Talk:Solar System/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

inaccurate

Hi why is the position of saturn upside down? Its solar maxim was hit during 0 bce now its going towards the sun. However, i don't understand why the picture is upside down when i look at saturn it will be pointed south for some reason. confusing:( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.25.193 (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hatnote

Per WP:RELATED, the hatnote for this article is being improperly used and should be removed. Praemonitus (talk) 04:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, the link to List of gravitationally rounded objects of the Solar System was inappropriate so I removed it. The links to planetary system and star system are appropriate because the word "solar system" is sometimes (inappropriately) used to refer to other stellar systems, so there is a potential confusion. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 04:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that is an improvement. Praemonitus (talk) 04:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It was added because people kept asking why there wasn't a list of objects in the Solar System with all their individual properties. Rather than copy the entire article into this page, it made more sense to add a hatnote. If you can think of another way to do that, let me know. Serendi^podous 14:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification. The link is currently in See also. A link from "round satellites" in the infobox would make sense. Unfortunately, because the infobox is an allegedly "generic" planetary system infobox, that's not easy. Because {{Template:Infobox planetary system}} isn't used anywhere else, any objection to putting that link in the template? —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 23:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe make it optionally linked and specify the link target in the infobox in the article. --JorisvS (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. (My first adventure in conditional statements in templates, so I'd appreciate cleanup if I messed something up!) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 00:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. --JorisvS (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

New template

I've made a template (Template:Solar System navbox) with content from Template:Lists of Solar System objects and planets illustrations. Can we replace second template with it? --Rezonansowy (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Visual summary section

The 7 by 5 box of assorted solar system objects doesn't give any helpful information about size, location, composition, mass, or orbital relationships that couldn't be better shown with a list or link to such a list. It's supposedly arranged by volume, by there is no relative scale whatsoever; the Sun looks the same size as (actually slightly smaller than) Jupiter. The caption of "selected for size and high-quality imaged" implies this is a list based on prettiness, and if that's the case it might as well be replaced with a link to the commons per WP:Galleries.

And the wide to-scale image...just look at the size of it how can a reader be expected to see anything but the sun and black space? It might as well been a solid black strip for all its usefulness. What does this section add? Reatlas (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm neutral towards it, so it can go if it gets voted down. Serendi^podous 15:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the big empty black strip is very much unhelpful and would prefer to see it go. There are editors who, in the past, have expressed very strong support for it on the (mistaken, in my opinion) view that we need a single image which conveys both size and distance to scale. I also think the gallery could go, as it's clearly selected for prettiness. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 21:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm neutral w.r.t. the "black strip", but I'd like the gallery to stay- the objects are "selected for size and high-quality imaged" (with "high-quality" apparently just meaning good resolution), not prettiness. (E.g. Pluto does not have any image of a similar resolution as the imaged objects.) But we should probably add a bold "disclaimer": "not to scale". --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm against the black strip, ambivalent on the gallery. One pro for the gallery is that it illustrates the degree of visual difference amongst the objects; i.e., how they don't look all alike. Tbayboy (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the scale image/black strip and moved the lists to see also. Reatlas (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

What is a comet?

what is meant by comet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.223.5.2 (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at comet. HiLo48 (talk) 06:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Navbox

The reason I moved the navbox back to the see also section is because it obviously wasn't working where it was, as can be seen by the comment above. I certainly couldn't see it in my browser, because it was dwarfed by the Solar System infobox. And since those lists are already linked in the navbox, they aren't required. Serendi^podous 18:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the navbox works better further down. In fact, though I appreciate the effort to put it together, I think that it contributes clutter without a purpose. The links in that navbox are mostly in the info box but in better context, and even more are in the collapsible Solar System template at the bottom of the page, again better organised. I think a third attempt to provide consolidated links does more harm than good. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The template isn't too useful at the top of the page as a sidebar, but if it in the see also it's only duplicating content that should be in the end of page navboxes. Perhaps the horizontal navbox needs reformatting to be more navigable. — Reatlas (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

11 Planets

There are actually 11 Planets in the Solar System if you include the three dwarf planets: Pluto, Eris and Ceres.

The Planets in order from the Sun (without dwarf planets) are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.

The Planets in order from the Sun (with dwarf planets) are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres + asteroid belt, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and Eris.

Should you have any queries, contact me on JacquelineFernandez™ — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacquelineFernandez (talk • contribs) 03:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeahhhhh no. If you want to limit the planets, use the 8 planets IAU definition. But if you want to include dwarf planets, include ALL of them and not just the "more important" ones. Like, all few thousand of them. Thank you and have a nice day (and technically, if you're using historical objects as the Stern definition of "classical planets", Vesta counts too) 134340Goat (talk) 05:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Typo in Uranus' semi-major axis value

In the Outer Planets section, Uranus' distance is given as 19.6 AU instead of 19.2 AU. Since the latter value is consistently found everywhere else, I can only conclude that this is a typo which needs to be corrected. 217.186.221.136 (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC) Zeromant

Thanks. Revised. Serendi^podous 19:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

scientific theory which is actually hypothesis stated as facts?

This sentence :

"It formed 4.6 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a giant molecular cloud.."

Is incorrectly stated as fact.

This is not a fact and is not a neutral opinion for all of mankind. It is a scientific theory or rather a scientific hypothesis. Can anyone verify the origins of the Sun? What a ridiculous notion.

This sentence should be changed to :

"Scientific Theory suggests that It formed 4.6 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a giant molecular cloud." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.229.164.89 (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The same applies to almost every sentence in every Wikipedia article - it would get very tiring if every statement were qualified in this way. We can rely on readers to understand, I think, that if we make such statements without qualification, it means we believe their accuracy to be universally accepted among experts in the field. If there are competing theories, then we need to qualify. W. P. Uzer (talk) 06:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. We also state the Earth is round, but that's just a theory too, and not universal for all mankind. — kwami (talk) 07:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hehe, "not universal". Yeah, some deluded and illiterate people may think otherwise. The only viable theory for the formation of the Solar System is collapse of a molecular cloud. Any other opinions about that are ill-informed and inconsistent. --JorisvS (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point Uzer but within this sentence I mentioned if you follow the link to the page for "Molecular cloud" and scroll down to "processes" - "Star formation" the First sentence states the following : "The general hypothesis is that the creation of stars occurs exclusively within molecular clouds." So there seems to be an inconsistency between these two pages. One page admits its general hypothesis and this page states it as fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.229.164.89 (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed. It also called it incorrectly the "creation" instead of the "formation" of stars. --JorisvS (talk) 08:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Boundaries section

The information about Voyager 1 is outdated. It has entered interstellar space now although it has still a few tens of thousand years to go until it leaves the Solar system. --Artman40 (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)