Talk:Solar system/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Talk archives for Solar system (current talk page)
<< 1	< Archive 5	Archive 6	Archive 7 >	7 >>

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.--JEF 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 [1], 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.^[1] 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.^[2]"

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. --Luigi Maniac 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. --P3d0 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) --Luigi Maniac 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

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)

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

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)

Categories: Talk archives