about them before. —— Shakescene (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- But if you didn't read the article, you cannot determine if it conforms to WP:Lead. It doesn't. By your experience of reading it (bit slow, a bit long and slightly pedestrian) also confirms my feeling that it is to poor for a Featured Article - "fine" & "quite interesting" doesn't cut it. HarryAlffa (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  If it's fine and quite interesting to readers, then this has to at least partially "cut it". And another concern is what the lead was like at the time Solar System became FA. The lead can't be too shabby if today's lead is pretty much what it was when it achieved FA status. And now look above! This article is also considered a "vital article in science". Seems to me the entire article including the lead is more than acceptable just as it is. ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 14:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Looks fine to me dude.. I thought it was a great introduction to the article, being very informative and interesting. Btw, why is the RfC so biased? Aren't they supposed to be NPOV and civil to get better comments? Stating only one side of the argument (and it seems to be a lonely side?) only helps in polarizing debate, which is never good. Give it a rest, dude.. the lead is fine. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Doubled image not resolved

The following was archived before my question was answered:

Layout and images

I've made a few tweaks to image layout - hope no-one minds. Could someone add a footnote to this image? I have absolutely no idea what it shows and the article doesn't seem to mention it either. Thanks Smartse (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The present caption looks okay, and readers can click on the image for details. There is another similar image just above this one on the left. Are both really needed? If I had to choose which to stay, I would opt for this one. ^.`^) Paine ^diss`cuss (^^`. 21:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(out) And I ask again, are both these images really needed in the article? One is on the left in the Kuiper belt subsection, and one is on the right in the Scattered disk subsection. Why does this article need both? ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 20:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Because one shows the Kuiper belt and the other shows the scattered disc. Serendi ^podous 20:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I do get that, Serendipodous, I do. My question is still out there because the image above shows both. And since they're so much alike, isn't it possible that the inclusion of both images is confusing to readers? ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 21:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be confusing regardless, because the current state of knowledge is confusing. It isn't easy to separate the Kuiper belt from the Scattered disc, and many astronomers don't. However, the Minor Planet Center, which is the closest thing we have to an authority on the subject, does, so we do. Serendi ^podous 08:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the average reader pretty much skips over those diagrams since the region beyond Neptune is generically all basically the same. Most average readers consider the asteroid belt as a single generic region and don't care about the inner vs outer asteroid belt or the kirkwood gaps. -- Kheider (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

While agreeing that our readers believes the region beyond Neptune is all the same to assume our readers don't care to inform themselves is completely contrary to our spirit of being an encyclopedia that educates people, and is an assumption we should never make. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)