Talk:Solar System/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

marss

Earth and Mars, actual size differential. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

mars is one of the hottest planet and is bigger than eart 42.201.194.138 (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

It actually isn't, it's very small compared to Earth and is not very hot. The air is much thinner though. A few tips, uppercase proper names (Mars), check your spelling, and prove to your teacher that Wikipedia isn't such a bad place after all (extra credit?). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

thank you so much for the information! and ill surely have a wise talk with my so called TEACHER 42.201.194.138 (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Most teachers are cool (as is Mars, it's a pretty cold planet), just imagine the things they have to put up with! One of the toughest but most rewarding jobs on Earth (about the same size as Venus). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

geeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

soo thiss is so random i didnt knew u could add text on this my teacher told me not to believe wiki pedia becuz the source can be fake as u can edit so ommgggggggggggggg 42.201.194.138 (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you can edit anywhere on Wikipedia you want (try it by adding something worthwhile and it may even stay) but that does not mean those edits get to stick around. I found this one a minute after you posted it, and could erase it right now but decided to answer to give you an education (maybe unlike your teacher is trying to do). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Although, to be clear, you can't actually edit this article because it's been semi-protected. Make an account, do some constructive editing for a few days, and then you can. :) Serendi^podous 14:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Good point about the protected pages, thanks. My mistake (but nothing compared to the teacher's mistake not to ever trust Wikipedia - trust but verify moves this crowd-sourced knowledge engine). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

im really sorry

i was gonna delete it right after but i realised i cant

please delete it

im really sorry and i ensure you it wont happen again 42.201.194.138 (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I for one won't delete it, it's a good lesson. And your apology is very Wikipedian (click on that for a nice overview of the editors here). You're fine. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

aish

i hate this teacher

please do me a favor and delete it 42.201.194.138 (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, now you'll giving me a lesson. I don't know if I can delete per Wikipedia guidelines, maybe all of us have to agree. Serendipodous, would you mind if this was deleted? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

i realy appreciate it!

can you tell me how to erase it..? 42.201.194.138 (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's see if the other editor agrees. Removing it is a simple cut and paste then press 'publish changes' and it'll be in the history but not in visible space. But don't remove other people's talk page comments unless they agree. Nothing to fret about, it was a good comment, experiment in editing (we call them test edits, lots of people test to see if they actually can edit Wikipedia), and questions. Been fun, actually. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Haumea

After the mini section describing Haumea, the word Haumea is repeated again:

Haumea (43.13 AU average from the Sun) is in an orbit similar to Makemake, except that it is in a temporary 7:12 orbital resonance with Neptune.[165] Like Makemake, it was discovered in 2005.[166] Uniquely among the dwarf planets, Haumea possess a ring system, two known moons named Hiʻiaka and Namaka, and rotates so quickly (once every 3.9 hours) that it is stretched into an ellipsoid. It is part of a collisional family of Kuiper belt objects that share similar orbits, which suggests a giant collision took place on Haumea and ejected its fragments into space billions of years ago.[167] Haumea

Could somebody please fix this? 2601:600:9080:A4B0:CD24:868:4FEA:35DF (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I do not see any repetition. Ruslik_Zero 13:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Unable to find a source

So, I'm trying to find a source for the solar system's mass in the article. However, I can't find a reliable source to back up the claim that the solar system is 1.0014 solar masses. How can I deal with this? Blue Jay (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The combined mass of Jupiter and Saturn is 413 Earth masses. As per note f, the combined mass of everything else is 37 Earth masses. That means the mass of the Solar planetary system is 440 Earth masses, which is 0.0013212 solar masses. Serendi^podous 10:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Not sure where the extra 26 Earth masses came from. Maybe rounding up? Serendi^podous 16:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Hm, very well then. I was just concerned because there is a citation needed tag in the part of the infobox that says the solar system's mass. Blue Jay (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

On another note, I found this source here (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780444527486001516), maybe it could be used for the citation needed tag in the infobox? Blue Jay (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@The great Jay, I believe that the article you linked was written by Tilman Spohn, He seems to be an expert on the subject, so I would say you could use that as a citation. MaximusEditor (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I could use that as a source, but I have to find a way to look at the content so I could get the info from said article and make sure it can back up and fix the citation needed tag. Blue Jay (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page be split to two pages, one for a generic Solar System and another for the Sol System?

