Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Infoboxes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Infoboxes for irregular satellites

I feel that the standard infobox for moons above is inadequate for the irregular satellites given typically limited amount of available data, very perturbed orbits, numerous assumptions etc. I suggest to adapt a shorter infobox for the irregulars following a few simple guidelines

  • Data must be referenced!
    • Use mean orbital elements preferably, if known (helps the grouping; the osculating elements are changing in very short timescales)
    • Use best fit elements otherwise
  • Avoid self-calculated items (they are based on assumptions, anyway).
    • The orbital period for mean elements is given from the integrations (irregular satellites orbits are not Keplerian)
    • Peri/apo centres can be given in the main text if they are exceptional
  • Physical characteristics are limited to what is typically measured
    • magnitude (absolute,V or R)
    • albedo (typically assumed),
    • diameter (inferred from the albedo)
    • colour (measured for a number of moons)
    • spectral (asteroid) classification (infrared spectra are known in many cases)
    • light curve i.e. rotation period (known for a few)
    • drop mass-related parameters as they are based on the double assumptions of the density and albedo

For a sample please see here. I’d like to apply it first to the Neptune’s irregulars currently without infoboxes anyway. Eurocommuter 13:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

A few questions/criticisms:
  • Try to fold the "to the ecliptic" part in with "Inclination".
  • I usually see year abbreviated as "yr". I have even used "yr" in my publications.
  • Can you find a better phrase for "Is a satellite of"? I would put "Planet".
  • How is color specified? Is it something that will be familiar to the general public (and not something like B-V)?
  • I hate quantities inferred from other uncertain quantities in an encyclopedic reference. The diameter should be tagged with a footnote if inferred from the albedo.
  • Is the spectral type something that will be useful for the general public?
  • Does this differ substantially from the infobox for larger moons (the Galilean satellites, Titan, Triton, the Earth's moon)? I would prefer they all be the same.
  • Do you have advice on which references to use?

George J. Bendo 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for the feedback, George. In detail:

  • (using a for year) I started from a copy of the existing infobox for the moons; no idea why a was used for years. Will replace, of course.
  • (is satellite of) I actually thought by replacing with Neptune X, Jupiter XXII etc.; it gives the planet and spares the listing the formal designation in the main text
  • (diameter) I’m fully with you. The diameters come from peer-reviewed paper(s) and are based on the assumed albedo; they will be tagged as such
  • (colour)I’ll put for example light red (B-V=0.6 V-R=0.45); (I've used it already in the main text of numerous articles). The link explains the colour index. I’ve contributed substantial material with graphs for colours in Trans-Neptunian Object#Physical characteristics, Centaur (planetoid)#Physical characteristics and irregular natural satellite#Physical characteristics and believe it is an important branch of both observational and theoretical effort. It seems to be also quite intuitive for wide public via graphs
  • (Spectral type): we have this item for the asteroids already; the usefulness is to support (or otherwise) the common origin in a break-up of a single progenitor. Often referred to in the groupings of irregulars (e.g. Carme group, Pasiphae group).
  • (differences)The box is simply a shorter version of the standard moon box. It avoids calculating items based on assumptions and lists only the data typically known (or hopefully forthcoming) for the small and distant satellites. In the event that other data are available (visit by a spacecraft, occultation?) the shorter infobox will be replaced with the full infobox.

Sources; I’ve got a core list here.

  • For the mean parameters the papers use Jacobson (listed on JPL) except for early discovery papers giving the best-fit orbits.
  • For colours mostly Grav 2003, some older data from Rettig 2000
  • For IR spectra Grav 2004
  • For orbital and collisional theories (groupings etc) Nesforny 2003 and 2004
  • For discovery and misc Sheppard & Jewitt 2003 and 2004 (with Porco)
  • Plus relevant discovery papers from Holman / Gladman.
  • For diameters, I suggest Sheppard with 0.04 assumption (the assumption is arguably unsafe for satellites with different colours i.e. potentially different surface characteristics but at least it gives the relative sizes right)

Example of refs: Ananke

I’ll implement your comments in the next draft. Your comments are highly appreciated. TNO infobox could be the next one to be reviewed. Regards Eurocommuter 15:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Edited draft - Eurocommuter 15:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Draft template for the infobox is here. The example of application is there. Eurocommuter 09:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What happened

There is usually a "discover" section in the comet infobox, but it isn't displayed. Why isn't it showing? Also, why isn't there a section for argument of perihelion, etc? Thanks. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 00:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] minor planets example is out of date

The minor planets example is out of date. All or almost all the most significant ones (hundreds) now use Template:Infobox Planet instead. Deuar 16:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

[edit] Infobox data for planets

Almost none of the infobox data for the 8 planets show any citations. More often than not the data disagrees with NASA statistics from the External Links, even when the "epoch 2000" is accounted for. Where do the data come from, and how can we check for typos? From my amateur's point of view, it looks as if we need to get the basic facts straight before we worry about comets, asteroids and such. Art LaPella 06:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Too true. It's a paradox - the small bodies no-one apart from a fanatic has ever heard of are well referenced, for larger moons referencing tends to be patchy. For planets, it's a debacle. Similar trends are often seen in other subject areas. Deuar 21:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move proposal - Template:Infobox Planet

User:Sardanaphalus has proposed moving Template:Infobox Planet to Template:Infobox Nonstellar body (or some other generic term). Please join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox Planet#Template's name. --Ckatzchatspy 05:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)