Talk:Solar System/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Formation of the solar system

I have created an article on the formation of the solar system. This article makes reference to some farily recent but also very exciting research that is changing the view of how the solar system formed. --EMS | Talk 04:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought; your article and the origin section on the Solar system section are not that different. Perhaps it would be more efficient to simply rewrite the origins section to include Theia? Serendipodous 08:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

At the moment they are not too different. (However, six weeks ago when I started to draft it the 2:1 Jupiter-Saturn resonance was not mentioned here.) But do note that I very much intend for the article to grow. There is a lot of stuff that an individual artice can cover that a simple section cannot. I will create a to-do list for it ASAP. --EMS | Talk 02:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Good article nomination

While I do not think this article is anywhere near worthy of Featured status, I believe it may still qualify for Good status. I would also appreciate as much help as possible in improving its quality. Serendipodous 22:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Image for "Hypothetical planets"

Can anyone find a free-to-use image of a Vulcanoid, Nemesis, or Planet X? I can't seem to find anything in the public domain. Thanks.Serendipodous 21:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There are a few "Planet X" images in NASA's site. NASA is a U.S. government agency and does not claim copyright over its works, so they can be used (with proper attribution, of course). Include "site:nasa.gov" in your Google image search. --69.109.225.223 20:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! That Google advice was really really useful! Unfortunately, the only NASA image that even remotely resembles Planet X is a picture of a KBO with the words "Planet X" stamped on it. :) Not much to work with. Serendipodous 09:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Reference wanted

From lead section: "a main sequence G2 star that contains 99.86% of the system's known mass and dominates it gravitationally." Is there a reference for this figure?  -- Run!  00:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

reference added Serendipodous 10:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

External Link Added

Space.com solar system page added as new external link. Includes recent stories, but also collective galleries on aspects of the solar system and some original video clips derived from their Starry Night software and dvds. Also includes a virtual space tour.Starexplorer 13:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Good work

This article does a good job of explaining technical material. Maurreen 07:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I can say thank you to that, even though I didn't write all of this article :-). I have been working flat out to improve it, and it's nice to know that it seems to be working. Serendipodous 08:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Maurreen 16:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Length

The article is 63 KB. I think it could stand to be shorter. But I don't want to make any big changes on my own. Maurreen 16:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What would you trim? If I wanted to be brutal I would split the "Origin and Evolution" section off into its own article (perhaps merging it with EMS's Formation of the solar system), create a new article on hypothetical planets, (though I may need help with that; I've hacked that article down rather mercilessly recently, because, quite frankly, it stank, and if I am going to recreate it I'll need to figure out a way to do it without repeating information available elsewhere). and ditch the "Extrasolar planets" section entirely, since it has virtually nothing to do with the Solar system. That said, even though it's long, the solar system is a big topic and I like the user getting the full info without having to hop between articles. Serendipodous 19:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

OK; I've swallowed my pride and recreated the hypothetical planet article. It's not good but it's better than it was. It's still going to need a lot of tedious work though. I'll need someone else's goahead before I do anything more drastic. Serendipodous

EMS and I are in discussion about fusing our two sections to create one gigantic Formation of the solar system article. It's still a mess, but it's getting there. Serendipodous 22:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That's better. Thank you. Maurreen 03:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• I would suggest reducing the 'Pluto and Charon', '2003 UB313 ("Xena")', and 'Sedna' sections by about 50%. These are somewhat minor planets in comparison to, say, Jupiter. Yet they have the longest sections. Perhaps the information about their discovery and whether they are "planets" can be left to the specific pages? Anyway, just a suggestion. — RJH (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

orbital radiuses table

There was once a very useful table with arbital radiuses of major planets and other useful info. It seems to be removed from the article now. What are the reason of the removal? I, personally, fount it very useful to get idea of solar system scale and distanes between planets. It it possible to put the table back, or move it to separate page and make a notable link to it, please? -Zigmar 18:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean this table?

Scale of planetary orbits.
(million kilometres)
The bottom and top of each colored bar represent a planet's nearest approach to the sun and farthest distance from the sun.

I thought the reasons I got rid of it would have seemed fairly obvious. It was cumbersome, badly designed, and above all, took up WAY too much space. Wherever I attempted to place it, it completely overwhelmed the text of the article, making it impossible to read. Notice how, with the introduction of this table, your added section is now three times longer. Note also that the text at the top is already bleeding into the text I'm writing now. I subbed it with the "Sedna" image, which also shows the orbits of the planets to scale, but doesn't take up half the article to do it. However, I am always open to new ideas; if you feel that there is some way to incorporate this table into the article without swamping it, I'd be happy to see it re-instated. It's a good table in theory; it just doesn't go with this article. Also, it REALLY needs to be rethought at the design level. Hijacking the "timeline" template and reusing it for planetary distances not only makes the image virtually impossible to resize, but also leaves the page a mess in the editing window. I would be happier if it were a simple .jpg or .gif file. Serendipodous 18:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

By itself the image looks decent. But I expect you would get a better distribution of the data if you used a logarithmic scale for the orbital radius and then reduced the overall width and height about 20%. Plus a logarithmic scale would demonstrate the Titius-Bode law very nicely, and it could then be used on that article page. — RJH (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I need to settle this

Poll: Should extrasolar planets be mentioned in this article?

This article is very long, and extrasolar planets and planetary systems are only tangentally related to the topic. However, they do have some relevance to it. Is that relevance strong enough to warrant an additional few paragraphs when simply providing a link to extrasolar planet would arguably suffice? Serendipodous 20:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I was tempted to remove that myself at one point. I think a link to extrasolar planets in the see also section would suffice. — RJH (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What would it take to get this article up to feature quality?

Any thoughts?Serendipodous 20:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You might look at FA criteria. At the moment if doesn't meet the stability criteria due to the large number of edits, so it might need to lie fallow for some period of time. You might also look at the Manual of Style to see if this article is fully compliant. After that, I'd just go for it. FA can be a humbling experience, but you'll probably get good feedback and have a chance to fix the problems. Plus you can always take it back again after it's fixed up. — RJH (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Review

I'm in the middle of reviewing this article for Good Article status, but won't be able to finish until probably sometime tomorrow. One comment can make at this point is that the footnote positioning is frequently incorrect. The ref tag should come directly after the punctuation which terminates the associated clause (or, in English: the footnote should be right after the comma or period with no space in between). I'll give you some more specific and detailed comments with my promotion decision tomorrow. --jwanders^Talk 21:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A question just of interest, is there really such rule? Because I've been told to use space before ref tag (not like this^[1] but like this ^[1]); in real life, not in Wikipedia.--JyriL ^talk 22:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup, see Wikipedia:Footnotes#Place_ref_tag_after_punctuation. Apparently that's what the Chicago MoS recommends and what WP decided to emmulate, but it might well not be universal. --jwanders^Talk 22:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Solar System/Archive 2 has failed, for the following reason:

Though the work done on this article is very good and it is well on it's way to promotion, it's not quite there yet. Based on the numbering in WP:WIAGA, this article comes up short in the following areas:

1a)

Many areas of the article feel unfocussed. Details irrelavant to the point of the paragraph or sentence are frequently added parenthetically, making it more difficult to follow the flow of the prose. For example, consider the following sentence, "Astronomers consider Pluto, (38 AU average) the solar system's smallest planet, to be part of the Kuiper Belt population." The main point of the sentence is simply Astronomers consider Pluto part of the Kuiper Belt", though two other facts have been wedged into the middle of this idea.

1c)

A large number of minor errors in WP:MOS formatting, including the footnote placement mentioned above, missing units, captilization and punctuation errors.

1d)

Jargon is used to alluded to theories without being adequately explained for the lay-reader. For example, the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram is frequently referenced when describing the Sun in relation to other stars, but this assumes the reader has prior knowledge of that diagram.

3)

This is a fine point, but this article seems to focus heavily on "the objects in the solar system" and devote little attention to the solar system itself. The details of the planets and other objects could be summarised much more briefly (with links to their own articles), and the informatinon on solar system formation and history significantly expanded.

5)

There have been a significant number of edits today alone, and the current version differs enough from that of [a week ago] that it qualifies as unstable.

6a)

The copyright tag on the Venus image looks a little dicey. It says a link to the author's website must be included with the image, which to me sounds like it would have to be in the caption. This should be looked into this further.

Some more specific comments (these did not necessary effect the GA decision, but are merely things I spotted during the review):

Lead, para 1

Suggest "distant objects" in place of "trans-Neptunian" as Neptune has yet to be introduced.

Lead, para 3

Many of the planet symbols don't appear properly on my system; perhaps the article needs an appropriate font warning message?

Layout and distances, image caption

Should be capitalised.

Layout and distances, para 2

Not sure if "in synch" is formal language. Consider re-wording.

Layout and distances, para 3

"with their perihelions and aphelions widely spaced apart. This sounds funny to me; do you mean something like "with a large difference between perihelions and aphelion".

Sun

Wow... that first picture's really bright! It seems crazy, but I'm tempted to recommend darkening it a bit, as it really distracts from the article.

Sun, para 1

"Hertzsprung-Russell diagram" needs a brief explanation for the references to it to make sense without the reader having to go to that article.

Inner planets

Could use Main article: XXX tags. Same with outer planets.

Asteroids, para 2

"The largest asteroid, Ceres, has a diameter of almost 1000 km; large enough to be spherical, which would make it a planet by some definitions of the word." The "large enough to be spherical" comment implies that the reader would already know of the astrophysics it refers to.

Uranus

"...it is still several thousand degrees..." This ought to have units.

Pluto and Charon

In the first sentence, "(38 AU average)" should come before the comma. Also should probably be expanded to "at an average orbital distance of 38 AU".

2003 UB313 ("Xena")

"has been nicknamed "Xena" by its discoverers, after the television character." This is a mismisplaced modifier, i.e. "after the television character" is technically refering to the discoverers, currently, not to Xena. Consider, "which its discoverers nicknamed "Xena" after the television character."

Galactic context, para 4

The hypothesis explained in the later half of this para needs a citation.

Despite the issues I've identified, this article is very good and shows a lot of potential. I urge you to renomitate it once these problems have been addressed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jwanders (talk • contribs) 00:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The Linkspam issue

I have no idea which of the external links are "approved" sites and which aren't. Obviously the NASA sites are kosher, but while I do like SolStation and Celestia, but I have no idea if they have any more "right" to be here than the other solar system sites that get linked to this page. What is linkspam and what isn't? Serendipodous 21:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Not familiar with SolStation (will have to check it out), but I'd say Celestia is a good choice as it is an excellent tool for learning about the solar system. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Twelve Planets

The number of planets may need to be expanded to twelve following the news that the International Astronomical Union has recommended to its members that Charon, Xena and Ceres be ratified as new planets. [1] The new definition states that a planet is any star-orbiting object so large that its own gravity pulls in its rough edges, producing a near-perfect sphere. 210.185.71.34 06:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. I wanna wait until the final vote; this proposal seems completely arbitrary and doesn't make any sense at all. Serendipodous 06:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the proposal makes perfect sense. For millenia we haven't had a clear definition of what exacly defines a planet. This new proposal, agreed upon unanimously by a special committee of the IAU, will set clear standards for what is and is not a planet. See the articles planet and definition of planet for more information on that. And if you can get ahold of the August 16th Chicago Tribune article on the subject, I highly recommend it; it's an excellent piece that clearly lays the facts and reasonings behind what's going on. That said, I think we must hold off saying that the Solar System is 12 planets until the official vote scheduled for August 24th. After that, this article will need some serious updating. --TiroAethra 15:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The proposal itself makes sense, even if it is a bit messy, but there's no reason to link this proposal with this random number "12 planets." If this proposal is accepted, there would be about 30 planets, not 12. Why everyone's jumping on 12, I have no idea. Serendipodous 17:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that the proposal was accompanied with the formal suggestion that Ceres, Charon and Xena be immediately prompted to planets while decision on any other objects be delayed for additional discussion. Hence accepting the proposal could immediately create a 12 planet system with more to come. Dragons flight 17:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've started a new article on this topic, see 2006 redefinition of planet. Please help to expand that article. Thank you. --Cyde Weys 18:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

The solar system has currently nine known planets. Anything else is speculation until August 24th, and should be treated as such. So no more may become planets, please.--JyriL ^talk 17:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct, it is not a crystal ball. However, that doesn't prevent factual statements like "The IAU are currently considering whether to classify additional objects as planets" or such like. AndrewRT - Talk 19:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct. However, "has twelve planets" is not factual. It is guessing.Eh Nonymous 19:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that the above method, would be good. But they shouldn't include moons, and they should have a fixed diameter. I really think Xena should be included as a planet, and they should hurry up with an official name. TheDalek 14:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Did the other planets even become planets. do they sitll have a chance or not.

Template

What do you think about having a template on the Solar System? I'll make a start on what I mean: Template:Objects of the Solar system AndrewRT - Talk 20:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

FA Status?

The template at top suggests it's failed its current FA application, but the FA page doesn't look like the nomination's closed? 4 days seems to be an awfully short FA nomination period, although I guess it was pretty clear which way it was leaning. Anchoress 05:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I never really intended this article for feature consideration. I simply wanted some advice on what needed to be done to make it feature quality. I've answered most of their issues but it'll be a long time before I resubmit it. Serendipodous 06:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I gathered that from the FA nomination page. But it still leaves dangling a) whether or not the article should have a 'failed FA' template, and b) whether or not the FA nomination is officially closed. Anchoress 06:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Earth and Moon: A double planet?

The section on Pluto and Charon states: "Like the Earth/Moon, Pluto and Charon are often considered a double planet, since both orbit a common barycenter between the two bodies.".

But the article Double planet states that Earth and moon are not a double planet since the barycenter lies within the more massive planet; Earth in this case.(2006 redefinition of planet and Double_planet#Debate)

I don't think this a subject of debate because of the literally defined criterion of the barycenter.

