Template talk:Infobox Planet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

{{{name}}}

Orbital Elements (Epoch {{{epoch}}})
Semi-Major Axis	(a)	{{{semimajor}}}
Orbital circumference		{{{orb_circ}}}
Eccentricity	(e)	{{{eccentricity}}}
Perihelion Distance	(q)	{{{perihelion}}}
Aphelion Distance	(Q)	{{{aphelion}}}
Orbital Period	(P)	{{{period}}}
Synodic Period		{{{synodic_period}}}
Orbital Speed	(avg)	{{{speed}}}
	(max)	{{{max_speed}}}
	(min)	{{{min_speed}}}
Inclination	(i)	{{{inclination}}}
Longitude of the Ascending Node	(Ω)	{{{asc_node}}}
Argument of Perihelion	(ω)	{{{arg_peri}}}
Mean Anomaly	(M)	{{{mean_anomaly}}}
Physical Characteristics
Dimensions		{{{dimensions}}}
Surface Area		{{{surface}}}
Volume		{{{volume}}}
Mass		{{{mass}}}
Density	(ρ)	{{{density}}}
Surface Gravity		{{{gravity}}}
Escape Velocity		{{{escape_velocity}}}
Rotation Period		{{{p_rot}}}
Rotation Velocity		{{{rot_vel}}}
Obliquity		{{{obliquity}}}
Right ascension of North pole		{{{NPoleRA}}}
Declination		{{{NPoleDec}}}
Absolute Magnitude		{{{abs_mag}}}
Albedo		{{{albedo}}}
Mean Surface Temperature		{{{temperature}}} K

Suggested re-design:

• line up the "variable names"
• shift the styling about a bit to make the code a bit cleaner
• center align the sub-headings
• Point the Escape velocity link directly at the article
• Re-arrange Orbital speed elements to avoid REDIRECT

--Phil | Talk 13:29, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Gravitational Parameter 2 Template:Infobox Planet 3 Minor planets 4 the Sun 5 Notes on usage 6 Adjective is a physical characteristic? 7 Orbital direction 8 Syntax question

[edit] Gravitational Parameter

I'd like to see the gravitational parameter (μ), specified in km³s^-2, in this template. Are there any strong objections to instroducing this value under 'Mass'? Usually, μ is better defined than mass, since G is so inaccurately known. jkl 10:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

In planetary science, the parameter is usually labelled "GM", which I prefer. We could add it, but I think that only someone writing a research article would be concerned with the uncertainty on G. Lunokhod 18:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Planet

(Discussion originally at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects. Mike Peel 17:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

We currently have:

• Template:Dwarf Planet Infobox/Pluto
• Template:Dwarf Planet Infobox/Eris
• Template:Infobox Minor Planet
• Template:Planet Infobox/Earth
• Template:Planet Infobox/Jupiter
• Template:Planet Infobox/Mars
• Template:Planet Infobox/Mercury
• Template:Planet Infobox/Moon
• Template:Planet Infobox/Neptune
• Template:Planet Infobox/Saturn
• Template:Planet Infobox/Uranus
• Template:Planet Infobox/Venus
• Template:Infobox Minor Planet

... and others that I have yet to find. This is an incredibly odd way of doing infoboxes. I would propose that all of these infoboxes are merged into a single, new infobox called Template:Infobox Planet, which would be based off the existing Template:Planet. That includes dwarf and minor planets, as these two share the large majority of parameters. This new template would also replace the HTML template provided here. Template:Minor planet would be depreciated; it isn't used at present anyway. Any comments? Mike Peel 19:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Planet/dwarf planet infoboxes could use a common template. The orphan minor planet infobox should be deleted since it is no longer needed. Looks like moons are still missing a common infobox.--JyriL ^talk 19:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I am all for standardizing the planetary info boxes as much as possible, but I am concerned that the this might be a bit more complicated than the astronomical templates. Here are some things to consider:

• The color scheme is different for each planet. There seems to be some form of logic to this when one compares, Moon, Sun, Mercury (planet), etc. I'm for keeping this.
• Each planet has an associated image that has a non-standardized name, as well as a symbol at the top of the info box. Some images also have an associated caption.
• The section "discovery" will have to optional, as some (like the Moon and Sun) were never really discovered.
• The "temperature" fields will have to be different for each planet. For some objects it does not make sense to have a minimum or maximum temperature, and for others, temperatures need to be given at more than one locale (such as the pole and equator).
• The "atmospheric characteristics" will be different for each object. Some only have an atmospheric density, whereas others have a pressure. Some list atmospheric composition, whereas others don't.
• We should convert all "diameters" to "radii", as per a discussion that took place here about a month ago (I never got around to doing this).
• Most fields will have an optional measurement unit (or perhaps more), such as km and mi, or "Earths".
• There should be some way to cite the origin of the numerical values. I have been just adding comments to the fields as the "ref" method doesn't work (at least with the current infoboxes).
• I don't like the bold variables in the first column of the Planet and Minor Planet templates. This is particularly ugly when the variable is a series of words, and not just a symbol (such as longitude of ascending node).
• It might be a good idea to decrease the font size of all variables and numerical values. The current planetary infoboxes are kind of wide, and most of the text in the second column is required (in my opinion).

That's about all. Perhaps if you create an example, say for Moon or Mars, we could comment more. Lunokhod 20:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can build a common template that will work for all planets then I think this is a good idea. I agree with all of Lunokhod' comments except for the bold font in the left column. (But that's a minor style issue.) Surface area should be an option field (at best) because it makes no sense (to me) for a gas giant. References should work as long as we can pass variables to a template, rather than the current approach of using static data. — RJH (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

All of the above points should be possible. I was planning on making all of the template variables optional; if people want some of them required, then that's a little simpler. References should work fine in the new system. I'll put together an example one when I get the time. Mike Peel 21:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that any of the suggestions given by Lunokhod couldn't be done. I agree with RJHall about removing bolding; most infoboxes use bolding on the left column so it is more or less a standard. I'd rather use diameters as it is easier for a layman, but that is more an issue of taste. Using Earth as an unit of measure does help visualizing the values, but using several units make the template even larger. Maybe only the image and most basic parameters should be visible by default, and more detailed data could be opened by clicking a "show" button as it is done in some large templates.--JyriL ^talk 21:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Planet has now been constructed, and I believe that it is ready to replace the templates listed above. An example of it in action is at User:Mike Peel/test (permanent link) Comments/suggestions before I move the templates over? Mike Peel 23:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm slowly adding info about the Moon on User:Lunokhod/test, and here are some problems I'm running into.

• For the Moon, we need perigee and apogee, instead of perihelion.
• There was a typo in the usage. I changed bgcolor to bgcolour in order to get this to work (though perhaps we should use bgcolor)
• For the Moon, we need argument of perigee instead of perihelion.
• Temperature should probably be under physical characteristics, and not atmosphere.

Lunokhod 23:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the spelling; I'm a british person who can write HTML, and that abbreviation's frequently one of the banes of my life. I've now added perigee and apogee to the template. Mike Peel 23:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think that it might be good to give "sidereal month" and "synodic month" as well (or instead) of "periods". This way, we could also add "Anomalistic month", "Draconic month", and "Tropical month" (I've never heard of "anomalistic period", but maybe it exists.) Lunokhod 00:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

They have now been added, in addition to the periods. Mike Peel 17:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps it would be a good idea to have "obliquity" as well as "axial tilt". For the Moon, one often quotes the angle between the orbit plane (obliquity), and ecliptic, but the latter doesn't have a name (or does it?). Lunokhod 00:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

An "obliquity" parameter has now been added. Mike Peel 17:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sidereal period doesn't seem to show up. Also, for clarity, perhaps the names of the rows following the "temperature table" could be offset, or unbolded. Lunokhod 18:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I misspelled sidereal ("siderial") in the prototype template call; this has now been fixed on both the template and your test page. I've also indented the temperature row names.