I find it kind of odd that when we talk about a Solar System, we're directly referring to ours, when there's trillions of solar systems out there, should there not be a distinction between the two terms? Stathisdjs (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article for other solar systems called Planetary system. Continually comes up as a problem since Solar System currently fails to redirect the reader properly via HATNOTE re: WP:HATNOTERULES #3 "Mention other topics and articles only if there is a reasonable possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind.". Per [1] [2][3][4][5] that is more than reasonable possibility (and actually a secondary definition) pointing to a need for a need for a HATNOTE along the lines of This article is about the Sun and the objects orbiting it. For objects in or out of orbit around a star or star system in general, see planetary system. For other uses, see Solar System (disambiguation). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The Solar System is the Sun and its planetary system. "Planetary system" comprises just the stuff orbiting the star. As of now there is no official generic term for "Solar System." But there should be. Serendi^podous 23:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

We have been through this a pair of months ago. See #Split into articles "The solar system" and "Solar system" Cambalachero (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

And we went through this before that too. Serendi^podous 09:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I came to the talk page to make the same point. I think we should maybe add the label "Sol" for our solar system as I se people use it to reference our solar system. MaximusEditor (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that would be reasonable.★Trekker (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The Solar System is the Sol System. Serendi^podous 16:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

JUNO

3 Juno, commonly known simply has Juno it's one of the most prominent asteroids of the asteroid belt, (the third one to be discovered in fact) before Vesta and after Paras, and has had relative significance over history, being described in his earliest discoveries has a planet fact in the early 19th century, and I think we should include a brief description and mention of Juno within the section about the Asteroid belt. 83.33.138.138 (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Lead: Sun and its planetary system?

Shouldn't the lead's definition begin with including an explicit reference and link to the term "planetary system"? Yet, I didn't found a actual/sufficient clarification anywhere. Strangely enough, there already is a respective, but invisible XML-style comment in the article's source code (right at the first sentence), however.

It seems to me, this is a crucial information for the reader, too. (Of course, satisfactorily integrated.) David Schopenhauer (talk) 09:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Apparently, this shortage was also identified and meanwhile corrected by @Nsae Comp, on 12 Oct 2023. Thanks! David Schopenhauer (talk) 08:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Is the Solar System British property?

Of course not. An international treaty I forgot the name of prohibits any country from owning space. Mars uses British even though American space programs are primarily focused on manned exploration of Mars, something no other countries have a focus on. In conclusion, WHAT THE HAY? Will accept American and maybe Oxford. IPs are people too (talk) 02:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

What? That's very unclear. HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Easily answered. Yes, the Solar System is British property. Assuring that the Sun never sets on the empire. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Are you randy? Gay Rakshit (talk) 06:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Britain isn't the largest country in the world, the world usually is earth Gay Rakshit (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I think he's upset that we're using Commonwealth spelling. Serendi^podous 12:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The banner at the top of this talk page has been changed to say this article uses American english.Fdfexoex (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

When? HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Yesterday. Fdfexoex (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

A while back the term galactic centre was replaced with galactic center. Fdfexoex (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe this article used to be written in British English, and MOS:RETAIN applies. It should be converted back unless there was consensus for the change. Praemonitus (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Certainly no consensus for change, should be changed back. Brunton (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2001 is the "first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety", center.

In 2007 an IP (mad about Pluto?) converted it to British English

1000 difs ago show mixed usage center/centre.

Its been kicked around around for about a year on the page and "discussion does not resolve the issue" so we should go with "first post-stub revision" per MOS:RETAIN. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the investigation. Praemonitus (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

What would happen if our galaxy and a different galaxy collide?

