Talk:Solar System

WP:OWN - This Article Is BROKEN

This article is suffering from a major illness. And that is the issue of WP:Ownership. No one owns this article. Yet there is at least one editor who acts as though they do own it.

Stats: https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/wikihistory/wh.php?page_title=Solar_System

This is severely unhealthy behavior, and the public at large deserves much better. Even if this editor happened to be the world's foremost expert on the subject. This editor has one order of magnitude more edits greater than the second person on that list.

"...if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia."

The above quote is direct from the Wikipedia policy statement warning against article ownership.--Tdadamemd sioz (talk) 11:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The comment just posted below, quote: "Everyone who is going to have this conversation with you has already had this conversation with you."

...is offered as a perfect case in point of OWNERSHIP mindset that Wikipedia Policy speaks so strongly against. How can any person know such a thing? This is based upon conversation that took place in this forum more than two years ago. Clearly it is possible that absolutely anyone on our planet can jump in here at any time they feel like.

I for one welcome such new contributions.

And I will repeat the understanding that it is highly dangerous to this project to give anyone the impression that their contributions are not welcome. And I will give a reminder that this is a just the Talk Page that that comment is speaking to.--Tdadamemd sioz (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Scale - Another way that this article is broken

Accurate scaling of sizes and distances in the Solar System. With the Sun-Neptune distance scaled to the length of a football field, the Sun is about two-thirds the diameter of a golf ball, the four terrestrial planets are about the size of the ball in the tip of a fine-point pen, and the four outer planets are about the size of a BB pellet. (Inset at the bottom-right shows how typical depictions have distance scaling that is grossly distorted by several orders of magnitude.)
Edit: (image with no markings & no inset)

The images in this article do a huge disservice to the reader in that, as with just about every image of the Solar System, they grossly exaggerate sizes, and drastically shrink distances.

Here are two hideous examples:
- File:Planets2013.svg
- File:Solarsystemobjectsinscale.jpg

The fix for this severe problem is to present at least one image to the reader that shows an accurate depiction of both sizes and distances. One suggestion is currently being offered:
- File:Solar System to Scale to a Football Field.jpg (see thumbnail on right side w/caption)

I myself do not care which particular image is used to correct this problem. It is just that this image is the only one that I know of that does this. And the way that it solves the problem is by using perspective. If anyone knows of a similar image, I would be very glad to learn about it. Until such time, it is clear to me that this proposed image is vital to convey what the Solar System is really like. Let's put an end to all of the gross exaggerations that are presented without so much as a note explaining how distorted they are.--Tdadamemd sioz (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Why do you keep doing this? There are no new people here for you to impress. Everyone who is going to have this conversation with you has already had this conversation with you. And your constant berating and harping isn't going to change our minds. Serendi^podous 12:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I will suggest that you carefully read the feedback being offered in the section above. You have the choice to refrain from involvement in this particular discussion. The Earth will continue to rotate without your continual edits to this article. Or if you have concerns that it might stop turning, you can take this opportunity to conduct an experiment.--Tdadamemd sioz (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking at just the image (un-involved and unknolagable about its history) I would say the image is a borderline pass for inclusion. Small MOS:PERTINENCE re: hard to read at thumb, field should be smaller, hand/objects should be bigger/closer to the camera, and thumb insert should go bye-bye. The article currently has 5 other redundant "scale" images (all showing size, not distance). A few of those should probably go. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The image and caption are both confusing and unhelpful. Please abide by WP:BRD and remove it while we discuss whether it should be included in the article. (Hohum ^@) 16:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I've patiently sat back for half a moon on this. Thanks for the feedback.
I will be the first to say that there is room for improvement. What we are discussing here is the first image (that I'm aware of) that presents both sizes and distances of the Solar System to scale. I am sure that the image and the caption can be improved upon. Almost nothing is done perfectly at first. For anyone who does not like the inset (bottom-right) the image was published with no markings at all, so it would be easy for anyone who doesn't like it to remove the inset. That clean image is here: File:Solar System to Scale to a Football Field (no inset).jpg.

A decision needs to be made on whether or not to include this particular photo. My own vote is that I don't care.
But what I do feel strongly about is that some image that presents this info IS included. I consider this to be vital to presenting an accurate article on this subject. If anyone feels that the field should be smaller, or that anything should be closer to the camera, or whatever, this kind of photo is very easy to do. Just find a field and hold these 9 common objects (or something else that works).