--Alif 11:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The current proposal by the IAU for a definition of 'planet' suggests that we call a system a 'double planet' if its barycentre is outside both bodies. However, this is only a proposal. The term 'double planet' has been used casually for years to simply mean 'a planet with a big moon', or to refer to objects orbiting a barycentre regardless of whether it is outside the main body. There needs to be a distinction made between the casual use of the term, and this new, more specific proposal. The Singing Badger 11:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I use the term "double planet" to describe Earth/Moon because the Moon's orbit around the Sun is concave; it effectively orbits the Sun directly. Serendipodous 17:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity

Are there any extrasolar systems with as many or more planets than our system? From I've seen, most systems consist of 2-3 gas giants and maybe a small rocky one. --Nog64 17:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There very well could be, but we can't find them yet. Our sensors are currently detecting the mid-to-large range. To get to see the smaller rocky ones we'd need the TPF or Darwin or some other humongous next generation telescope. We might start finding those mega-systems in the future. Serendipodous 17:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent reclassification of planets

With the recent news of astronomers finally classifying what a planet is, we now have a new solar system. As a consequence this page needs updating. You can view the news here: http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.org/iau0601/iau0601_release.html -- RND  T  C  09:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It is only a draft proposal, and it is unclear if this or any other proposal will be selected. The voting will be held on August 24. No changes before that.--JyriL ^talk 09:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"There were at one point nine planets, but Pluto was stripped of its status as a planet on August 24, 2006, by the International Astronomical Union, according to CNN."

The same IAU ruling that demoted the Pluto/Charon system from planet, also promoted Ceres up to being a planet - so we're still at 9.

Actually there were several "planets" added and then declassified over the years. We probably had way more than 9 at certain points.

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/hilton/AsteroidHistory/minorplanets.html

Question - Does the need for an object to have cleared its orbit of other objects now relegate Jupiter and the Earth among others from the list of planets? It seems to me that the IAU really dropped the ball here.

The most recent reclassification (IAU Resolution 5A) was really quite sloppy. The "cleared its orbital vicinity" clause technically DQ's Uranus (because Pluto is in its orbital vicinity), Jupiter (because it has Trojan asteroids), Mars (ditto), and Earth (because of the large number of NEOs). Ceres isn't even in the running since it is in the asteroid belt. That leaves something like four (Mercury, Venus, Saturn, and Uranus). I think the IAU is going to have to clear up their wording... zowie 19:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Zowie, the phrase in resolution 5A "(c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit" may be sloppy wording, but it could be loosely defined to incorporate the following phenomena: (a) capture of satellites, (b) caused the orbital migration (scattering) of other bodies from the orbital vicinity, (c) as well as the regularisation of small bodies into Langrangian positions (Trojans) or resonant orbits (2:1, 3:2, and other trans-Neptunian populations). The inner planets may have sufficient mass to eject or capture satellites, but not nearly so well as Jupiter.

While I'm here, may I point out that an anonymous (IP only) has tried to protect the small Solar System template and moved Pluto back to the category of planet. The template probably needs to be protected from vandalism for the next while - first of all, a whole lot of possible candidates for "dwarf planetdom" were added, then removed, and finally Pluto put back where it was up until August 24. Vandals may also decide to attack certain other solar system pages. Philip Legge _@ 01:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that Pluto and Charon are classified as a double planet system. While that was under the original proposal, I think Pluto's demotion to dwarf planet has resulted in Charon being an un-important chunk of ice, rather than part of a double planet system. 67.68.46.64 21:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Former Planet Comment

Formerly included in the list of planets was Pluto (♇). Numerous articles also state that Ceres was classified as a planet (see comment in preceeding discussion). If Pluto is going to be specially referenced, why not Ceres which spent years on the planet list? Just curious. Zurel Darrillian 15:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to scale?

Come on! This is Wikipedia! Are you telling me that we can't even get a scale picture of the Solar System? I, for one, am disgusted...

I guess you don't realize what a scale picture of the solar system would look like. Picture a yellow circle about a centimeter in diameter (for the Sun) and then a black expanse extending about 100 feet past the edge of your monitor. The gas giants would each be about 1 pixel. Earth would not be visible. Kaldari 23:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

For those having trouble visualising the scale of things in space, these images may help [2]. It doesn't show the size of the solar system however... These images incidently have been shrunk. I received them by e-mail a while back and they're larger so somewhere along the line someone shrunk them. I don't know the source of the images but you could probably find better versions if you search harder Nil Einne 15:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC) Nil Einne 15:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Definition of solar system not complete

This article defines the solar system as "eight planets and their 162 known moons, as well as dwarf planets, asteroids, meteoroids, planetoids, comets, and interplanetary dust". This omits the 80(?) moons orbiting dwarf planets and small solar system bodies. Please see the natural satellite article which states that there are "240 known moons within the Solar system". Kaldari 23:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The sentence is, "eight planets and their 162 currently known moons." KBOs and asteroids aren't planets. Ergo their moons wouldn't be listed. Serendipodous 19:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing about that. I'm saying that according to the sentence, the moons of asteriods and KBOs are not included in the definition of the solar system! Kaldari 22:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow the IAU. Numerous astrologers don't follow the IAU. In all likelihood, hundreds of thousands of people all over the world don't follow the IAU. Therefore, I see nothing wrong in considering asteroids and KBOs to be planets. — Rickyrab | Talk 21:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"a trans-neptunian object"

The new caption for that picture is quite sad. Can't we just say its Pluto, for old times' sake?

"Definition"

I've shifted this short section over to the talk page, because it's somewhat unclear as to where it belongs.

Definition

As of August 2006 the following rules must be passed for a celestial body to count as a planet in our solar system: A planet is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape (c) has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit.

---

First of all, the title is misleading; this article is about the solar system, not about planets, so "definition" would refer to the Solar system in this context, not to planets.

That aside, the section was oddly placed and didn't really fit into the overall structure of the article. There are enough mentions of the IAU's decision in the article already without having to go into so much detail. Serendipodous 22:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Capitalize Solar System?

Why isn't "solar system" capitalized since it refers to the name of our stellar system, named for our star "Sol"?

There was a long discussion about this years ago, and it was decided not to capitalise it. For further info, check the earlier discussion archive. Serendipodous 08:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

We can capitalize it. I see no reason why someone else's decision from years ago should apply to current Wikipedia. — Rickyrab | Talk 21:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

In official nomenclature, as put out by the IAU, the words `Solar System' are, in fact, capitalised. Shouldn't we at wikipedia be adhering to the definition provided by the IAU - as for instance is done with defining other celestial objects. See this IAU Link http://www.iau.org/SPELLING_OF_NAMES.240.0.html jkm 09:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Layout - removed text

I've removed the following text from the "Layout" section:

"By and large, the planets within the solar system are arranged so that each is roughly double the distance from the Sun as the one before it, an effect described by Bode's Law. Venus is roughly twice as far from the Sun as Mercury, Earth is roughly double the distance as Venus, Mars double that of Earth, and so on."

Looking at this table, the numbers just don't support the above assertion - even with a "by and large" disclaimer. The reference to "Bode's Law" isn't great, either, as it makes T-B appear to be a law, rather than a "law". Any thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It's one thing to just remove text; it's another thing to redraft it with something you feel is more accurate. Some mention of the layout of the solar system should be included in that section. If you feel you are not qualified or inclined to create it, then don't remove the text. I originally included a deeper discussion of Bode's law in earlier drafts, but decided that it was irrellevant and dropped it. I have no idea how it suddenly crept back into the text again. Serendipodous 19:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you on one of your points. You stated: "If you feel you are not qualified or inclined to create it, then don't remove the text." The text is incorrect, and the data on planetary orbits supports that contention. It would be bad practice to leave the text in there. I did not "just remove text" - instead, I transferred it to the talk page, so that the community could discuss it. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Then what would be correct? Certainly saying that all the planets are the same distance appart is incorrect. And it is (roughly) true that the planets double their distances from one another with each orbit, particularly if one includes the asteroid belt. If you feel a more accurate description is needed, then please create one. Otherwise I don't see what's wrong with saying that the planet's orbits roughly double. Serendipodous 16:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what, exactly, your argument is. Here are some of the points you're making:

"...saying that all the planets are the same distance appart is incorrect"'

- true, but not what I proposed at all.

"...it is (roughly) true that the planets double their distances from one another with each orbit, particularly if one includes the asteroid belt..."

- again, do the numbers support this? Looking at the table, it seems we can make this "roughly" work if we drop Earth and Neptune, and reclassify Pluto and Ceres as planets. That, to me, doesn't make for a sound statement.

"I don't see what's wrong with saying that the planet's orbits roughly double."

- There's nothing wrong with saying it, as long as it is true. Unfortunately, it isn't the case with the eight defined planets, and it still doesn't work if we try to force it by adding other bodies.

Look, if I've missed something, if my math is faulty, then say so. I won't debate the point if I've missed a decimal here or there, and everything actually fits "roughly" into place. However, I don't think it does. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, my main issue isn't that you disagree that the planets' orbits are roughly double. It is that you took out the only direct reference to the layout of the solar system in a section called "Layout" and didn't replace it with anything. If you feel my assertion that the planets' orbits are roughly double is wrong, then come up with a description of your own. Don't just delete the text without replacing it.

The section is just fine without the text. Your solution is to leave in an incorrect assertion until something else is written to replace it. If an article about the United States stated that it was the largest country in the world, would you have me leave that erroneous statement in there until something was written to replace it? We would be doing a disservice to the readers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Second, if you follow the orbits from Earth outwards (not necessarily counting Pluto and Ceres as planets, but certainly counting the asteroid and Kuiper belts as orbits), with the exception of Neptune they are almost exactly double. That's six orbits out of ten, which, for my money, qualifies as "by and large." see here Serendipodous 11:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The text said "planets". The math does not support this. Add in the asteroid belt, ignore Mercury and Venus, whatever, the math does not support it. As nice as it would be to have a convenient description like that, it doesn't apply to our solar system. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why you feel it has to be exact or nothing. We're not dealing with a mathematical construction here; we're dealing with nature. And, even if a statement about nature is only 70 percent correct, it would still qualify, in my book, as a useful generalisation. As I said, if we wanted to make a statement about the orbits in the solar system, what would be more correct; that they are, by and large, double, or that they are arranged linearly? A lot of people don't know that the orbits of the planets increase exponentially, because diagrams of the solar system (like the one in this article) depict them as linear. Some mention of the exponential nature of the orbits of the solar system is necessary to counter this common misconception. Indeed I would say that doing so is important enough that keeping an only vaguely accurate account of the orbits in the solar system in is preferable to taking it out. Again, I repeat, if you don't want to use the word "double" than come up with your own word, but don't just delete it. Serendipodous 17:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never said that it has to be exact or nothing, nor would I - as you said, it's nature. If the statement were a close approximation, then it would be useful. However, as worded, it is "by and large" inaccurate and misleading, two qualities which would warrant removal. Fix it, tweak it, rewrite it, fine - but when a statement is wrong, it gets pulled, not when a replacement is found, but right away. (I'm not even going to touch on the Titus-Bode "law", as you yourself dismissed it as "irrelevant" in an earlier statement.) Your concern is that we should attempt to dispel the layperson's notion that the planets are in a linear progression. Fair enough, and a worthy goal. Now, let's test the "doubled" progression, as that layperson might attempt it. They would probably get a pen and start drawing circles, doubling the distance each time. If they do that, they'll be way off the mark by the time they get to Earth (drawing it past Mars' orbit), and really out at Mars (now beyond the asteroid belt). Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus would each be pushed outwards by increasingly substantial amounts, and Neptune (would be drawn out past Pluto (which, at over 15 billion km, would make 2003 UB₃₁₃'s actual orbit seem "local".) If we factor in the asteroid belt, then it's even farther out of whack, and asking people to "start with Earth", or ignore Neptune, or count "orbits" ("but remember, they're not planets") will only compound the confusion. Remember, anyone who's attempting to use this sort of solution probably isn't going to be comparing the actual numbers, or compensating for errors with each subsequent orbit (i.e. "Venus to Earth, 2x108,000,000=216,000,000 vs. actual 150,000,000, now Earth to Mars, 2x150,000,000=300,000,000 vs. 228,000,000, etc.") They'll start at Mercury and keep on doubling the numbers. Look, I'm not questioning your desire to establish the non-linear progression. What doesn't make sense is that you would want to hang on to a statement that you, yourself, have described as "only vaguely accurate". --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

So, how would you phrase it? Serendipodous 08:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Given how many words we've expended to get to this point, I'm not sure there are any left to use in a statement... <grin> Ummm, I'll ponder this for a bit. Off the top of my head, points to mention would be 1) not linear 2) no simple "pattern". Might be worth opening a new section for this discussion - we should probably get input from the other editors, but they might well miss this part of the thread amidst all the other text. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

And given that I said several times that my main complaint was not that you removed the reference but that you didn't replace it with something more accurate, I don't see why we did go through circles to get here. Anyway. I think starting a new section is a good idea. "No simple pattern" is not particularly helpful, especially since we have to explain what "not linear" means. I'll shift this down to the bottom. Serendipodous 07:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Move to Sol Star System

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was STAY 132.205.44.134 04:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to move solar system to Sol Star System, as Sol is the name of the central star of the system, and thus the name of our star system would be the Sol Star System. --myselfalso 03:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Sounds really sci-fi. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 04:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • But we do live in a star system. See the page star system. --myselfalso 04:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• No. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Dragons flight 04:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There's not even a name for the solar system, despite what some think. So how can WP:NC(CN) apply if there isn't a name for our solar system? --myselfalso 05:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Except that everyone calls it the solar system, including you apparently. That is its common name. Dragons flight 05:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Except that the term solar system can describe not just our solar system, but one that is around other stars. --myselfalso 05:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Not according to this article, which specifically describes the solar system as "the stellar system comprising the Sun and the retinue of celestial objects gravitationally bound to it." Other systems wouldn't be called "solar" systems. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You could probably call other "solar systems" - "extrasolar systems" -- Nbound 12:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Rather 'extra solar system systems'. -- Ec5618 12:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Or not... that doesnt even make sense :| -- Nbound 09:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - confusing, not common usage. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - SO not common usage. DannyZ 06:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Prefer shorter and more common Solar system. (SEWilco 06:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC))
• Strong Oppose. This is the real world, not the Foundation. Serendipodous 12:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose as per Serendipodous. Solar system is the name of the planetary system we live in.--JyriL ^talk 12:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• VERY strong oppose per Ckatz and Serendipodous --EMS | Talk 13:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• VERY strong oppose per Ckatz and Serendipodous --talk
• Strong oppose not common usage. Besides, the term "solar system" already means "system of sol". --Aelffin 16:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move to Solar System