Would a new galaxy become one? 105.214.66.196 (talk) 08:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Andromeda-Milky Way collision. Serendi^podous 09:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The answer is: it depends. The Milky Way has already absorbed multiple galaxies in the past. Have a look at the interacting galaxy and list of stellar streams articles. Praemonitus (talk) 06:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

What is all this scifi stuff in the name section?

Because of one citation from 1986, the Solar System is sometimes called the Sol System? And where are all the citations saying that scifi concepts like Sol III are acceptable usage for planets? Or for that matter that the terms we use for exoplanets are valid usage for our system? Serendi^podous 16:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree. That seems pretty obtuse and is not in common usage. Praemonitus (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I dont understand the buzz, the idea of the chapter was to clarify that the proper use is "Solar System", and that is the case afterall since the IAU uses "Solar System".

I was merely giving the reader an overview which other terms they might come across and gave some examples. Yes, I realize that I couldnt provide any paper which discusses the history of nameing the Solar System (in science and fiction), but that was not what I attempted. Therefore I realize that my examples of incorrect uses, which were to invite discussion on how to write about it or provide better sources, might be taken out, but I dont understand why the whole chapter is scraped.

So I would argue to still have a typical etymology chapter, because I realy dont see a problem in that and maybe it allows us to give the reader an idea of what the correct term is, while stating that there is no name as such for the Solar System, and which terms are not.

Here the original text:

Name

"Solar System" is the name of the Sun and the astronomical objects gravitationally bound to it, and is not a general term for other such systems of other stars.

The name of the Solar System is derived from the Sun's Latin name Sol, and is because of that sometimes also called Sol System. Accordingly the Solar System's planets can be refered to by being numbered in combination with "Sol" using small letters (e.g. Sol c for Earth), as used for exoplanets, or Roman numerals (e.g. Sol I for Mercury). In fiction the Solar System is also sometimes called Terran System, refering to the Latin name for Earth Terra, though this use is ambiguouse since it is particularly used for the Earth-Moon satellite system.

The Solar System as a system of a star and its gravitationally bound objects does not have a standardized concept, being sometimes called a star system, stellar system or planetary system, though the first two terms refer particularly to systems of multiple stars and the latter to systems of planets. Therefore the Solar System has a planetary system, but comprises more than that, including the Sun and all other astronomical objects bound to the Sun.

Nsae Comp (talk) 09:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

perhaps the more incidental material could go on planetary system instead? I also think "Sol System" is very undue. Remsense留 09:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

it allows us to give the reader an idea of what the correct term is, Wikipedia is not a usage guide, and we are neither lexicologist or lexicographers. Oddly, no dictionarys are cited making this look cherry picked to support a point. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not trying to force any point or citation. I saw my proposed text and sources as a mere invitation to have a chapter that explains why Solar System means what it means. Not in a lexicological way, but to illustrate the difference to for example star system.

As I said I dont understand why it is such a buzz to have a short etymology/name chapter, its not like something uncommon to have, and I didnt claim that the content that I introduced needs to stay. Again, I just tried to give a chapter, which in more detail clarifies what Solar System means and get rid of any misconceptions of its scope. Nsae Comp (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the primary criticism is that it's WP:UNDUE, and its presence implies that the rare terminology is more widely used than it is. Remsense留 01:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I get that. So how about scraping that "undue" stuff then and have what was to be clarified in that chapter in my opinion:

Concept

"Solar System" is the name of the gravitationally bound system of the Sun and the objects that orbit it. As such it is not a general term for any gravitational system of other stars and objects bound to it. Sometimes called a star system, stellar system or planetary system, the first two terms refer particularly to systems of multiple stars and the latter to planets and the system they form. Therefore the Solar System has a planetary system, but comprises more than that, including the Sun and all other astronomical objects bound to the Sun.

The word solar means "pertaining to the Sun", which is derived from the Latin word sol, meaning Sun.