And it could very well be that there is a much better way to present this info. Someone out there could surprise us.
But as it stands now, this is the only image of this type being proposed. And until an alternate image with this info comes to light, then it seems clear that the basic question being asked here right now is this:

Do we want to present any image of the Solar System that accurately presents sizes and distances at the same time, or are we cool with limiting the article to the standard distortions of what the Solar System actually looks like?

It's as simple as that, as I see it.--Tdadamemd sioz (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

This is the fifth time you've brought this up Td, and the fifth time you've been reverted. And this time, as per your recommendation, I stayed out of it. When are you going to accept that people just don't like your idea? Serendi^podous 17:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Bill Nye quote: "...way out here, at Jupiter."

Thank you for sitting back.

You know, I was actually thinking the exact same thing. I was just now watching this YouTube video posted to the NASA JPL channel. It is of Bill Nye trying to educate people about Jupiter. He has nicely size-scaled models of the Sun and Jupiter, and then he says this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmMT4mHgzS4&t=55

"...way out here, at Jupiter."

And this is the exact image of his representation of what "way out here" means: screenshot

This source is NASA, and the person is someone extremely well known for science education, a person who has gone through great lengths in the past toward educating the public on what the exact scale of the Solar System is, and here we see him presenting a typical standard gross distortion of the distance between Jupiter and the Sun, without so much as a footnote that this representation is not to scale.

So an obvious conclusion is that even the people who have acted like they care about this issue don't really care.--Tdadamemd sioz (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not that they don't care Td. I will say this one final time, as I have already said it many times in the many occasions you have insisted our paths cross. There is no way to express both the size and distance scale of the Solar System in a manner that is both informative and easily comprehensible to the human eye. The Solar System is just too big. Serendi^podous 20:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

If Bill Nye cared, or if JPL cared, or if NASA cared, they would have included a caveat that flashed on the screen to inform the viewer that Jupiter would actually be located X.X miles away, and not right there on the same table.

Now I care. And Fountains of Bryn Mawr gives supportive words. Also at least one other editor here is encouraging a healthy discussion over this issue.

There are some who believe that accurate scaling of size&distance cannot be communicated concisely in one image. It is clear to me that the photo being proposed here is proof that it can.

The question in my mind now becomes:

What can it possibly hurt by including this in the article?!

I understand if some of you find it confusing. But there are people who will look at it and get it right away. I say that there are two great reasons for adding this photo:

- It will speak clearly to those readers, and

- It might serve as inspiration to someone who will figure out a way to come up with a different way to capture this info that even more people can connect with.

Serendipodous, I expect that you may feel an urge to respond. I will ask you to give greater consideration to the other issue raised on how this article is 'broken'. As it was, I posted that, and you held off all of 3 days before editing the article again. If the Ownership Policy is to be honored, editors in question would be looking at taking months, or even a full year off before returning to an active role in an article.

To everyone else, I invite whatever feedback you may have.--Tdadamemd sioz (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

White supremacist tone

The Original wikipedia article has racist article tone. The article skips over the ancent Egyptian (Khemetic), Mayan, Persian, Nubian astronomy, and cosmology and only gives the white Greek, and white European astronomy facts and scientists. We need not wonder why racism exists, one major component is via educational documents that only highlight supposedly white-skinned scientists, thinkers, history, etc. 2604:2000:DDD1:4900:2195:4268:CD03:6B48 (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Sources to support the expansion you are looking for? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Such info is outside the scope of this article; it would be better placed in Discovery and exploration of the Solar System or Planet#Mythology and naming Serendi^podous 14:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Can we add a visual schematic (maybe in the Visual Summary section)?

Schematic Summary

This is a summary of Solar System objects, including symbol, approximate relative size, whether or not there is a ring system or round moons, object type, and distance from the Sun in AU.

Siznax (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate the work, but it has issues. The size images don't make a lot of visual sense, particularly for the non-planets. As for the planets, I have no idea where you got their relative sizes from, but they're way off. The astronomical symbols aren't that relevant to the Solar System as a whole, and it doesn't really give a sense of what the Solar System is like. Serendi^podous 17:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Also: Plutoids are TNOS, and the symbol is for Pluto only, not the group. Tbayboy (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Haha. I'm sure someone else can do a better job. I've found a schematic like this useful for helping learners understand what kinds of things are in the solar system (versus deep sky objects), which planets have rings and round moons, where non-planet-like things are (roughly), and how far away from the sun everything is. The idea is just to have a visual summary. The symbols are helpful for them to know so they can read a solar system configuration diagram like John Walker's Solar System Live (https://www.fourmilab.ch/solar/) Siznax (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)