• And, I'd like an "argument of perigee" in addition to "argument of perihelion", too! Lunokhod 18:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This has now been added. Anything else? Mike Peel 18:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• The rest are minor: Perhaps we could delete the "the" in "longitude of the ascending node".
• Perhaps the ordering should be "mean radius, equatorial, polar" instead of putting mean at the end.
• Perhaps "oblateness" should come after the radii, as this is a derived number.
• That's it for now (until I start working on the other planets, that is, if I get the time). Everything looks great, thanks. I'll be putting the lunar infobox up in a few minutes. Lunokhod 19:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Changes have been made. I'm currently migrating the planets over to the new system, and will be putting the existing infoboxes up on TfD once I've done so. Mike Peel 20:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A minor tweak - I've added a new field ("mp_name"), which displays (if filled) as "MPC designation". This should hopefully help to avoid problems with the "NAME" vs. "NUMBER NAME" arguments. (In the old boxes, the dwarf planets did not use the numbers in their titles, but there was a field in the infobox proper. I initially used the "alt name" field, but that too could be a source of disagreement ("Alternative"?!? It's not an "alternative" - it's the "name"!!! - etc.). The "mp_name" field also links to the appropriate article. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering why that field was present in the old templates; it seemed redundant with the name, so I merged them. Why don't people like using the full name/designation of the object as the name? Mike Peel 11:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's considerable disagreement on Wikipedia as to what an "official" name is - and it's not helped by the apparent lack of information available from the governing bodies. The vague details from the MPC with regards to Pluto (for example) seem to indicate that "134340" is a catalogue number, while "Pluto" is the name. (That is to say, Pluto wasn't renamed, it was just added to the MPC catalogue.) Then, of course, the emotional aspect kicks in - those who are determined to have Pluto "reinstated" won't accept anything that "diminishes" it, while the opposite extreme would appear to want to treat the dwarf planets as "just another ball of ice" (or rock, as appropriate...) Personally, I prefer using just the name for the dwarf planets, while ensuring that the designation is noted in the article. I think it's more appropriate for an encyclopedia for a general audience - most people will know them by name, and that is also how they are presented in the media. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• What happened to "Orbital characteristics"? This seems to have disappeared. Lunokhod 18:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It's back. I was trying to separate out the sections in the code, to make managing it easier, but evidently broke something. I've now reverted my changes. Mike Peel 19:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor planets

For minor planets, several links can be hard-wired to point to minor-planet specific pages which are much more informative. Hence, I have made a few alterations that do this dependent on the minorplanet=yes setting.

I wonder what people think about several other suggestions for improvement:

1) Quite a few (several dozen) minor planets have their spin direction known. However this axis is usually given in ecliptic coordinates rather than RA and declination. (ecliptic coordinates are physically more meaningful). So I propose to also add in new parameters:

• ecliptic_pole_longitude
• ecliptic_pole_latitude

2)Also, many bodies have known values for the parameters

• satellites
• axial tilt

which could also be put in the standard example.

3) Finally, I feel that the narrow width of the standard infobox makes most minor planet articles ungainly. For many of them, almost all the information is in this infobox. The end result is that you get a narrow infobox on the right, which you have to scroll down to see in its entirety, and blank space on most of the rest of the page bordering the infobox. For example see 244 Sita. Setting width=25em in the suggested infobox on the template seems sensible to me. Deuar 14:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. Mike Peel 17:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the Sun

Would anyone like to try updating the Sun infobox using this template? Lunokhod 00:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes on usage

From Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Infoboxes [1]

Body name

[image of object]
Discovery
Discovered by	___name___
Discovered on	___date___
Orbital characteristics (Epoch J2000)
Semi-major axis	km (AU)
Ortbital circumference	Tm (AU)
Eccentricity	number
Perihelion	km (AU)
Aphelion	km (AU)
Orbital period	d (other units, such as Julian years)
Synodic period	d (a) (w/respect to Earth)
Avg. orbital speed	km/s
Max. orbital speed	km/s
Min. orbital speed	km/s
Inclination (to Ecliptic)	° (° to Sun's equator)
Longitude of the ascending node	decimal ° (° ' ")
Argument of the perihelion	decimal ° (° ' ")
Satellites	number
Satellite of	planet (only for Moons)
Physical characteristics
Mean diameter	km (axis × axis × axis for ellipsoids)
Equatorial diameter	km (Earth units)
Polar diameter	km (Earth units)
Oblateness	number
Surface area	km2 (Earth units)
Volume	km3 (Earth units)
Mass	kg (Earth units)
Mean density	g/cm3
Surface gravity	m/s2 (gees)
Escape velocity	km/s
Rotation period	d (h)
Rotation velocity	km/h (m/s) (at the equator)
Obliquity	°
Right ascension of North pole	° (h min s)
Declination	°
Albedo	number
Surface temperature	min mean max nnn K nnn K nnn K
Atmospheric characteristics
Pressure	kPa
most common	%
next-most-common	%
etcetera	%

Most of these entries should be measured in SI units. Some of them, however, should have more "human-accessible" units, in addition to SI units. I've indicated some cases with a second unit name in brackets. In the case of times (orbital periods, rotation), I think it best to give all periods in days for comparison purposes, and provide a translation (in parentheses) into years, days, hours, etc.; whatever is most appropriate for the duration being described.