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. The slim majority support a move (12 or 10 to 8, depending on whether you count a very new user and an anonymous user), the International Astronomical Union supports capitalization and the votes that came after the discovery of the IAU's position were all in favor of a move, except for one. -- Kjkolb 02:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

solar system to Solar System. As this is the name of our solar system, it should be capitalized. Voortle 15:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Oppose. This has been discussed at length before; read the archives next time to see if moves have already been proposed before and learn the reasons why the move did not happen.Derek Balsam 15:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Ditto. Serendipodous 16:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Support. Well, as I've mentioned above, it's the name of our solar system. Just as we wouldn't have Play Station at play station, this shouldn't be here. Voortle 16:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Again; read archive 1. By your logic, we would have to capitalise the word "solar" every time we use it. "the sun" is never capitalised, and neither, for that matter, is "sunbeam" "sunshine," or "sunhat." Or "solar." Serendipodous 18:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"the Sun" and "the Moon" are often capitalized. You're telling me that you've never seen them capitalized? "sunshine", "sunbeam" and "sunhat" are compound words, like "earthquake", and thus are not capitalized. "solar" by itself is not capitalized, as it's not a name. "Solar System", however, is the name of our solar system. Voortle 19:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"Solar" is NOT capitalsed. EVER. Except then. That was the beginning of a sentence.Serendipodous 21:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Capitalization, as most elements of the English language, is nuanced. In this case, I argue that it is a choice of style. (Please read Chris's post on www.science-teachers.com.) Various manuals of style are inconsistent in detailing whether the terms "earth," "sun," and "moon" should be capitalized or not. I think that the term "solar system" is subject to the same stylistic nuances as the terms "earth," "sun," and "moon." I think we should recognize the stylistic choice in naming this article either "Solar system" or "Solar System," and instead of renaming the article, be prudent and not rename the page unnecessarily. Besides sheer prudence, because I consider this is a significantly large, well-developed, and possibly well-trafficked article, I oppose renaming it as to avoid any confusion and/or unnecessary strain on the server. --Iamunknown 21:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The servers are slaves to the electricity we feed them. Who the hell cares what they "think"? mdf 18:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Lowercase_second_and_subsequent_words. Note that "system" is not a proper noun. --EMS | Talk 22:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - as I interpret it, the term refers to "Sol's system" (the system around Sol, or our sun), in which case "system" should be lower-case. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Solar system is not a proper noun. The solar system is the system that is gravitationally bound to Sol, and should no more be capitalized than should solar power, solar maximum, or solar cycle.--Srleffler 04:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Solar System is as proper a noun as United States is. mdf 18:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"United States" is a two words being used as a single noun for a political entity. It is common to capitalize words in political names for importance and emphasis. In science, this practice has become frowned upon due to its being abused by people seeking to make their own research sound important. That is why Einstein's theory of gravitation is general relativity instead of "General Relativity". solar system is a scientific subject, not a political one. --EMS | Talk 19:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like more special pleading, as I picked a noun totally at random. What would your response had been had I selected Taco Bell? (Note: I have many, many more examples waiting. We can go through each, one by one, if you wish.) mdf 19:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Same difference. The "Bell" in Taco Bell is traditionally capitalized, and that capitalization is part of the name of that restaurant chain. Except when required for punctuation purpopses, solar system is not capitalized at all, and the "system" part never is. FWIW: I used to refer to "Relativity" and "General Relativity" on the same basis as you are giving, but I came to terms with their non-capitalization when I wrote an article for publication in a journal. The proper terms are relativity and general relativity by very strict convention, which also relates to "solar system". --EMS | Talk 04:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

My copy of Murray and Dermott's Solar System Dynamics will captitalize System when appropriate. Both this and the Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac religiously capitalize all named members of the Solar System when they are directly referred to. Similarly, you do not need to look hard to find references to the "Kuiper Belt", "Oort Cloud" and other specific, unique, features of our particular instance of a solar system in both the technical and popular literature. Your next proper noun to explain is "Easter Bunny". mdf 13:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking more exhaustively through M&D, it seems the rule is this: whenever they capitalize the "Solar", the "System" is also capitalized. It turns out there are a number of specific references to the Solar System as "solar system"; one can conceivably wiggle around about how it can be interpreted as a generic solar system, but whatever. mdf 13:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

From the official Wikipeidia policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions:

Convention: Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name) or is otherwise almost always capitalized (for example: John Wayne and Art Nouveau, but not Computer Game).

There is nothing more to say. The "b" in Easter Bunny is almost always capitalized (and Easter bunny redirects to "Easter Bunny" becuase of that). However, for the other names cited above the Wikipedia articles are Kuiper belt and Oort cloud. IMO, you need to get with the program. "Solar system" is a noun, but it is not a proper noun. --EMS | Talk 13:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

An interesting theory. However, the "b" in Bunny and Bell and "s" in States are capitalized not because of politics or simply because of wide usage or whatever crazy notion you invent on the fly, but because these are direct, unique, names of these entities. Hence "Golden Gate Bridge", with a big B. Ditto for "Fred Espanak" or "Talking Heads". Did you even read what proper noun has to say? "Proper nouns (also called proper names) are the names of unique entities." It even goes on to say that "Proper nouns are capitalized in English and most other languages that use the Latin alphabet, and this is one easy way to recognise them." So the issue reduces to whether or not the subject of this article is, in fact, a "unique entity" and what it's name actually is. To that end, I feel it it self-evident it is unique (like the particular instance of a human called "Fred") as opposed to a generic class ("human"). If that's not enough we can look at the article itself: it carefully describes the particulars, and (helpfully) there is another article about the generic). And if that is still insufficient, one need only peruse the vast literature beyond Wikipedia; near as I can tell, it is in complete 100% agreement. As to the name, despite the efforts of some science fiction writers and their fans (see below cf. "Sol star system"), everyone refers to the mechanism as "the" solar system. Therefore, by appealling to the same WP Holy Script you mention, this article should be called "Solar System". Failing that, if it could be demonstrated that "solar system" dominates "Solar System" outside of Wikipedia, it should be called "solar system" -- except that due to WP bogosity the first letter must be capitalized. In that instance, we need that little ditty near the top of the article that babbles on about "due to technical limitations the real title of this article is ....". mdf 14:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Strong support. The arguments present in the archive are highly unpersuasive, and read more like post hoc special pleadings than anything else. There are many, many, examples of multi-word proper nouns that are titled as much at Wikipedia (Democratic Republic of the Congo, Golden Gate Bridge, Sea-to-Sky Highway, ad nauseum), and to that extent "Solar system" is an outlier, not the norm. mdf 18:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Is there a name for the solar system anywhere in reality or fiction? --myselfalso 06:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's Solar System. Just like the name of our moon is "Moon" and the name of our star is "Sun" and the name of our planet is "Earth". Voortle 08:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the name for the sun is Sol, and the name for the moon is Luna. The Manual of Style is incorrect in saying that "sun" and "moon" are proper nouns. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 03:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not incorrect. "Sun" and "Moon" are proper nouns. Voortle 12:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"Sun" and "Moon" are proper nouns. "sun" "moon" The definition of "solar system" is here "solar system". The name of our solar system is NOT The Solar System. If anything it would be the Sol Star System. --myselfalso 17:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Open any paper dictionary, and you'll learn that they are not proper nouns. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 02:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Turn to any paper on the subject of the "Sun" or the "Moon" and you see otherwise. mdf 13:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Strong support. Don't we need a proper noun to refer to our Solar System? If not "Solar System", then what? The planets, galaxies, and even comets have proper nouns. I say we capitalize it to be consistent.--Heyjude1971 02:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be consistent, albeit incorrect. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 03:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Planets have names (Earth, for example). Galaxies have names (Andromeda Galaxy, for example). Comets have names (Comet Halley, for example). The Sun has a name (Sol). The Moon has a name (Luna). I propose we move the article from Solar system to Sol Star System. --myselfalso 03:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC) --myselfalso 17:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - It's just a "system" and does not need capitalization. "Solar" should be capitalized, whether due to Wikipedia naming or due to referring to our star Sol. I'm here referring to the name of this article, and not grammatical usage. (SEWilco 06:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC))

Strong support Shouldn't we be using the spelling that the IAU recommends? I strongly urge all those who oppose capitalising System to look at the IAU's view on the matter. We accept their definition of Planet, and their other rulings in regard to Space, why should we make an exception for the Solar System? http://www.iau.org/SPELLING_OF_NAMES.240.0.html Is how the IAU refers to the Solar System. As well Wikipedia refers to Mexico City (Capitalised), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_City, or Kuwait City (Capitalised)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait_City. I can't see how it is consistent with the wikipedia policy to refer to Kuwait City and Mexico City - capitalising City, and then not capitalising System. All 3 are locations, all 3 are proper nouns - can someone who opposes the change explain the difference please? And also explain what gives wikipedia the right to cherry pick which IAU recommendations and directives will be used and which will be wilfully ignored. jkm 11:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Strong support We should be following IAU recommendations, as we do for other celestial entities. Richard B 12:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well if the IAU says "Solar System", who are we to argue? Except of course that we've spent the last two weeks doing nothing but arguing over the IAU's decisions. Serendipodous 14:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The decisions and recommendations of the IAU are probably only binding on astronomers, and only those who are IAU members at that. I suggest we find one and have him or her rename the article.  ;-) More seriously, given that the arguments against appear to be ad hoc, there are now very good arguments in favour, and there are probably non-trivial consequences of the move, this ought to be moved up to next level. mdf 15:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Strong support As per Mdf Scott Osborne 15:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Strong support After learning that the IAU has capitalized "Solar System," I see no reason not to rename the article "Solar System". Though, I do think the name "Sol Star System" should be popularized and become part of pop culture. --myselfalso 17:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Or "Sol System", which is commonly used in sci-fi texts. Wiizoo 12:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support "Solar System" is a proper noun in common usage. However, the IAU guidelines state that it should be "solar system"... but the IAU is not arbiter of common usage. 132.205.45.148 23:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have to ask, with all due respect, did you click on the link I provided to the IAU site which talked about how astronomical objects should be referred to - esp. regarding capitalisation? It clearly states that they should be capitalised, their examples are `"The Earth's equator" and "Earth is a planet in the Solar System" are examples of correct spelling according to these rules.' Cheers. jkm 19:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above. Wiizoo 12:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Eevo 18:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - but the article needs to make it clearer it is referring to our Solar System specifically. -- Beardo 21:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose IAU guidance notwithstanding, the term is common enough that the Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary, and Encyclopaedia Britannica render the term solely in lower case. Moreover, the term properly and correctly refers to only our star/stellar system. Cogito ergo sumo 20:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

*Oppose. The term is not proper according to dictionaries, and is commonly rendered as a proper noun only in certain Science Fiction literature. Consider that one can refer to something being "in a different solar system" and you'll see that the term is generic. It is only by context that it is commonly taken to refer to our own solar system.Derek Balsam 22:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment You've already voted against the proposal once. And why pick a dictionary above the IAU's recommendation - bearing in mind that the IAU dictate the nomenclature for many astronomical objects? Richard B 23:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment While of course I do not condone someone voting twice (and have taken it upon myself to strike DB's second vote, not the comment), I'm unsure what is accomplished by haphazardly discarding common publications – and not just one – which indicate titular renditions that are fairly common (per EMS, et al.) and do not agree with IAU prescriptions ... which are (at the core) part of a specialised style guide that somewhat conflicts with the Wp Manual of Style and which we need not necessarily follow. The IAU style guide/recommendation can be discarded just as easily as being too esoteric. Cogito ergo sumo 23:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for the double vote, it was inadvertent. Thanks for striking, Cogito.Derek Balsam 02:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem! :) Cogito ergo sumo 02:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Why is Wikipedia so afraid of capitalization? Do people think they will accidently become German? -  AjaxSmack  04:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not fear of captialisation, it's fear of improper capitalisation. If we succumbed to every temptation to capitalise, we would suddenly find ourselves back in the 17th century, inne whiche alle Wordes of Sufficiente Importe were Capitalized or writtene inne Italicke fonte. My main problem with this is that, while "solar system" may be describing a unique location, "solar" is never capitalised. If it were, we'd have to capitalise "solar power", "solar year" and "solar minimum". And quite frankly, it looks stupid. Like capitalising My Fridge. Serendipodous 06:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Reading the IAU recommendations, it mentions that the initial letters of the names of individual astronomical objects should be capitalised - where individual object could also mean a collection of objects in one single entity such as a specific named galaxy (e.g. Whirlpool Galaxy, Andromeda Galaxy). This would also apply to Solar System. None of "solar power", "solar year" or "solar minimum" are physical astronomical objects, so none would need to be capitalised at all. Richard B 14:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a matter of perspective, since arguably 'solar' (vis-à–vis 'stellar') is quite specific in and of itself. Even though 'solar' has entered into informal usage somewhat when pertaining to planets/systems around other stars, dictionaries always prescribe the specific usage and may indicate others: look up 'solar' itself in a dictionary and you will note that there's no indication that it applies to other stars, just Sol. And, again, there is little reason to capitalise a common term and the Wp entry when other common, reputable publications do not. Capitilisation is unnecessary. Cogito ergo sumo 15:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

As Richard B points out then, why do we capitalise both words of Andromeda Galaxy & Whirlpool Galaxy - and doing so doesn't mean we need to capitalise "galactic circle" or "galactic coordinates" or other words using galactic, so I don't see how the argument about "solar power" and "solar year" holds any weight at all in this argument. Some say that Solar System should not be capitalised because it is a generic term - bollocks. When visiting another star system, perhaps Sirius - would we really call that a visit to a solar system? Hardly, it would be a visit to the Sirius System. Just the same as ours is the Solar System. I really can't understand the arguments put against capitalisation - it is a location, and it is a unique location! Show me another place called the "Solar System" and then maybe I'll start accepting that it's a generic term. jkm 06:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

I think this another example of generic vs specific - a solar system vs The Solar System. Either way, the article needs to be rewritten slightly to match. (Just it is correct to refer to a sun in other systems, but ours is the Sun.) -- Beardo 21:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Should this discussion be closed and the article subsequently renamed? The consensus was incredibly slim (~61% by my count), but the general trend after jkm noted the IAU's recommendations was unanimous support of a rename. I'm sure the consensus would become larger if the discussion were allowed to continue. --Iamunknown 15:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with B.; otherwise, I believe closure is for a WP:RM administrator to gauge and decide. Cogito ergo sumo 21:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

layout of the solar system

CKatz and I have been engaged in a rather spririted discussion concerning his removal of the statement that the orbits of the planets are roughly double. I said that this was by and large true, as six of the solar system's ten known orbits are double; however he claims it is misleading. It is important to clarify that, at the very least, the distances between the planets are not linear; that they are not, as the picture at the top of the article suggests, the same distance apart. So how should it be phrased? Serendipodous 12:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

For reference, this is the text up for revision. It was originally in the "Layout" section: --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"By and large, the planets within the solar system are arranged so that each is roughly double the distance from the Sun as the one before it, an effect described by Bode's Law. Venus is roughly twice as far from the Sun as Mercury, Earth is roughly double the distance as Venus, Mars double that of Earth, and so on."