Nsae Comp (talk) 09:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I would omit the etymology at the end (as someone who loves etymology), but other than that it seems fine to me. Remsense留 09:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

As such it is not a general term for any gravitational system of other stars and objects bound to it. We can not claim there is a specific nomenclature and reference it to an anonymous source (uncited/unsigned National Geographic article), especially when its contradicted per WP:YESPOV. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, well then lets leave that sentence out, its stating the inherent anyway, since it is a name and not a category, but fine with me if we have to leave that conclusion out of the IAU definiton to the reader. Nsae Comp (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence simply repeats the lead definition. The third sentence is WP:SYNTH/Lexicology, combining multiple observations of word usage instead of citing a source that makes that overall statement. Forth sentence is a conclusion based on the first three sentences. Once we clean that up there isn't much left. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Since I can not find any source that expicitly discusses/name the cetogory that the Solar System is, I have to step back and leave it as so often to people out there to spell it out first. See you around everyone, and thanks for the input. Nsae Comp (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Note: there is a term for other such systems but it is circular in the case of the Solar System since it uses Solar System and calls them "Exosolar System", but also there I could only find the term being used but not defined. Nsae Comp (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• The slang term "Sol" should not be used at all on the page. The correct wording is 'Solar System' per the title and common usage. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

References

So are Jupiter and Saturn slightly more than 90 percent the planetary system mass, or slightly less?

Also, where is the citation saying that the Sun, which outmasses 95 percent of the stars in the galaxy, is a "low mass star"? Serendi^podous 17:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that a low-mass star undergoes a core helium flash while on the red-giant branch. Intermediate mass stars can start burning helium directly without undergoing a flash stage. E.g. The most common type is the very low-mass star; i.e. fully convective red dwarfs. Praemonitus (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

That article ignores all stars with a mass lower than 0.8 solar; a somewhat selective definition of "low mass". Within that sample, yes the Sun is low-mass, but not all stars have died in the age of the universe. Serendi^podous 21:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I was merely clarifying why some astronomers categorize the Sun and similar stars as "low mass". It has nothing to do with the initial mass function. This topic is covered in the star article, so perhaps you can find a suitable citation there. Praemonitus (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Apparently the distinction is between "low mass stars" and "very low mass stars". I still think this is confusing to the layman. Would a note be apropos? Serendi^podous 20:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, a clarifying note would make sense. Praemonitus (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Before such a change is made, I'll comment that in physics, "low" and "high" are always very context-dependent qualifiers. E.g., "high temperature" can mean liquid-nitrogen temperatures (in context of superconductors), and "low mass" can mean more than solar mass when referring to black holes. So a phrase "low mass star" is not itself meaningful outside of the context of which stars are being referred to. The sun is "low mass" when referring to the median mass (stars can range from 0.07 to over 100 solar masses), but "high mass" when referring to the average of all stars. There is no absolute meaning to "low mass" or "very low mass" qualifiers without specifying which population of stars and what form of comparison. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Comet West

The article says The furthest known objects, such as Comet West, have aphelia around 70,000 AU from the Sun. with reference to BBC. I can't find this number, and the article for Comet West says The comet has been more than 50 AU (7.5 billion km) from the Sun since 2003. and gives its aphelion in the infobox as 1,500 au (unsourced). Any thoughts? Artem.G (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

It was possibly based on outdated information. There are some other candidates on list of Solar System objects by greatest aphelion. Praemonitus (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

"Système solaire" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Système solaire has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 9 § Système solaire until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Mention Pluto as considered a former planet in lede

I’ve been reverted in my edit (rather harshly labeled in the revert summary as “awkward,” which I dispute) by an editor, and I’d like some other views, thanks. I believe it is helpful to briefly mention Pluto’s former status in the lede, since most people only read the lede and Pluto has only been demoted for the last couple decades after over 70 years of official planethood. Jusdafax (talk) 05:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

No. Lots of things we once believed are no longer recognised as true. This is just one of them. No need. HiLo48 (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

