Talk:Solar System

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Solar System is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
	Solar System is the main article in the "Solar System" series (project page), a featured topic identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 9, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 6, 2006 Peer review Reviewed June 20, 2006 Peer review Reviewed July 10, 2006 Peer review Reviewed August 4, 2006 Peer review Reviewed August 5, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed August 8, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted November 7, 2006 Featured topic candidate Promoted December 7, 2006 Peer review Reviewed January 27, 2007 Good article nominee Listed February 17, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

Space Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale. Related projects: WikiProject Astronomy WikiProject Solar System Help with this template Comments: edit – history – watch – refresh I found this page to be EXTREMELY informational and helpful (just like everything else on Wikipedia)but there is one problem that was made that completely offsets the entire article. It is an article about THE solar system. It is making it clear that this article exemplifies the absurd fact that there is only one solar system and that is ours. Obviously (as i already pointed out in the previous sentence) there is more than one solar system. I am only 14 and yet i still can tell you that if you think there is only one solar system, you probably shouldn't be editing this article or this comment for that matter. i agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.172.11 (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles about the idea of systems. If you would like to help, you can edit this article or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale. Mid This article is on a subject of mid importance within Systems. Help with this template Comments: System/Comments|action=edit}} edit – System/Comments|action=history}} history – System/Comments|action=watch}} watch – System|action=purge}} refresh I found this page to be EXTREMELY informational and helpful (just like everything else on Wikipedia)but there is one problem that was made that completely offsets the entire article. It is an article about THE solar system. It is making it clear that this article exemplifies the absurd fact that there is only one solar system and that is ours. Obviously (as i already pointed out in the previous sentence) there is more than one solar system. I am only 14 and yet i still can tell you that if you think there is only one solar system, you probably shouldn't be editing this article or this comment for that matter. i agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.172.11 (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
	This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Additional information: FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images. This article is a vital article. The following comments have been left for this page: I found this page to be EXTREMELY informational and helpful (just like everything else on Wikipedia)but there is one problem that was made that completely offsets the entire article. It is an article about THE solar system. It is making it clear that this article exemplifies the absurd fact that there is only one solar system and that is ours. Obviously (as i already pointed out in the previous sentence) there is more than one solar system. I am only 14 and yet i still can tell you that if you think there is only one solar system, you probably shouldn't be editing this article or this comment for that matter. i agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.172.11 (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC) (edit)

Archives
Archive_1: up to 31 December 2005 Archive_2: up to 15 May 2006 Archive_3: Up to July 2006 Archive_4: Up to Sep 15, 2006 Archive_5: Up to January 2007 Archive_6: Up to April 2007 Archive_7: Up to February 2008

Contents 1 Table 2 Debate of planet classification 3 New image 4 Declining Orbit? 5 Image with orbits to scale? 6 opening paragraph 7 Transit of Mercury image 8 Directions of spin of each planet 9 Ice Giants

[edit] Table

The anonymously added table was a variant of one that existed as part of this article years ago, but was ultimately removed. It and its sister tables can now be found at the page Attributes of the largest solar system bodies. If the table is to be reinstated, I think it should be discussed first. Serendi^podous 15:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Serendipodous, for that history. I almost reverted it, but just copyedited it instead. Thanks for the institutional memory. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 15:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Debate of planet classification

A comment was added to the article stating that the definition of a planet is hotly debated. Is this really the case? I know that some people didn't like the re-classification of Pluto - but it seems that the definition of a planet given in the article is pretty standard and accepted. Comments? PhySusie (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it. This is not the place to discuss this. Wikipedia has three other articles devoted to this topic: Planet, Definition of planet and 2006 definition of planet. Serendi^podous 07:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New image

Overall, I like the new lead image (it's certainly more scientifically accurate than the last one) but it makes Mercury's orbital inclination out to be about 45 degrees, when in fact it's about 7 degrees. This exaggeration is misleading. Serendi^podous 12:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we swap the two - put the new one in "Terminology", and restore the other one to the lead? No offence to the creator, but the image quality is stronger in the original one (and may better suit the lead). --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Declining Orbit?

Is the earth theorized to be in a declining orbit? Why is there no detected decline in orbit? What's the theory behind why the planets weren't aborbed into the sun a long time ago? Could we add something to this article the gravitational balance of the solar system, and a calculation as to how much mass would need to be vaporized before we would expect an upset in that balance? 68.75.88.171 (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like it might be an interesting thing to cover, but it would probably be better placed in Formation and evolution of the Solar System. Serendi^podous 08:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually the orbits of the planets are expanding, due to the Solar mass loss. Saros136 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image with orbits to scale?

I noticed that while there's a lot of nice images here, the article lacks an image of the solar system showing the relative distances to the sun and the relative sizes of the planets at the same time. That would obviously be a bonus. --Strappado (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The article does have such an image; in the layout and structure section, there is an image captioned, "orbits of the objects in the Solar System to scale." Serendi^podous 18:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the size of the planets and the size of their orbits are on completely different scales - you can't show them usefully on the same diagram. If you can see the orbits, the sizes of the planets are too small. If you can see the size of the planets, the orbits are way (way way) off the page. The compromise is in the article - one diagram shows the relative sizes of the planets, another shows the relative sizes of the orbits. PhySusie (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry, misread the OP. Yeah, that would be hard to do. I wonder what the scales would be like if we set Mercury at one pixel? Serendi^podous 18:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] opening paragraph