Well, CKatz, it looks as if the only people who care about this are you and me. Guess we have something in common after all. Beer? Serendipodous 14:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey there... sorry I've been absent from this discussion for a bit. Thanks for getting a start on the revamp. As you'll see, I've built upon what you wrote. I've changed the Venus-Earth orbital distance example to Mercury-Venus, because Earth is one of the exceptions to the layout we're attempting to describe. The Mercury-Venus spacing is comparable in AU, so it still makes a good contrast to the other two examples. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

units

Near the top, this article claims that Other units in common use include the gigametre (abbreviated as "Gm," one billion metres) and the terametre ("Tm", one trillion metres). This sounds like science-fiction cruft. Can someone provide references that demonstrate the usage is, as claimed, "common"? None of the references I use mention them. They all stop at kilometres, but prefer the AU. mdf 15:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at the Wikipedia pages for some of the more distant planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune etc.) Their infoboxes all list their orbital circumfrences in Tm. And since when are standard scientific units "science fiction"? Serendipodous 17:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we are allowed to cite Wikipedia for usage, then SI prefixes says that "At large scales, megametre, gigametre, and larger are rarely used. Often used are astronomical units, light years, and parsecs; the astronomical unit is mentioned in the SI standards as an accepted non-SI unit." This reflects my experience, as I can't recall ever having seen "Gm" or "Tm" being used, let alone "commonly". Megametre agrees re: usage, also commenting on the science-fiction connection (I've seen it in various works). The actual standard is ISO 1000. I don't want to pony up the $$$ to buy a copy, but those in the know state that it says that units larger than the kilometre are not in common use, contrary to the claim made in this artcile. Maybe things have developed since 1992, hence my request for some references. mdf 17:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok; I only put the information there in the first place because other Wiki articles used them and I felt they needed explaining. Serendipodous 07:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Asteroids

Current

Proposed

I'd like to replace the current image (seen on the left here) with a new one (seen on the right). I can tweak the color scheme, resize, etc, on request. mdf 16:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Your image looks nicer and is more informative but doesn't show up well at lo-res. You might want to change the colours of the trojans so that they appear on the same scale, because they're invisible now. Serendipodous 17:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Tweaked to use larger dots for the asteroids, but the result is still less than ideal -- I've increased the size of the image to compensate a bit. More details added to the text as well. mdf 14:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Nice job. Do you have a version without the names?! I would like to use it in the Portuguese language version. BTW can you use blue? the blue seems nicer than black.--Pedro 10:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Added the blue, and uploaded a label-less version (click on image). mdf 20:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did upload it and it was there. But now it appears to have been deleted by entites and reasons unknown. If anyone needs a copy, leave a note on my talk page. mdf 20:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Pluto

Pluto should not become a dwarf planet. its been descovered as a planet, so it should stay a planet.1;07 pm september 2 2006

By that logic, we should call America India. Serendipodous 18:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ceres was also "discovered as a planet", but after additonal discoveries it became clear that a new designation of "asteroid" was required. Similarly, for a long time Pluto was the only object in our solar system that was out there of its size, but with recent discoveries it has become apparent that if Pluto were a standard for defining a planet, we could end up with dozens of planets. The IAU addressed this by demoting Pluto as a planet because it has more in common with all of the other "junk" floating out there than it does with the other eight planets. Science does not rest on tradition - we identify our observations until new observations either confirm our theories or disprove them. Scott Osborne 19:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

but just because its small doesnt mean it cant be a planet

The definition doesn't exclude Pluto because it's small; it excludes Pluto because it doesn't dominate its region by mass. If Pluto were circling out by itself, it would certainly be a planet, but it isn't. Serendipodous 18:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur - Mercury is very small (there are moons of Saturn that are larger than Mercury), but there really isn't anything else orbiting close to it - there aren't asteroids or other chunks of rock that are similar in size, making it a planet. Pluto on the other hand, is apparently one of many similarly sized objects in the Kuiper Belt, at least one of which is larger, and so it is a dwarf planet. Scott Osborne 19:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Mercury is more than twice as massive as any satellite of any planet, and larger in radius than all but Ganymede (Jupiter), and Titan (Saturn). I think it's probably worth pointing out that, when first discovered, Pluto was believed to be a lot larger, and much more massive than the current size and mass determinations. Originally, size estimates were comparable to the Earth. Telescopes were not good enough to resolve the disc of Pluto to directly measure its size, and the satellite Charon was not discovered until 1978 - so no mass estimates could be done accurately. Determination of the size could only be done by measuring its brightness and its distance from Earth and the Sun, and estimating based on how reflective the surface is. As it turns out, Pluto's surface is very reflective - similar to that of Venus, and many times more reflective than our Moon, and most asteroids. If you make an assumption of a low reflectivity, then you reach a conclusion of a larger radius. The discovery of Charon allowed the mass of Pluto to be measured, based on the distance, and orbital period, and then in the 1980s, Pluto and the Earth were aligned so that Charon was being occulted every orbit. This allowed direct measurements of the true radius of both objects. Anyway, enough rambling - but the point is that you make measurements and determinations of what you discover based on the available evidence, but if new evidence (smaller size and mass - other, perhaps larger objects discovered) comes to light, then you must be prepared to revise your understanding of the discovered object. Richard B 16:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

matter

Somone tell me did the matter in the earth come from the same place as the matter in jupiter?

that would be a yes Eevo 18:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The theory is that all of the matter in the solar system began orbiting a central mass, and over time pools of it began swirling together making planets and the sun. So, yes, Virginia, the matter on earth more or less came from the same pool of stuff as Jupiter, Saturn, and the other planets. Scott Osborne 19:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Why are Pluto, Ceres and Xena listed separately from their populations?

Can someone provide me with a source that says that Pluto, Ceres and Xena, because they are now dwarf planets, are no longer members of the asteroid belt, the Kuiper belt or the scattered disc? Serendipodous 12:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to make the alteration. If anyone has a problem with it they can take it up here. Serendipodous 09:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Since these are major classifications this would be logical and would aid in people doing research. This being said their major category as a Dwarf Planet superseeds their minor category as an asteroid, a KBO and a Scattered Disc Object. Stating that these "Dwarf Planets" can be classified as other system objects should be mentioned also. -- UKPhoenix79 10:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The version you reverted to didn't just not mention that Pluto, Xena and Ceres were members of their populations, it specifically stated that they no longer were classified as such. I would like to know where whoever wrote that got that information, because it's news to me.

Also, I think including Pluto's, Xena's and Ceres's description paragraphs in a separate dwarf planet section is somewhat short-sighted. It's only a matter of time before Sedna, Orcus, Varuna, Quaoar, Ixion and perhaps hundreds of other objects are also listed as dwarf planets. Are we going to write descriptions for them all? Pluto is not distinctive because it is a dwarf planet; countless other objects will soon join it. Pluto is distinctive because it is the largest member of the Kuiper belt, just as Ceres is distinctive because it is the largest asteroid, and Xena is distinctive because it is the largest SDO.Serendipodous 10:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization of Solar system to keep in line with the 2006 redefinition of planet

In the 2006 redefinition of planet approved by the International Astronomical Union They have redefined the orginization of objects in the Solar system into 4 major categories. These major categories contan many of the commanly known sub categories.

• Sun
• Planets
  • Terrestrial planets
  • Gas giants
• Dwarf planets
• Small solar system body
  • Asteroids
  • Centaurs
  • Trans-Neptunian Objects (including Kuiper belt & Scattered disc objects)
  • Comets
  • possably meteoroids

These changes are in line with the new official rulings. Personally I liked having the Asteroid Belt seperating the inner and outer planets but since this is an encyclopedia we should try to keep it as encyclopedic as possable. -- UKPhoenix79 08:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This is NOT AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE REDEFINITION OF PLANET. There are TWO OTHER ARTICLES dealing with that topic. This is an article about the solar system. The solar system consists of a number of regions, many of which contain both dwarf planets and small solar system bodies together. To lump the entire asteroid belt into "small solar system bodies" is completely wrong. One asteroid is already a dwarf planet, and three more could join it. The Kuiper belt could contain hundreds of dwarf planets. The scattered disc more than that. The only group of bodies that are unequivocally all small solar system bodies are trojans, comets and centaurs. That's it. Serendipodous 08:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Where did I say that this was an article about the redef of a planet? This is keeping factual information and grouping solar system objects according to the new rulings put forth by the IAU. That ruling did change classifications of objects in our solar system, so an article about the solar system should reflect those changes. They stated that "small solar system bodies" are all solar system bodies that are not Planets or Dwarf Planets.

Therefore it refers to these objects that can be further classified based on their orbit or composition:

• all known minor planets that are not dwarf planets, i.e.:

• the classical asteroids (except the largest one, 1 Ceres);
• the Centaurs and Neptune Trojans;
• the smaller Trans-Neptunian Objects (except the dwarf planets Pluto and 2003 UB313 "Xena");

• all comets;
• It is not yet clear whether there will be a lower bound on the group of small solar system bodies, or if it will encompass all material down to the level of meteoroids.

So unless specifically stated as otherwise in the list of Dwarf Planets then the objects in those regions are small solar system bodies. Like I said personally I liked having Asteroids seperating the outer & inner planets but that is not how this enclyclopedia should list them any longer since they now are not a major class of solar system objects but a sub class of small solar system bodies. It is what it is and science changes, all we can do is accuratly list those changes as they evolve. -- UKPhoenix79 08:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Serendipodous is correct in this case - the article should reflect the layout of the solar system. There is ample opportunity to indicate what class each object belongs to within such a structure. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What you're actually arguing for is a completely different philosophy in organising this article. To do it properly, the entire article would have to be rewritten from the ground up. Right now, at least in the majority, this article is "geographically" organised. The objects in the solar system are listed according to region. If you want to list the objects in the solar system according to class, you would have to eliminate all mention of the asteroid belt (since it consists of both small solar system bodies and a dwarf planet), the Kuiper belt (ditto) and the scattered disc (ditto). Personally, I find a "class" organisation ugly and cumbersome, as it doesn't give an idea of the overall structure and layout of the solar system. Sure, the classifications "dwarf planets" and "small solar system bodies" should be mentioned, but Ceres still belongs in the asteroid belt, Pluto in the Kuiper belt and Xena in the scattered disc. Serendipodous 09:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'll edit the article in the way I think would make a good compromise. If you don't like it, revert it, but at least explain why. Serendipodous 09:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing the selection of Dwarf planets would not make sense since they are now considered a type of planet and should be seperated and listed as such. But thanks for the honest attempt. -- 09:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And again, I'll add my support for the "geographical" arrangement. There are many articles that cover the solar system on the basis of classification, but it is equally important to have a solid, easy to follow explanation of the physical system. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say that you have to eliminate all mention of the asteroid belt... Kuiper belt... and the scattered disc that dosen't make sense. Just because an object that lays inside of the small solar system bodies is considered a Dwarf Planet doesn't negate other objects. That ONE particular celestial object is now a Dwarf planet that is also a (...) just like Mercury is a Planet and a Terrestrial planet. Stating that solar system objects that are NOT planets or dwarf planets are in this group is perfectly logical! This article is not called the solar system according to geography just the solar system. While I have said that I prefere the asteroid belt seperating the inner and outer planets this is not how they are properly grouped. The only middle ground that I could see would be to organize objects past Neptune under the small solar system bodies heading thus keeping it geographic. But frankly this is still not keeping true to what Asteroids are now considered. -- UKPhoenix79 09:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You said, "I prefere the asteroid belt seperating the inner and outer planets this is not how they are properly grouped.". This is correct if you are describing the types of objects in the system. If, however, you are describing the solar system, as it would appear to an observer, than it is very much the correct way to group objects. Your concerns can be addressed very easily, merely by adding mention of the "sssb" classification in the asteroid belt section. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an article about the solar system

it is not an article about dwarf planets, small solar system bodies, or the redefinition of "planet." This article was originally laid out according to the solar system's geography; inner planets, asteroids, outer planets, kuiper belt, scattered disc, Sedna, heliopause. Now that everyone seems to want to rejig the order to emphasise the IAU's decision, it makes no sense. Ceres is not a small solar system body, but it is mentioned along with the asteroids. Pluto is not a small solar system body, but it is mentioned along with the Kuiper belt. To say nothing of the fact that the idea that this new emphasis creates the misleading impression that the solar system consists of eight planets, three dwarf planets and small solar system bodies. Many objects in the asteroid and Kuiper belts are likely to be made dwarf planets before too long. It is a mistake to place them in a "small solar system bodies" category.