This, and the additional controversy surrounding the 2006 reclassification, are already discussed on Pluto's main article and the article on dwarf planets, both of which are relatively high-traffic articles. The Solar System article itself already mentions this as well (see Notes), though it is relatively obscure and inserting the information into a section could be helpful; however, leads alone aren't meant to be exhaustive. ArkHyena (talk) 08:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

There are plenty of planets no longer considered planets, including the Sun, the Moon, and four asteroids. Should we mention them too? Serendi^podous 09:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, Pluto is a planet in the traditional sense, as are all the other dwarf planets. However, the lead doesn't discuss the discovery history, so there's no need to single out Pluto for that reason. I prefer the current wording which has the planets segregated by class. It aligns with the current IAU definition, as do, for example, the modern constellation boundaries. Praemonitus (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

the link to chaotic in structure and composition

it links to a card game, i assume it is not talking about a danish card game. TheT.N.T.BOOM! (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks for pointing this out. Pointed it to Chaos theory, which was probably the intended destination. Remsense诉 17:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Single image depicting both Sizes AND Distances - Critical info which has long been lacking

One method for showing both the sizes and distances to scale all within one single image is by using perspective. Here the Sun-Neptune distance is scaled to the length of a football field. In the foreground, objects corresponding to the Solar System are shown being held in one hand, with the Sun being ~2/3rds the diameter of a golf ball, the four terrestrial planets all being smaller than the ball found at the tip of a pen, and the four gas giants all being smaller than bb pellets. In the inset, perspective has been removed, with the hand being shown up close to one single yard of the field. This image makes it clear that all of the typical representations of the Solar System show a dramatic compression of the vast actual distances.

This article has been lacking critical info about the Solar System. That is an image which presents both the sizes and distances to scale. Nearly everyone has a gross misunderstanding, because all of the images which taught this were grossly misrepresenting one or the other.

THIS edit today added the image shown here which was intended to rectify this situation, but was repeatedly deleted by Remsense (talk). The essence of the criticism is this:

- An American football field is unrelatable to most of the world ("not everyone has the cultural anchor of a football field"),

- This image has an unprofessional look ("it seems unencyclopedic compared to the rest of the article"),

- This image is not as novel as I seem to believe (I am "overselling the novelty").

I will address the third criticism first:

3) I do not care about this particular image. What I care about is the info it presents. Absolutely nothing in this article conveys visually to scale how vast the distances are between objects likewise shown to scale. Not novel? Again, I do not care. Find one you like, and then show that image here. The point was, and remains, that nowhere does this article show this. It has been one full DECADE since this image was published to Wikipedia, yet this article persists without showing anything to the public. Not in any single image at all.

1) The entire world is familiar with soccer. And the vast majority of people all around the world have some understanding that this peculiar sport of American football (which shares its evolution with Association Football) is a field /pitch of roughly the same size. The goal line to goal line distance of an American football field to a soccer pitch is quite comparable. And this plain fact is literally spelled out right here on Wikipedia, in exact terms: List_of_unusual_units_of_measurement#Football_field_(length)

There it explains that the FIFA World Cup recommended goalline-to-goalline distance is 105m (115yds). The NFL American football field distance shown in this image is 100yds (91.44m). It is a difference that is within 15%. Look closely at the image, and you can see that the game being played is soccer. None of the players seem to be bothered by the hash marks. And the obvious advantage of the hash marks is that it helps to give an extremely precise correlation to planet distances. This does not happen on soccer fields around the rest of the world (as far as I'm aware).

2) As for the image seeming to be "unencyclopedic", I would argue that it is a tragic disservice to the typical reader to withhold vital info because certain editors wish to value style over substance.

And the entire concept of Wikipedia is along the lines of 'Stone Soup'. Ok, maybe you find this particular image to be not to your taste at this point in time, but what it DOES DO is serve as a call to editors around the entire planet to come up with a BETTER image.