Could we include the vast number of man-made objects which currently orbit the sun in the opening paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oddzag (talk • contribs) 22:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The number of man-made objects orbiting the Sun isn't all that vast; certainly not when compared to the number of man-made objects orbiting the Earth. Serendi^podous 05:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Transit of Mercury image

This is a very odd image to use for the "Sun" subsection. The title makes no explanation of the fact that the image is of the Sun, with one of the blurred dots being Mercury, so the uninformed reader (which is who the article is for - someone who is looking up "Solar System" can't be expected to know what a "transit of Mercury" is) might assume that the image was of Mercury. Also as previously mentioned the transit of Mercury is not discussed in the article. Rachel Pearce (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Instead of assuming something one just may hit the link,or to go to the image caption and hopefully to learn something new and interesting of course assuming one wants to learn.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That isn't how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Articles aren't supposed to introduce material without explaining it. It's unfair and confusing. Serendi^podous 16:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But the editor who placed it there seems insistent that it is more informative, though of what I'm not certain. I'll revert it again and direct the editor to the talk page. Serendi^podous 09:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• IMO The image not only has no encyclopedic value whatsoever, it has a negative value. What one could possibly learn from that image? The only thing that could be learned from this image is how not to take a similar image in order do not damage both your camera and your eyes. The image quality is horrible. It is full of camera artifacts.On the other hand the image is highly encyclopedic. It shows not only the sun, sunspots and Mercury, but also Limb darkening. The image is a great illustration of the size of the Sun compare to Mercury. It is easy to correct the caption under the image and provide the link to the Transit of Mercury article. Then maybe somebody would go there and learn something new.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This article isn't about sunspots, limb darkening, or transits of Mercury. It's about the Solar System. Such material is better covered in the Sun article itself. We can't assume that any reader, staring at this picture, would have a clue what sunspots, transits, or limb darkening are. If that picture were to be included, it would have to have some relevance to the article, which means that this already-gargantuan article would have to be expanded to discuss sunspots, limb-darkening, and transits of Mercury. I have no interest in doing so, and I doubt you do either. This article's section on the Sun is little more than a brief explanation of what the Sun is, which is all it needs to be, so a simple picture of the Sun is really all that's required. Serendi^podous 16:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The article talks about sunspots, about Mercury and about the Sun. The Sun has sunspots and limbs darkening. If a reader is interested in learning solar system, he would hit the links and learn something new. My image is of the Sun. Do you call that an image of the sun? It is not what the sun is about. This image looks like a picture made by a 2-years old. No encyclopedia that respects itself would put such an image in the Solar System article. As I said earlier IMO that image is not only bad, but might be also harmful.BTW you've never answered what one supposed to learn from the current image of the sun?--Mbz1 (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't go into any detail about what the Sun is "about". Why introduce new ideas not covered in the article? It's not the reader's responsibility to compensate for our lack of explanation. Serendi^podous 21:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've told you that introducing new ideas could make some readers to want to learn more and it is what education is about. You've never responded what ideas and values the current image of the sun has.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a picture of the Sun. It isn't filtered; it isn't altered. It requires no further explanation. I would have preferred such a picture of the Sun from space, but there aren't any in the Commons. Serendi^podous 08:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• You've never answered my question What one suppose to learn from that so-called picture? Why to look at the article and not just at the sky? Wikipedia is encyclopedia and not a children picture book. BTW the only pictures of the sun taken from the space are taken with filtered telescopes. There are no other way to take the image of the sun.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No other picture could be as encyclopedic. All other pictures of the Sun are taken with filters, so you can't see the Sun doing it's most important job: shining. An image of the Sun that looks like a star is better than an image of the Sun that looks like a beach ball. Serendi^podous 17:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• The sun at the image is not shining - the camera artifacts do.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Directions of spin of each planet

I would love to see the directions of spin of each planet listed in a table somewhere, ideally along with as much other information as possible, including year length, day length, obliquity, eccentricity, and direction of spin of moons (if applicable). This information is currently scattered and I am not quite knowledgeable enough to consolidate it.

Directions of spin could be given as "North" or "Up" for Earth's rotation around itself each day, and "North" or "Up" for Earth's rotation around the sun. North/up is a nice way to use the right-hand rule, and I find it less ambiguous that clock/counterclockwise. North/up could also be called "counterclockwise when viewed from above/looking down at the Northern hemisphere."

Specific questions: What direction does Earth's rotational axis precess in? I assume from the difference in sidereal and tropical years that it must precess "down/South." And what direction does the anomalistic precession (the precession of the apsides) go? I also assume that is "up/North" from available, albeit indirect data. I could answer these questions myself, but not as fast as most of you. Plus, I want the table for the good of the world, not just the answers in a talk page for me. Thanks.Fluoborate (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you want this article. Serendi^podous 10:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ice Giants

Isn't it that Uranus and Neptune are no longer called Gas Giants (Jovian Planets), but now called Ice Giants? From what I know, it's because they were found to be made of frozen gases like the KBOs rather than gaseous gases like the Jovians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.219.236 (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Uranus and Neptune are referred to as ice giants, yes. Some consider ice giant to be a different classification than gas giant, others consider it a subclass of gas giant. They are called ice giants because their atmospheres contain far less hydrogen and helium than Jupiter and Saturn and a far higher proportion of volatile compounds such as water, ammonia and methane. Astronomers refer to these compounds as "ices" whether they are actually ice or not. Uranus and Neptune are also far smaller than Jupiter and Saturn; their combined mass is barely a third that of Saturn and barely a tenth that of Jupiter. Serendi^podous 19:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)