And I repeat, including Pluto's, Xena's and Ceres's description paragraphs in a separate dwarf planet section is somewhat short-sighted. It's only a matter of time before Sedna, Orcus, Varuna, Quaoar, Ixion and perhaps hundreds of other objects are also listed as dwarf planets. Are we going to write descriptions for them all? Pluto is not distinctive because it is a dwarf planet; countless other objects will soon join it. Pluto is distinctive because it is the largest member of the Kuiper belt, just as Ceres is distinctive because it is the largest asteroid, and Xena is distinctive because it is the largest SDO. Serendipodous 08:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Your making an assumption about the final numbers, yet I would agree that "Sedna, Orcus, Varuna, Quaoar, Ixion" will be included in the definition of "Dwarf Planets." But there is no reason why they should not be mentioned since if the early draft of the IAU would have passed then they would have become regular planets and we would have included them in this list.

Dwarf planets are a major classification of objects in our solar system now and even though these objects will have another classifications such as a KBO. They are seperate from other "small solar system bodies" and since this is an encyclopedia it must be listed as such. I would say that it is not misleading to say that the solar system containes "eight planets, three dwarf planets and small solar system bodies" just like a month ago I would have said it wasn't misleading to say the solar system containes 9 planets. Until things change that statement is factually correct and if we find another planet (assuming that it "cleared the neighbourhood") then we will again have 9 just like how the number will rise when other objects are declared dwarf planets. This is an encyclopedia after all and we should classify things in an encyclopedic mannor. -- UKPhoenix79 08:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Even so, there is no justification for placing the asteroid belt, the Kuiper belt, and the scattered disc into "small solar system bodies", because even according to the current definition, all three regions contain dwarf planets alongside small solar system bodies. Serendipodous 08:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As I stated below all objects that are not planets and dwarf planets are considered small solar system bodies. One needs only to say that to keep with the IAUs rullings. Dont forget that they used to be major classifications for objects in the solar system but now there are only 4 Sun, Planet, Dwarf Planet and Small solar system bodies that is it. Now since this article is about the Solar system this article should reflect these new scientific terms with open arms. As science changes the enclyclopedias that contain the knowledge of science should change to reflect those changes. -- UKPhoenix79 08:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine. But as I said below, if you're going to do that, then you'd better eliminate the asteroid belt section, since you are claiming that the region is less important than the objects within it. I don't want to see this article become a mere categorised list of objects in the solar system with no notion of place within the overall structure. I want the solar system to be a skeleton. You want it to be a nicely ordered box full of bones. Serendipodous 09:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Dont understand why you think that if its organized this way that you'd have to eliminate objects in the solar system since that just does not make any sence and is not what the IAUs rullings state they state that anything not a plant or a dwarf planet are small solar system bodies that is it the cut and dry of it. They dont say that if something from that region becomes a dwarf planet all other objects should be ignored or reclassified. And I like your analogy of the body because that is what I am trying to do Classify things by their major like head, arms, torso and legs. If you were going to study the human skeliton you would devide them into their basic parts and learn from there. This is now how people are going to classify the solar system Sun, Planets, Dwarf Planets and SSSBs. -- UKPhoenix79 09:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Dont understand why you think that if its organized this way that you'd have to eliminate objects in the solar system since that just does not make any sence

Not objects. Regions. The asteroid belt is a region of the solar system that contains both a dwarf planet and sssbs. If you are going to group the solar system by either dwarf planets or sssbs, then there is no place for the asteroid belt. You can have Ceres (a dwarf planet) or asteroids (sssbs) but not the asteroid belt. Serendipodous 09:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That would make sence if Dwarf planets were regions that intersected other regions but they arn't they are special bodies that are classified differently. You did a good job earlier saying simply that SSSBs are

1. all asteroids save Ceres
2. all centaurs
3. all Trans-Neptunian Objects, including Kuiper belt & Scattered disc objects, with the exception of Pluto and 2003 UB₃₁₃
4. all comets

That is all I have been saying this whole time. All you do is say that they are EVERYTHNG save these 3 objects and that is it :) Chat to you later -- UKPhoenix79 09:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Dwarf planets were regions that intersected other regions

That't the point! They are! (well, objects that intersect other regions, rather than regions). They may be in their own separate class but they are still part of the asteroid belt, the Kuiper belt and the scattered disc! The asteroid belt is a particular region that contains both sssbs and a dwarf planet! I don't understand why you're having such difficulty understanding this.Serendipodous 09:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

S. - I've restored your re-edited version as I feel that it presents the solar system in a more logical fashion, according to layout. I also like having the subsections for Ceres and Pluto. There could probably be some revisions to incorporate (for example) information on the SSSB classification in the asteroids section. Good work, though. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Dwarf Planets are small planets and will be taught that way. These objects are SPECIAL objects in the solar system. They do not negate other objects in the area but are considered different and thusly are classified differtly. They are unique objects in the solar system and are grouped together because of their unique nature. They are a part of a region of space we all know that since all objects in the solar system can be grouped together. Using the Asteroid belt as an example just because one object inside of it is a Dwarf Planet does not mean that everything else cannot be listed as a SSSB since they are.

Dwarf Planets must be listed seperatly just like all of the other planets must be listed seperatly also. Dwarf planets are second only to Planets when it comes to major objets within the solar system so we must list them as special objects within our solar system. The only reason I put forth the idea of grouping other SSSBs into one category is because that is the proper scientific thing to do. I have said before that I prefer having Asteroids listed geographically so if people end up not liking the idea I am ok with that. But not having the Dwarf Planets listed together as they should would be compleatly incorrect. Like I said before if the early draft of the IAU would have passed the would have become planets (as would several other objects) and we would have listed them umong the other 8. They decided to create the classification of Dwarf Planet and those objects need to get the same respect as the larger planets do. -- UKPhoenix79 10:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

believe me I do want this to get resolved but I have to get some sleep for work but please use the talk page to help work out this issue -- UKPhoenix79 10:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ceres is described as a dwarf planet in the introduction to this article. Ceres is described as a dwarf planet in the "Dwarf planets and small solar system bodies" section. Ceres is described as a dwarf planet in the main section for the asteroid belt. And Ceres is described as a dwarf planet in its own subsection. There is simply no need to describe Ceres as a dwarf planet a fifth time. Yes. Ceres is a dwarf planet. That is why it, and it alone, over and above all the millions of other asteroids, gets its own subsection in the asteroid belt. That is also why Pluto, even though there are probably other dwarf planets soon to join it, gets its own section in Kuiper belt, and that is why Xena gets its own section in Scattered disc. This article arranges the objects in the solar system by region, not by class. That doesn't mean that class is not mentioned. To change the article in the way you intend would require it to be completely rewritten. Serendipodous 10:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

File:Planets2006.jpg

Planets and Dwarf Planets of the solar system.

As regards my reversion: I didn't initially revert it. But since someone else did, it's quite clear that my position is shared by others on this board, and that you are in the minority. My subsequent reversion merely reflected majority opinion. Serendipodous 10:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Conversations about other planets or mentions about other planets does not preclude them from being included as planets. If things are getting redundent then remove the redundancies. But excluding special objects from other simalar special objects doesnt make sense either. If we were going to have children read this they would not be thinking where could the dwarf planets be located in the solar system but want to have them listed. These are special objects and should be treated as such. I am in agreement that there will be more added sooner than later but that should not preclude them from being mantioned when they are declared as such. Even the new picture of the solar system included Dwarf Planets as a different and seperate class of planet, but still an important one. And if ONE other person is a majority in wikipedia when the discussion has been up for over an hour I dont think that is right. Please lets try to get a real response before a majority is called! -- UKPhoenix79 10:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You still do not understand. And I have no idea how I am going to get you to understand except to repeat what I have already said about six times. This article is not arranged by class. This article is arranged by region. If it were arranged by class, there would be no "inner planets" section and no "outer planets" section. Instead, there would simply be a "planets" section, and all planets would be grouped together. There would be no mention of the asteroid belt, only a mention of Ceres among the dwarf planets and the asteroids among minor solar system bodies. There would be no mention of the Kuiper belt, only Pluto among dwarf planets and the remaining KBOs under minor solar system bodies. There would be no mention of the scattered disc, only Xena among the dwarf planets. There would be no mention of the heliopause or of the heliospheric current sheet, because they fall outside the boundaries of class. The fact that the three dwarf planets are indeed dwarf planets is amply mentioned in this article; please do not disrupt its regional structure to hammer the point home unnecessarily. Serendipodous 11:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Im with Serendipidous on this one -- Nbound 11:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with Serendipidous Scott Osborne 02:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Layout of Photos & text in article

Maybe its just me, but if you decide to edit the article, please, please make sure that when you are done there aren't any big ugly spaces between headings and the start of the text or pictures pushing the words into the center of the page - make sure it looks tidy, like an encyclopedia should. It looks like this article is a candidate for good or featured status, and if the arrangement of the article looks sloppy, that idea is going to get shot down. Scott Osborne 02:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It's difficult to plan for that sort of thing, because different computers will show the layout differently. I haven't noticed any big gaps on my computer screen. Ironically, your alterations have actually made the article harder to read for me. Serendipodous 07:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I just tried a different formulation; how does that look? Serendipodous 20:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding relative distances of orbits and the Kuiper belt

I noticed that neither the previous version of the final paragraph of "Layout," nor the most recent version, give justice to the nuances of planetary orbits or to the scientific modesl thereof. The article contradicts itself by saying that, "...the classical Kuiper belt begins roughly 10 AU from the orbit of Neptune," (last paragraph of Layout) and then later saying the Kuiper belt "...actually begins inside the orbit of Neptune...." (Second paragraph of Kuiper belt). Also, merely calling historical attempts to explain planetary orbits "unsuccessful" denies them [the theories] the human effort that attempted to create them and the intrinsic verve that inspired later more "modern" theories.

I propose here that we not mention either historical or contemporary theories in that particular line of the main article, but that we instead add a footnote detailing which theory from antiquity set the precedent of searching for a model and which contemporary theories exist in pursuit of said model.

Since I am afraid of being "bitten" by the "Be Bold"-sayers, I say now that I am proposing this as opposed to doing it since I am not a particularly experienced editor myself, nor do I know many particular details concerning the minutia of the solar system, nor am I willing to fully engage myself in this article as it has a long, detailed, and embittered history which I am unwilling to engage myself in.

Thank you.

--Iamunknown 05:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

That is not necessarily a contradiction. The classical belt is different from the resonant belt, which begins before the orbit of Neptune. According to Wikipedia's own Kuiper belt article, the classical belt begins at roughly the 2:3 resonance (that is, 39.5 AU, or 9.5 AU farther out than Neptune). Perhaps that could be elaborated on in the Kuiper belt article. The whole issue can be avoided anyway by simply saying that Neptune's orbit is roughly 20 AU farther out than that of Uranus.In fact that would make a lot more sense. I'll switch it.

The whole issue of Bode's Law, which seems to attract a lot of speculation, is one that this article has deliberately shied away from. The main reason for that is that, first of all, Bode's law does not fit all the orbits, particularly for Neptune, but also for "Xena". People across the spectrum of amateur science have expended a great deal of effort trying to solve the discepancies of Bode's law; however that does not mean that, until a solution emerges that is scientifically reviewed and accepted, that this article, which is first and foremost scientific, should give them credence. Serendipodous 09:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Would it be responsible to mention the quixotic attempts to solve the discrepancies in Bode's law? I do not propose putting the amateur theories at an equal footing as Bode's law, but perhaps we could move both Bode's law and any mention of amateur attempts to a footnote. --Iamunknown 19:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No. This is not an article about Bode's law. Even putting that info into a footnote in the Bode's law article would be a contentious decision. Serendipodous 20:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"Rafie's Law"

Chantelle2004 rewrote the last sentence of the "Layout" section as follows:

OLD TEXT: "Attempts have been made to determine a correlation between these distances (see Bode's Law, Rafie’s Law), but to date there is no accepted theory that explains the respective orbital distances."

NEW TEXT: "Unsucessful attempts have been made in the past to determine a correlation between these distances (see Bode's Law). However a recent paper published in the Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions Journal (see Rafie’s Law), calculates the orbital distance as a function of the orbital number, the eccentricity and the inclination of the orbits."

I'm concerned about this reference to "Rafie's Law", and whether or not it is an appropriate addition to the article. I've done a bit of Googling this evening and I can't find any references to the term "Rafie's Law". Frank Rafie seems to trace back to Lake Washington Technical College in the state of Washington, USA. The reference source listed in the Rafie's Law article is listed for sale here, with the following description:

"...The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that the specific angular momentum (angular momentum per unit mass) of any planet in the Solar System can be expressed in terms of the specific angular momentum of the planet Mercury and, consequently, to prove that the semi-major axis of any planet, asteroid or comet can be expressed as a multiple of the semi-major axis of Mercury."

The paper is categorized as a research paper, and it was published in Astronomical & Astrophysical Transactions, described as "the Journal of the Eurasian Astronomical Society". The journal is described as "...a forum for the rapid publication of material from all modern and classical fields of astronomy and astrophysics, as well as material concerned with astronomical instrumentation and related fundamental sciences. It includes both theoretical and experimental original research papers, short communications, review papers and conference reports."