Oh, and compared to table templates for things like the elements, I think that this template should be considered somewhat more flexible. Moons with no atmosphere whatsoever could skip the atmospheric composition section entirely, for example (though atmospheric density would still be listed). Moons also wouldn't have their orbital radii listed in AU, since AUs are such large units. For planets, use "perihelion" and "aphelion" instead of "periapsis" and "apoapsis."

In the case of "number of moons" and "is a moon of", only one of these rows will be used by any given object. There aren't any moons with moons (yet), though perhaps "co-orbital with" might be a useful row to add in a few cases.

A set of colours for use in the 2-column headers of this table:

rocky terrestrial body	Transition metal color from the periodic table; rocky planets have lots of metals compared to the icy ones. Also, red is a "warmer" color than green, which fits the distribution of rocky and icy planets in the solar system.
icy terrestrial body	green contrasts nicely with the pink of rocky planets. Also, on the periodic table, it's the color of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and other common components of outer-solar-system ice.
gas giant body	blue skies, and noble gases on the periodic table (including helium, which is only found in large quantities on gas giants. It escapes from smaller planets). Also, two out of four gas giants prefer the cool soothing color of blue.

On orbital characteristics: The orbital circumference should be computed from the semi-major axis using Ramanujan's approximation for ellipses. The ratio of that circumference to the period then gives the average orbital speed. The minimum and maximum speeds follow from Kepler's laws: and . Note that, by convention, all orbital parameters are given in the primocentric reference system (heliocentric for the planets).

On physical characteristics: The surface area and volume of non-spherical objects (e.g. moonlets, asteroids) must use the proper ellipsoid formulae, because even slight departures from sphericity will make a large difference, particularly for the area.

On the subject of obliquity: Obliquity is the angle between the object's axis of rotation and the normal to the plane of its orbit. Do not confuse this with the Tilt listed in the JPL pages, which is a measure of the angle between the local Laplace plane and the primary's equatorial plane. In fact, most inner moons have synchronous rotations, so their obliquities will be, by definition, zero. Outer moons simply have not been seen from close up enough to determine their true obliquities (although Phoebe, recently seen by the Cassini probe, is an exception; see Talk:Phoebe (moon) for the derivation of its obliquity).

[edit] Adjective is a physical characteristic?

The 'adjective' field appears under 'physical characteristics'. This can't be what the template designer intended. --Heron 14:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This has been like this for a long time, and while I don't totally agree with listing it under 'physical characterstics', this field does serve some purpose. In short, many of the introductions for the planets are (or were) filled with lists of adjectives, which is really boring stuff. Look at the Moon. The first paragraph says "The related adjective for the Moon is lunar (from the Latin root), but this is not found in combination with words using the prefix seleno- or suffix -selene (from the Greek deity Selene)." It used to be much worse. I don't know why people give this stuff so much emphasis, but it is something that I think we need to live with. Perhaps you've got a suggestion on where to put this? Or we could call for consensus on deleting this at WP:ASTRO. Lunokhod 14:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The only place I can think of that it could be moved to is just below the caption. Or alternatively into a renamed Discovery section, along with the alternative names and designations. I'm not sure what the discovery section could be renamed to, though. Mike Peel 16:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orbital direction

Today someone on the science reference desk asked what direction the various planets orbited in. That seems like a basic piece of information that should be in the "orbital characteristics" section. For most bodies, the answer would be "prograde", but some are "retrograde". (See Retrograde and direct motion). -- Beland 04:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It's evident from the inclination. If it's above 90°, the orbit is retrograde, below 90°: prograde. Deuar 15:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Syntax question

Is the syntax: {{#if:{{{symbol|}}} | {{{symbol}}} | }} equivalent to just {{{symbol}}}? Martin.Budden 18:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)