No slight intended against Chantelle2004, and my sincere apologies if there are any errors on my part. However, the editor's only edits to date are to write the article about the "law" and then insert statements in this article that (in my opinion) presents it as the "solution" to an old problem. Given PlanetCeres's recent attempts to spam information about the "New Bode Adjustment" (a revision of Bode's Law), I'd like to open this up for discussion before the text is returned to the article. (This may also be affected by discussion of Iamunknown's points above.) Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Voortle, can you please explain why you are reverting Eris's name?

It's official. It's been officially listed by the Minor Planet Center. That's its name. What's the problem?

EDIT: Hmm. I'm confused. Anyway. Seems like you changed it back. OK. No hard feelings. Serendipodous 03:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

fixed vandalism

I restored the previous version. Someone had vandalized the page and replaced it with something inappropriate. See page history.

The disambiguation link at the top of the page

The text of the disambiguation header was changed to read "the solar system around the star Sol". I have changed this back, as I believe that this is incorrect, there being only one "solar" system - ours. As well, the text introduces a less common name for the Sun, without explanation. The original text is simple, concise, and easy to undertand. I think that a change akin to what Lord Patrick wants should be discussed first. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Badly written and tautological. There is no officially agreed generic term for "solar system", and until there is it's best ot avoid confusion. Serendipodous 02:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If there is no agreed generic term for "solar system"...

why are we going around using "stellar system" as if we were some kind of authority? If Wikipedia doesn't set standards, why are we claiming that the solar system is a stellar system, when the dictionary definition for stellar system specifically excludes single stars? Serendipodous 07:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Sol might not be a single starred system. Lord Patrick 09:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Nemesis is hypothetical... theres no other evidence for it then occasional mass extinctions -- Nbound 12:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Per Talk:Star system, the case hasn't really been proven that usage of the term to refer to single(-)star systems like the Solar System is incorrect. Until it is, IMO it is just as fallacious to indicate that there is no 'agreeable' term. Cogito ergo sumo 12:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Not "agreeable." Agreed. There are plenty of agreeable generic terms for "solar system." I personally find the word "cerulean" very agreeable. Does that mean that I should insist that all solar systems be called "cerulean systems"? The terminology in this case has not been settled officially, and until it is we should not jump to conclusions regarding the choice astronomers will ultimately settle on. Serendipodous 14:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

True (though use of 'cerulean' in this instance is a red herring and will be treated as such); I don't think we're jumping to conclusions, though, since usage by non-experts (particularly in science fiction) apparently differs. In the interim, perhaps we merely need to edit the lead to replace 'stellar system' with either 'star system' or just 'system' (which then elaborates) -- if this is acceptable, I will edit to reflect the latter. Cogito ergo sumo 14:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Age of the Solar System

What is the age of the solar system? I couldn't find it in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.63.248.235 (talk)

It'd depend how you measured it... but using the age of the Sun would be good enough -- Nbound 10:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Footers

This article doesn't need two solar system footers, surely? RandomCritic 15:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I say pick whichever one you like best and go with it. Serendipodous 15:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As nobody presented any counter-arguments for five weeks, I decided to be bold; however, my boldness got instantly reverted. To be sure, I do understand the reverter's concerns. The table is not bad in itself, and it could probably be integrated into this article in some way to increase its overall informativity. What I (and certainly User:RandomCritic as well) oppose is its current location within the article, which screams "I am a navigation template!" That shouldn't be its role unless it's the one used in the planet articles as well. Two navigation templates for the same class of articles is just silly. -- Jao 13:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops... apologies, didn't see the discussion thread here. I thought it was just someone removing a template that has some interesting and useful information. (I like the expanded detail.) Feel free to revert me if you wish. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Full Scale Model

I noticed that there are very few full scale models of the solar system that show the Sun in its entirety. I thought the following might prove useful:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar-system-attributed.png

Thangalin 13:56, 22 October 2006 (PST)

would be difficult to work into the article. Serendipodous 10:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Formation

Before I resubmit this article for Good Article consideration, I think the formation section needs to be revised, expanded and referenced. Unfortunately I don't know enough about that topic to do it. Can anyone help? Serendipodous 10:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You can use a mnemonic to remember all the nine planets. e.g.

Mr. Venus Eats My Jam Sandwiches Up North Path

Trimming

I've been considering ways to make this article smaller, and the best I can come up with is to either completely remove or radically shorten the "Discovery and Exploration" section, perhaps incorporating its information into Timeline of solar system astronomy and space exploration. A reviewing peer also suggested compressing the inner and outer planets sections into single paragraphs, mentioning but not explaining the planets, and allowing the links to do the work. What do you think? Serendipodous 20:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Trim "Discovery", yes, radically shorten/remove - not a good idea. Same with the "Planets" sections - they're pretty short as it is. The article should provide a broad overview of the Solar System, and there is a lot of stuff out there to cover. Nice work on cleanup, by the way. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. :) It seems like I've been working on this article for ever (It's been a year; I checked). I still hope to get it a Good Article gong. I think a Feature may be out of reach; the topic is simply too broad. Anyhoo, thanks for all your help; I really do appreciate it. Serendipodous 00:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

When I was reviewing this article, I felt like I needed to ask myself at every sentence "how does this relate to the Solar System as a whole?" As I did that, many of the descriptions of planets an their indidual features felt kinda extraneous. I realize that a short description of every planet illustrates the diversity of surfaces found in our solar system, but what do sentences like "[Mercury] has no natural satellite, and its only known geological features besides impact craters are "wrinkle ridges" probably produced by a period of contraction early in its history." relate to the Solar System? If it had volcanic constructs would it tell us something different about the main topic? Many of the planetary sections came across as a miniature review of the solar system's components rather than about the Solar System itself.--Will.i.am 03:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As for "Discovery", I like that section and agree with Ckatz about trimming, but not deleting. "How we know about the Solar System" is important to "What we know". Although, I might remove the Phoenix image, because it's a point-source instrument package designed to study just one spot on Mars, which again doesn't seem relevant to the solar system as a whole. How about a image of Voyager instead?--Will.i.am 03:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried to relate the inner planets to each other as the inner planets: Mercury's lack of internal geological activity makes it the freak of the set, while Earth, which is the only inner planet to have multi-plate tectonics, is the most "archetypal". My original drafting contained some value-judgement language, but that was rightly criticised as personal opinion, rather than fact. I'm not all that certain how to relate the terrestrials to the Solar System as a whole, other than to mention that many of the moons of the outer planets also possess terrestrial features. Serendipodous 05:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

animal life?

the section on galactic content talks about animal life as if 'animal life' is generic across the galixy as opposed to 'animal life' meaning belonging to the animal kingdom specific to Earth. I think the term 'animal life' should be changed to something like 'life' or 'biological life' or 'astrobiological life'... well something more generic anyway (outside of earth). -- anonymous coward —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.206.36 (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Good point; that is a rather cumbersome phrase. Switched it to something simpler. Serendipodous 16:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Formation

This article has a problem, and one that I've been trying different ways to address, in that the Formation section mentions the Solar wind, but that term isn't explained until the Sun section. The problem is that in order to shift it to its proper place it would have to go after "Farthest regions" or "galactic context" and I think it really belongs near the beginning. What do you think? Serendipodous 00:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it is really a problem, given that the term is linked to the "solar wind" article. However, you could try putting "Formation" ahead of "Layout". That should still flow well. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Tried that out, but I don't think formation works there; I think the article works better explaining what the Solar System is before explaining how it formed. Serendipodous 00:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Citations for the Formation section

This article is almost complete (or at least as complete as I can make it); the only major hole is the lack of two citations in the Formation section. The uncited information is too important to delete; however, I have not been able to locate any citations, scholarly or otherwise, which either support or refute the information presented, and believe me, I have looked. I would appreciate it if someone with better knowledge of the research tools in this field could fill that hole. Thank you. Serendipodous 17:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Well this was harder than I was expecting. I think the first citation needed (100 AU for the size of the uncollapsed solar nebula, if I'm reading that right) is incorrect. Pluto is already at ~40 AU and some comets apparantly have orbits greater than 50,000 AU [3], so I had a hard time imagining that the primordial solar nebula would be that small. Then I found a reference here that puts the diameter between 1 and 3 x 10¹⁷ cm (depending on if you believe this article or its predecessors). Doing the math ends us up at a number between 10,000 and 20,000 AU. Hope this helps with that first one!--Will.i.am 12:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! That did indeed help, though it's a shame it didn't mention mass. Weird factoid; all the pages I can find Googling "mass of the solar nebula" give a figure less than the mass of the Sun, which would seem to be impossible. Perhaps they mean additional mass? Since we're unlikely to find an estimation of mass that uses the exact same diameter listed in that article, we might have to work out the mass ourselves. (Knowing the mass of the various elements, the average density of the solar nebula, and assuming the nebula to be essentially spherical). On the plus side, I did manage to find a citation for the other fact, which included a citation for a necessary fact that wasn't in the article before! Serendipodous 13:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Resonance

I read this passage several times to make sure that I understood what it was saying. The page reports that "Pluto lies in the resonant belt, having a 3:2 resonance with Neptune (ie, it orbits three times round the Sun for every two Neptune orbits." This is backwards. All the resonance figures that are here are backwards. If I am reading this incorrectly, forgive me, as I am dyslexic, but that is how I read it. Cosumel 01:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Youch. Thanks for spotting that; I'm a bit dyslexic myself, actually :-) Serendipodous 18:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if I was right, then the other referrences need to be changed too. The resonanace for the Hildas are correct because they orbit closer to the sun than Jupiter, but the other Keiper belt objects are all further than Neptune. I am going to change them, but please check that I did it right. Cosumel 12:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Mass of Solar System

In this article, it says: "Jupiter and Saturn account for more than 90% of the system's remaining mass"

Yet in List of solar system objects by mass a little math shows that Jupiter and Saturn account for less then 10% of the solar system's mass (not counting the Sun).

LEitK 03:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)LEitK

If you compare mass to the Sun, Jupiter and Saturn are not very large. If you exclude the Sun, Jupiter and Saturn seem large compared to everything else such as the Earth. --JWSchmidt 03:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No, but that list suggests that the total mass of the solar system is something like sun + 20 Jupiters, which seems too large to me. Dragons flight 03:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion: do not trust the numbers in that list for the mass of the Sun and the mass of the Solar System. I do not see any reliable sources cited. --JWSchmidt 04:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I'm surprised that the mass article makes that claim. Together, Jupiter and Saturn account for 413 Earth masses. The combined mass of the two remaining gas giants is 31 Earth masses; the combined mass of the entire inner solar system including the moons and the asteroid belt is barely two Earth masses (1.989792 Earth masses, according to Wikipedia's own figures). Even if you include all the remaining mass, from moons, comets KBO's and the like, the total could never equal more than at most two to three Earth masses. The Kuiper belt's estimated mass is barely that of the Earth (and most likely lower than that), a negligable difference. According to that list, the total mass of all the moons in the Solar System excluding our own is less than 565 Yg, or one tenth of an Earth mass. (I used a calculator, if anyone's wondering). That makes a rough total combined mass of 34.1 Earth masses, which is less than ten percent the combined masses of Jupiter and Saturn. This is likely an overestimation, but it would account at least for all of the dust and other particles which usually get ignored. I just added a reference explaining this. Serendipodous 10:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

PLUTO

pluto should still be a planet.

--151.199.15.116 17:56, 7 January 2007 ngiendola

• Ooookaaayy... Serendipodous 13:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ceres

It appears that the article about Ceres has been vandelised. Is it possible to re-write the article? This ahs since been rectified.

I've done as much as I can for this article

I've just renominated it for "Good Article" status. If it's not good now, then I can't make it good. Serendipodous 14:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks good to me, but if you don't mind I have just a few minor comments:

• The focus is actually a point just outside the centre of the Sun called the barycenter of the solar system. Isn't the barycenter different for each orbiting body?
• As the nebula collapsed, conservation of angular momentum meant that it spun faster, and became warmer. Is the heat from the contraction (and increasing pressure) or from the conversion of rotational energy? This sentence implies the later.
• The "Outer planets" section is devoid of references.
• The article switches between "center" and "centre".

Thank you. — RJH (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I can reference the outer planets section, since I wrote it, but as for the rest, I don't know. I assume that "became warmer" refers to the increase in pressure due to contraction. As regards centre/center, I'm a Brit, so I write "centre"; Americans will obviously write "center". I can see the value of regularised spelling, but I can't think of a rational justification for enforcing one spelling over another. I can understand the idea of using only British spellings for British subjects and American spellings for American subjects, but who "owns" the Solar System? Serendipodous 23:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't have a good answer regarding the center/centre issue, other than to point to the WP:MoS#Disputes_over_style_issues topic. But I'm sure somebody will eventually come along and change them all one way or the other. — RJH (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Obviously they haven't worked this out fully yet, which is understandable; this is the kind of problem that could only occur on Wikipedia and Wikipedia has to make its rules up as it goes along. What they seem to suggest (somewhat half-heartedly) is that the prime contributor (which would be me) dictates the style. OK. But that would entail me moderating every hapless US contributor and altering his work to make it more British, which seems a bit unfair. I think I'll leave well alone for now. Serendipodous 00:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I just did an update to deal with the focus/barycenter issue. --EMS | Talk 20:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It reads much better now Serendipodous 00:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: the 'getting warmer' issue. Both senses are correct: as the nebula contracts the increased pressure will generate some heat, while the inner regions (which rotate faster) will be dynamically warmer due to the higher kinetic energies. I guess it could be argued either way as to what the author meant, but compression seems the better candidate. Perhaps it should be rephrased so that the 'spun faster' comment isn't implicated as part of the heating process? Spiral Wave 17:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. After a month of revisions I can now safely say that I have absolutely, positively, completely and utterly done as much as I can for this article. The only thing I think it's missing is some info on cosmic rays in the Interplanetary medium section, but I don't know enough about them to find decent sources. Serendipodous 18:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you deserve a medal. Or one of those star things! Just to keep you on your toes, I've added a bit about cosmic rays; but the last sentence (or two) might want moving to the heliopause section. You know your way around the article better than anyone else, so I'll let you decide. If you do remove them, I can easily add another sentence or two about their effects on planetary atmospheres or life instead, if it needs beefing up. Spiral Wave 00:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's nice to feel appreciated :). I've fiddled with the info and split it into the two sections. Odd thing; a lot of the main articles this article links to are now shorter than their subsections in this article. I don't know whether that means those articles are too small or this article is too big. Serendipodous 09:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass

I do not think there is much more to be done. I am assuming that the pictures are all from NASA and are thus public domain so somebody may want to check the tags, but that is about it. This article should probably be nominated for Featured Article status.--Jorfer 16:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have now nominated the article as a featured article candidate. Atomic1609 17:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge with "Outer solar system"?

Inner solar system already redirects here, and much of the information in outer solar system is already mentioned in this article, though in less detail. I'm considering whether it would be worth merging the info in Outer solar system to this article. Serendipodous 14:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm planning on performing the merge within the next four days. If anyone feels it's not a good idea, let me know. Serendipodous 14:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the 'farthest regions' section already in this article, the merge makes sense to me. Spiral Wave 15:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've merged everything in that article that wasn't in this with this one, at least all of the sourced material. The only source I couldn't add was this one [4], because, although I admit I may be reading it incorrectly, I don't see how comet impacts could result from supernovas, unless the shock disturbed the oort cloud, which that article doesn't mention. Some paragraphs from outer solar system also got merged with Formation and evolution of the solar system. Serendipodous 22:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That work behind that physorg article is claiming that the comets were remnants of a supernova itself - bits of expelled stellar core - not anything from our Solar System. It's not impossible, but, well, that's a discussion for elsewhere.

At any rate, I don't think that level of detail belongs in this article, but it might be worthy of a sentence or two in comets. Spiral Wave 00:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I added it and a single line to "galactic context" Serendipodous 22:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a good fit, nicely spotted. The sentence beforehand bore no relation to the reference it cited, so I rearranged the lot so it slides together a bit more smoothly. Spiral Wave 15:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Section headings

Hmmm... I'm not convinced that removing the sub-section headings for the planets (etc.) helps. It's now a lot harder to locate specific topics. Given the vast range of information in this article, it would be better to restore the headings. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel the same way, personally, but a lot of people, not just those on the FAC review, have complained that there are too many section headings, or that the TOC is too big. The problem is where to draw the line. Removing the section headings for Jupiter, Mars et al may seem like a good idea, but it ultimately necessitates removing all the other section headings too. After all, why should Ceres have its own section if Jupiter doesn't? I'll put the section headings back for now until we can come up with a compromise. Serendipodous 21:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see both sides of the argument... there's a lot of info there, but the divisions are entirely natural. Perhaps it would be sufficient to remove the headings for the 8 planets? People pretty much know what to expect in those sections, and the five short paragraphs, with boldened wikilinks, split up each of those two sections quite nicely without needing additional descriptors. In contrast, people are less likely to be familiar with the asteroid belt, galactic context, etc., so having subdivisions there brings out the important features that readers might not otherwise be aware of. Spiral Wave 01:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've tested a slightly different presentation, using bold/big text to duplicate the "look" of the sub-sections, while keeping the titles out of the TOC. (From what I could discern, the concern at the FA discussion was in regards to the size of the TOC as opposed to the subsections themselves.) It also balances things a bit, since it seems odd to "call out" the dwarf planets and Sedna when the planets aren't that way. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me; my browser settings don't seem to have a problem with it. Serendipodous 11:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem arises as to whether the individual considers it 'calling out' something absolutely above all others - eg Ceres is mentioned but Jupiter isn't! - or whether each section is taken on its own merits - eg you expect to see the four giants listed, but someone looking at 'asteroid belt' may not expect to see Ceres, in which case it needs highlighting. I don't think there's going to be a perfect solution whatever you do, and what is/isn't given a subsection is always going to be arbitrary, but the current setup looks okay to me. Spiral Wave 12:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of "faking" section headings. I just spent a moment confused about the lack of section-edit links, and this will defeat attempts to change the appearance of section headings via CSS. Since the planets are all of the form "header, single paragraph", how about trying out a definition list format instead? Or alternately, instead of faking headers, how about using NOTOC and faking a custom table of contents instead? Bryan Derksen 08:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "definition list format", but if you mean removing the headers for the planet paragraphs, that's an OK idea in principle, but it leaves the article in the somewhat absurd position of Jupiter being listed together with the gas giants, while Ceres has its own subsection. As for creating an alternate TOC, I don't know how to do that. Serendipodous 09:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A definition list goes:

Mercury

The first planet from the Sun, quite the little hottie.

Venus

The second planet from the Sun, also quite hot.

Earth

The third planet from the Sun, etc.

Ceres wouldn't have to be left out of this, one can have a definition list with just one member:

Ceres

Ceres (2.77 AU) is the largest body in the asteroid belt and its only dwarf planet. It has a diameter of slightly under 1000 km, large enough for its own gravity to pull it into a spherical shape. Ceres was considered a planet when it was discovered in the nineteenth century, but was reclassified as an asteroid in the 1850s as further observation revealed additional asteroids. It was again reclassified in 2006 as a dwarf planet.

The idea for faking a TOC would involve adding the __NOTOC__ magic word, which suppresses the display of the table of contents, and then adding a hand-crafted table of contents to the top. Here's a template that has an example of a hand-crafted table of contents: {{CompactTOC3}}. The downside is that we'd have to manually update the table of contents whenever the section headings were changed.

As yet another option, we might try allowing the table of contents to expand and float it left or right instead. {{TOCleft}} and {{TOCright}} can do that. I suspect it'd be hard to pull off in this article, though, since there are so many images; in my experience floating stuff with lots of images can get messy. Want me to create a sandbox version and prototype some of these ideas? Bryan Derksen 09:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've tested the "definition" layout on the inner planets section - see what you think. It does seem to work better than the "faked" look (my idea, btw) with one drawback - the text doesn't wrap under the images. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. From the start, my only concern about the layout has been that it must be consistent. As long as it is applied similarly throughout the article, I don't really care what format is used. Serendipodous 09:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the other sections. We might have to play around with the images a bit - they don't position quite as easily with the definition format. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've tried a different format for the images. On my screen at least, they're not crowding out the text too much. Serendipodous 10:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks great to me, and I use the classic skin and a widescreen monitor so that hopefully shows the layout is robust in "nonstandard" situations too. Bryan Derksen 10:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

... on reaching FA. Good work. --Ideogram 01:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

and thank you and everyone else who helped. Serendipodous 08:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Superbly illustrated article

Greatly enjoyed the graphics and pictures included in this article. Very informative by themselves. Well done, editors! AppleJuggler 04:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you :) Serendipodous 18:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Galactic Context

"Evidence suggests that the Solar System has remained between spiral arms for most of the existence of life on Earth, avoiding radiation from supernovae in spiral arms that could theoretically sterilize planetary surfaces and prevent the formation of complex life."

Citation on not, this is still not right. The crossing time is somewhere between ~140 Myr (e.g. Shaviv 2002) and ~400 Myr (e.g. Amaral and Lepine 1997). Either case is much less than the ~3.5 Gyr that life has existed on Earth, so encounters are something that life had to deal with, including complex life during the last encounter. The astrobiology reference doesn't suggest that spiral arms would either sterilize the surface or prevent complex life, only that they would cause "disruptions". Most of the stuff about preventing complex life in the reference is associated instead with the intense radiation of the galactic core, not the arms. I am again going to remove this sentence which is just wrong science. Dragons flight 07:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reinserted the line about spiral arms, but revised it so that it more accurately reflects the information provided in the citation. Serendipodous 09:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, why are there only 8 planets in the solar system?

I've been looking through much of the literature written in the last 70 years and basically all books state there are 9 planets in the solar system, not 8 as is stated at the beginning of the article. You are obviously missing Pluto, the planet discovered in 1930 by Clyde W. Tombaugh. Maybe this article hasn't been updated in a while, I don't know. My source is the book: "Solar System" by Nigel Hey, copyright 2005. I think this planet should be added to the list, it is in most other books about the solar system, including university level Astronomy and Astrophysics textbooks. It's something you guys should look into, especially since this is the featured article, many people will be looking at it and wondering why there is an ENTIRE planet missing from the solar system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.56.97 (talk • contribs)

Didn't you hear? Pluto was demoted to a dwarf planet last year. --LuigiManiac 03:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Pluto's status had always been problematic, and even recent books will discuss its anomalous characteristics. As other Kuiper Belt objects were discovered, Pluto appeared more and more just to be one of the largest KBOs, and less and less like the major planets. In 2006, it was reclassified (see 2006 definition of planet). This is not without precedent: Ceres was initially considered a planet, but when other, similar objects were discovered in a similar orbit, the whole lot of them were reclassified as asteroids. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this should have been covered more prominently in the article? It's a common misconception. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Pluto's status was demoted by one international body in a controversial decision. There are plenty of people who disagree with their decision, including me. The article should be changed to say something like "eight or nine planets, depending on how planets are classified". Bubbha 12:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Not by "one" international body, by the international body. However much you disagree with this decision (as do I), it is the "official" one.

Of course it is rather ironic that Eris, named after the goddess for discord and strife, caused this whole mess... ;o) --dllu 15:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think people were aware of the associations when they named Eris after all the discord and strife. Gnixon 16:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

FWIW - Soon after Pluto was discovered, it was thought based on its brightness that it could be as big as Mars. As time went on more and more evidence accumulated that this was a small object with a very high albedo (or reflectivity) instead of a larger object with a more "normal" albedo. Had it been as big a Mars, it most likely would still be called a planet even with the other Kuiper Belt objects around.

Also, do be advised the Ceres and three of the other asteroids were considered to be planets after they were discovered, but as the number of known asteroids grew they came to be classified as minor planets and removed from the "pantheon" of the planets. So the demotion of Pluto has its precedent. --EMS | Talk 20:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I know all about the demotion and it still feels viscerally wrong to read about "the eight planets", like generations of school children are crying out in pain. Sigh. Dragons flight 20:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad Pluto was demoted. If it wouldn't have been, we would have kept finding more and more "planets". If I remember correctly, if Pluto wasn't classified as a dwarf-planet, it was proposed to have the official number of planets at around 12-15 (plus more undiscovered). · AO ^Talk 21:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

And having lots more planets would have been exciting.  ;-) Dragons flight 21:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I know this whole thread has wandered off-topic, but I just want to say they seem to have decided planets should be more like continents than countries. There are 7 continents on Earth, for no particular reason, since the definition of "continent" is basically arbitrary. Instead, they could have (and would have) adopted a definition more like "country", which is easier to define, and there are hundreds of them. --Doradus 21:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Dragon - There are going to be "lots more" albeit of the dwarf planet variety. That is why the new category got created and Pluto tossed into it: Not only are Eris and Ceres out these, but there are three other asteroids and up to 6 other trans-Neptunian objects that may be called dwarf planets in future. And that is from what we have so far discovered. BTW - Most models of solar system formation predict the existance Earth-sized TNOs even father out. There are only a few of these, but when they are found the planet debate will be re-ignited. (However, don't hold your breath waiting for their discovery. It may require the next generation of telescopes to find them if they exist.) --EMS | Talk 03:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please remember this page is only for discussing improvements to the article. Gnixon 03:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And this got past notability... how?

Once again, the Space Trek geeks at Wikipedia embarrass themselves by making something no actual scholar gives two ****s about into one of their "best of". First it was All your base, then Torchic, then Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and now this. Apparently for Wikipedes, fancruft = featured. Look, this isn't Memory Alpha, people. Leave your stupid sci-fi garbage at the door. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.154.65.1 (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure whether this is a troll or a joke. Either way, it's silly :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 11:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The Solar System is sci-fi garbage? Perhaps the next featured article should be NASCAR, to keep the plebs happy. 91.109.133.21 16:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No, according to this guy's history it should be something like this: Dick Clark Productions ;o) --dllu 16:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, it's the IP of all the computers at the same school, so you can't necessarily conflate the two. Anyway, you do have to admit the Solar System is, at best, very high-class science fiction. ;=o (emoticontest! apparently…) 66.195.210.117 01:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean we are all fiction? That the world as we know it does not exist? Do I exist, do you exist, does anyone reading this exist? I guess all of the fictional characters categories should be filled to their virtual bursting points, with all of the so-called "real" people. (Note: In case anyone takes this the wrong way, this is not meant to be insulting) --LuigiManiac 01:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously Solar System is notable. No need to get so excited, everyone. Please don't feed the trolls. Gnixon 01:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Making the case for splitting off "Discovery and Exploration"

I really feel that, if I were to split off the "Discovery and Exploration" section, and merge it with a properly sourced, upgraded Timeline of solar system astronomy, I could create a very informative and interesting article that tackled the history of our understanding of the heavens. This new article would be directly linked under this article's title, to ensure that its importance would not be missed.Serendipodous 16:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind there are already several timeline articles for space exploration; in particular, the timeline of solar system exploration is fearsomely comprehensive. While something that gives a bit more at-a-glance detail could be a good idea - the topic is bewilderingly large - I really can't see what to do other than expand the existing list you named. The problem is that there are already different (sets of) lists for astronomy and space exploration. Do you mean to somehow splice the best of these together? Spiral Wave 18:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

...Plus, would such an endeavour need to be a merge, or a new article? Exactly which 'space exploration' missions count as 'astronomy' according to that article is worryingly random. It looks like it could use a firm hand either way. Spiral Wave 18:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of creating a new article called "Discovery and exploration of the solar system" and converting it from a timeline into more of a narrative. My focus would be on discovery, rather than missions. New moons, new features, new concepts, so that not every space mission would be mentioned, only those which rewrote the maps. Serendipodous 19:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that seems sensible, as long as it remains a history rather than a story. It would work as a companion piece to the article you pointed out, but with plenty more detail on the 20th century, I suppose. Before you go any farther, perhaps you should ask for suggestions/opinions over at the Astronomical Objects project (as that seems to be the largest astronomy group)? Spiral Wave 21:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that article sounds like a great idea. Gnixon 01:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

One thing that I noticed was missing from this section (split or not), was the Moon landings (by man). Other explorations (flyby, orbiting, unmanned landings) are referenced, but not manned. Is this an oversight or by design? I do not want to expand the section if it was by design. Rhoadrunner 20:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you think we should get this page semi-protected?

It's just that most of the last 30-odd revisions have been either vandals or people reverting vandals. I have noticed that this page does seem to attract them; must be the fact that it's a fairly well-known topic. I'm not sure what the threshold is for semi-protection though. Serendipodous 19:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad we've been able to avoid any protection. Gnixon 01:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Me too, but I think we need to do it now. This is just ridiculous. --dllu 16:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

yes - over about 15 to 20 IP vandals a day is certainly past the threshold := sbandrews (t) 16:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Request filed. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 16:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

...and declined, apparently because it's today's featured article. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 17:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes that's right. Once it is not anymore, reapply for protection again. --Deskana (ya rly) 17:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully it'll all die down by then. It usually does. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 17:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Organization

I notice there is a discussion above about the sections, but I think they could still use some work. My main problem is the length of the TOC and the fact that it's lacking a hierarchy. I find it very hard to use the TOC when it's just a long list of topics covered. Also, I think it suggests the article is not organized optimally. I'd recommend incorporating the various components under "Layout and structure." Obviously that section would then dominate the article, but I think it's okay. I also think keeping individual objects as "fake" headings was a good idea. So I'm thinking the TOC might look like:

• Terminology
• Layout and structure

• Sun

• Interplanetary medium (dominated by solar stuff)
• Comets (just for lack of a better place)

• Inner solar system

• Terrestrial planets
• Asteroid belt

• Outer solar system

• Gas giants
• Kuiper belt

• Boundaries (? or another title for unexplored regions)

• Scattered disk
• Heliopause
• Oort cloud (including inner)
• Galactic context (absorbs old "Boundaries" section)

• Formation (could be lengthened, probably acquire sub-headings)
• Discovery and exploration (suggest using real sub-headings)
• Notes
• See also
• References
• External links

I'm not tied to the details here, but I think hierarchy is the way to go. I'd do it now except that the article is so nice already and I fear messing it up. By the way, thanks, S., for improving my tweaks of the lead. Gnixon 02:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to sit [this] one out :) Not that I have no opinion on the matter, but I have already debated this issue into the ground and made so many concessions that I'm simpy tired of fighting. My basic feeling is this: the Solar System is a very large place. However you slice it, there is going to be a big table of contents, because there are lots of regions within the Solar System and this article should cover them all. Your "heirarchcal" organisation looks nice but ultimately entails creating introductory paragraphs for all the new sections, which will make this article even longer than it already is. Plus, where does one define the "outer solar system"? It has many different meanings depending on who uses it. Serendipodous 17:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked through the old debates yet; I'll do that soon. I agree the table's going to be long, but I hope we can at least guide the eye to the right place. (Wikipedia should introduce collapsible TOCs.) It's true "outer" is vague, but for this purpose I just want something for gas giants and Kuiper belt. Maybe it practically means "Outer regions that have been explored" (not a title proposal), but mentions the rest, and the next section could just be "Unexplored regions". Hmm, that sounds good, actually. I don't know that there's much introduction needed for those sections. Inner/Outer could just be one or two sentences each, defining the terms. I think material for "Unexplored regions" already exists. Gnixon 00:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a rough draft. It's a bit repetitive, so will need a cleanup. Serendipodous 14:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Bold text

It seems a little strange to me the way bold text is (over)used in this article. My understanding from Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout is that bold text is only used for the name of the article in the intro, or for alternate meanings, as in water and H20 in a "Water" article. Why bold-ify "inner planets," "outer planets," and "AU"? Gnixon 14:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"Inner planets", "inner solar system", "outer planets" and "outer solar system" are boldened because this is the article you reach when you type them into Wikipedia's search engine. I suppose they don't have to be boldened, but if someone comes onto this article looking for a definition for those terms, it helps if he or she can see them. AU doesn't really have to be boldened either, but since it is used frequently in the article and is easily overlooked, it seemed like a good idea. Maybe a link would do. Serendipodous 15:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I like using a link for AU instead of bold. As for the others, is it really necessary to have redirects pointing here? Maybe someone could just clean up any dead links in other articles. Gnixon 15:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you want to create new separate articles for those terms? Serendipodous 15:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. I don't think those topics are notable enough to have separate articles. If they once did, and therefor some other article has a link to them, I'd recommend just fixing those links to direct to a subsection of this article. I'd recommend just removing the redirections. No need to make sure every possible search finds an article or a redirect. Gnixon 15:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not just about links though; someone might log onto Wikipedia to find out what the terms inner planet or inner solar system actually mean. Since this article has the responsibility of defining those terms, it makes sense to point them out. Serendipodous 16:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Meh. It's not a huge deal to me; just doesn't seem to be standard. I see your point. (I'm much more interested in your thoughts on organization and the TOC.) Gnixon 17:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

the sun

Do we really need a picture of what the sun looks like as seen from earth? This seems a little absurd. As if there are people still wandering around wondering what the big bright thing in the sky is. (Mythos721 17:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC))

Haha. Keep in mind that we don't have too many pictures of the Sun from other places. I kind of like that since most of the stuff in this article takes an "outsider" point of view, that picture kind of reminds us where we are. Maybe it would work better to have some image of the Sun from space with the Earth in the foreground. Gnixon 18:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Scale of the top image

For what it's worth, I saw a couple of reverts on the caption and made a comment to the image talk page. Cheers. --EarthPerson 21:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

On a similar topic, I notice that only some of the images have wither they are to scale or not, as I read the article I got the impression that if an image said it was to scale, every image after that was to scale until one said it wasn't, and vice versa, this more then liky isnt the case, so maybe the image descriptions could include this... particulary the one of the four gas giants. Just a suggestion :)
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver And The Vandal Watchman (Talk) 22:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Errors in Earth section

I think the section on earth in misleading and inaccurate as the statement: "Its liquid hydrosphere, unique among the terrestrial planets, is probably the reason Earth is also the only planet where plate tectonics has been observed, because water acts as a lubricant for subduction.[43]" makes it sound like the presence of water is the reason why their are active plate tectonics; however this is not what the source says. The source makes no claim that water causes, allows, or is in any way responsible for the presence of plate tectonics on Earth, nor that the absence of water on other planets is the reason they have no active tectonics. The influence of water in subduction zones belongs in a more detailed discussion of plate tectonics, not in an overview of the planet Earth --mdp553 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.140.60.253 (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

I agree. I came here to make that exact point. The statement that the presence of water is a primary reason for the existence of plate tectonics is an extraordinary claim, and needs much stronger literature backup than this one reference (which makes no such claim). Can anyone provide any reason not to remove the claim? -- mglg_(talk) 20:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I sure can't.

I also think the language in that paragraph is overly academic. I mean, "liquid hydrosphere" and "water acts as a lubricant for subduction"(!!) No offense to anyone, but the majority of Wikipedia's users won't understand half of that paragraph - and a lot will probably take the last sentence as a sexual reference... --dllu 20:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've made an edit based on this discussion. Gnixon 20:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've tweaked it slightly to restore the mention about being the only object with plate tectonics (not the water part) as it is useful information. Hope that's OK with everyone. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Actually, on reflection, I'm not sure how I came to that conclusion; must have made a leap of logic without realising it. Thanks for spotting it. On the other hand, there are sources which make the claim, so if I can find a scholarly article that backs up the original comment, should it go back in?Serendipodous 14:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Interesting question. At the very least, it'd be nice to have a better source. Anyway, I'm not sure whether plate tectonics is an important enough feature of Earth for it to make the Solar System article. (Maybe it is, maybe not.) If it's coupled to the existence of a hydrosphere, maybe more interesting. I wonder if we could get some input from the editors of plate tectonics on mechanisms of tectonics, their relationship to the hydrosphere, and their significance relative to other geological activity on Earth and elsewhere. Gnixon 19:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, coming in a bit late... I don't have references just now, but the "liquid hydrosphere" is not really a major driving force in subduction (see Plate tectonics as I'm sure you all have). Water of hydration (i.e., water bound into the crystalline structures of rocks) may well contribute to the nature of subduction in detail, but even then I'm not familiar with any common belief that it is really major (not mentioned in the Plate Tectonics article under causes). Certainly saying it acts as a lubricant for subduction is going way beyond the likely. The way the paragraph reads now, that Earth is unique in having a hydrosphere and is unique in having active plate tectonics seems fine to me -- the two are not intimately linked. To me, those two simple statements are indeed useful here in this article, but I sure would not go any further, either explicitly or by suggestion. Hope this is useful -- cheers, Geologyguy 19:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The lead

Twice now, I've had to remove the phrase "According to the IAU definition" from the first sentence. The editor who added it says that "Some astronomers refuse the new "dwarf planet" scheme, therefore it needs to be noted that our definition is the one provided by the IAU." However, I think he/she is mixing up the definition of "planet" with that of the "Solar System". As I read it, the definition of the Solar System is "the Sun and the other celestial objects gravitationally bound to it". The text which follows merely details some of those objects. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That's how I wrote it, and that's what I meant. If someone feels I phrased it incorrectly, please say why. Serendipodous 19:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the objection is that it's confusing to mention the IAU immediately before "Solar System" when the only possibly contentious definition is that of "planet." Granted, I'm not sure how to solve the problem without making an awkward sentence. (We could make some tries in this space.) I'm for not mentioning the IAU here, since I think everyone agrees on what the Solar System is (but of course mention the IAU in the Planet intro). A footnote on "planet" in that sentence might be a good idea. Gnixon 19:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I think Serendipodous means he wrote the previous version, not the one with the IAU added at the start. (Correct?) The "IAU" text was added by Hexagon1. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant. Serendipodous 20:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Image layout

I've reversed the image layout changes for now... while some of them work, others do not. It's not necessary to have every image alternate; how about we reference Sheffield Steel's last edit and pick the ones that work best? --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As per the Manual of Style, I adjusted the images so that they alternate between left & right. Lo and behold, it looked better (to my eyes). Certainly there was no longer the number of areas of whitespace that there had been between sections, as the images formed a solid wall down the right hand side of the page. My edit was almost immediately reverted. But I'm not bitter. I just ask that a couple of editors try reverting that revert, and preview the version with alternating images. See if it isn't more pleasing to your eyes - don't save your changes - and then post here and tell me that I'm wrong. Or whatever. SheffieldSteel 00:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

hahaha... we must have made posts at the same time. Carry on! :-) SheffieldSteel 00:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with alternating every image is that we end up with a lot of sections (and section headings) kicked over to the right. It might be better to pick and choose, moving images to the left where they don't disrupt the layout of the content. Thoughts? (Thank you for doing this, by the way - even though we don't entirely agree, it is better to try it out and see what happens! I certainly like some of them - specifically, "Terminology", "Formation", "Sun" and "Galactic context". I can even move them back if you like, although it will have to be in a few hours as I must dash.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. I think another problem is that the effect of such changes varies greatly depending on the user's screen resolution and font size. Or putting it another way, it depends on the relative amount of screen taken up by images vs text, which will unfortunately vary from one user to another. There may not be a good solution for everyone. I'll try tweaking a few, and see what I can do. SheffieldSteel 02:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed the whitespace problem for awhile. I'm sad to say this, but maybe the only general solution is to cut a couple images that pertain to short sections (or lengthen those sections). One of the best things about this article is all the great images, but whitespace is really unappealing. Gnixon 02:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It might also be possible to shrink the images - if that can be done without loss of clarity. Obviously there's a minimum size below which it just isn't worth showing an image. SheffieldSteel 02:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've cut the following image from the very short "Boundaries" section to kill the only whitespace that shows up on my computer. I liked the image, but it didn't have much content. I won't mind if anyone reverts. Gnixon 02:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

A photo of Earth taken by Voyager 1, 6 billion km (4 billion miles) away. The streak of light is a diffraction spike from the Sun (off frame to the left).

Shef, I didn't pay close attention to the timestamps. Sorry if I interrupted your edits. I'll stay away from moving images for awhile, so do your worst.  ;-) Gnixon 02:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have done my worst, sir, and await the judgment of those who normally edit this article :-). That image could be added to the last section; it seems appropriate. SheffieldSteel 03:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Move of seealso template

The article on hypothetical planets deals largely with the unexplored regions of the solar system, and any link to it belongs in "Boundaries". The exploration article deals only with discoveries that have already been made. Serendipodous 14:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point, but I'd prefer just cutting it altogether. Hypothetical planets may be of historical interest for the solar system (that's why I put it in exploration), but I'd favor just cutting the link. I don't really think it deserves a "see also" tag. Just my two cents. Gnixon 16:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Trojans v asteroids

WolfmanSF has made a couple of edits with the comments to the effect that "Trojans beyond Jupiter are not considered asteroids."

Is this right? It sounds backwards to me.

Surely an asteroid is an asteroid wherever it is, and it's only the asteroids at Jupiter's L5 Lagrange point that are referred to as Trojans (and Greeks for the L4 point).

Can anyone else shed light on this? SheffieldSteel 03:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Trojans are the specific group of asteroids "attached" to Jupiter, and asteroids outside the Belt are still asteroids. --dllu 11:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Shallow plane...?

"Most objects in orbit around the Sun lie near the ecliptic, a shallow plane parallel to that of Earth's orbit." (Layout and structure section). This grates on me: all (mathematical) planes have zero thickness! Wouldn't it be better to say something like: "... the ecliptic, the plane in which Earth's mean orbit lies" or some such? --Kiwi137 12:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. For future reference, that's a fairly minor edit; you could probably get away with just doing it, and explaining your change in the edit history. I doubt anyone would raise any serious objections. Serendipodous 14:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)