This is how Wikipedia has become the best source of info for everyone in the world. Not by chopping down efforts toward progress, but by building on top of it. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Dude, uncool. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Also also...

- "visuals should ideally be legible at thumbnail size, which this certainly is not".

4) This fourth criticism is regarding legibility. The way most thumbnail images work on Wikipedia is that the small image conveys the essence of the info being presented. And readers who wish to gather more detailed info have the option to click on the image to get the full-sized presentation. It seems clear to me that the essential info IS conveyed with the thumb. Just a cursory reading of the image description makes it clear that the Sun-Neptune distance has been scaled down to the length of this field. This seems perfectly clear, once that basic premise has been understood. The exact details are unimportant to most. But the fundamental concept is not presented anywhere else in this article, except in words.

My persistence here has been based on the notion that a picture is worth a thousand words. This is why Wikipedia included the capability to present images from its very inception. Of course the thumbnail does not present all of the image's info in full. That is actually the very purpose of thumbnails. To give the essence. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a featured article. If you accept that this image is not encyclopedic, then it shouldn't be on a featured article, because this is meant to be example of Wikipedia's best work. A discussion of the merits of an illustration of this kind is fine, but I'm still skeptical of the depth of the revelation it provides as you describe. Remsense诉 18:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

To sacrifice vital info for the purpose of maintaining 'featured article' status is exactly the criticism which was conveyed by upholding style over substance.

But more importantly, the argument can be made that including this edit makes it an even better featured article. That is my personal view. Nowhere did I express my personal view that this image is not encyclopedic. What I did was acknowledge that it is your view, and might be shared by certain other editors. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Also also also...
I am just now noticing that these words look to have long been in stable form here at the end of this Distances and scales section:

If the Sun–Neptune distance is scaled to 100 metres (330 ft), then the Sun would be about 3 cm (1.2 in) in diameter (roughly two-thirds the diameter of a golf ball), the giant planets would be all smaller than about 3 mm (0.12 in), and Earth's diameter along with that of the other terrestrial planets would be smaller than a flea (0.3 mm or 0.012 in) at this scale.

Here is the NASA school education page which was offered in reference: NASA for educators

So one option would be to add this old NASA image which goes a long way toward explaining the text. But then again, that cartoon does not show any of the sizes to scale. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

All your points hinge on the novelty and importance of the content in question—as do all content discussions—and I apologize, we have to agree to disagree here. I think it's a neat idea that could possibly be a net positive to the article in some form, but not in this form for the reasons I've stated. I think the NASA image gets us part of the way there, but I'm curious what other contributors think, since I've added comparably very little to this article. Remsense诉 18:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

A "realistic" image of sizes and distances would be meaningless. We would have the sun and then some tiny and indistinguishable points at very long distances. And unless the image is incredibly big, the rocky planets would be so small that should very well be invisible to the naked eye. The Solar system is a case where the image (any image, in Wikipedia or elsewhere) is unrealistic by necessity, and the truth must be explained in text because an image would not work. Cambalachero (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Jeez, Tdadamemd19, did you think that by waiting long enough you could restart your war? [For the record, he tried this back in 2014]. This article has already been modified as far as it can be in response to his complaints. Serendi^podous 20:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

God almighty. I mean—I guess yes, that could work, since he last tried this a month after I first made my account, and years before I became a contributor. The theory of patience is sound. Remsense诉 20:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Also for the record, in a truly accurate size and distance map of the Solar System in which the Sun's diameter is 2 inches, Mercury would be seven feet away and less than 0.2 mm wide. Serendi^podous 20:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• I thought that "Americans measuring everything in football fields" is a meme, but here we are... Artem.G (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• Sorry but I don't find that image to be particularly useful as an example of Solar System scale, especially when it requires an exceedingly long caption to explain what it means. Plus it looks amateurish. There are better examples out there. Praemonitus (talk) 05:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Readers and lurkers, what do you think about this article

I'd reckon that at least one people see this talk page every day. If that person is you, please tell me:

• What do you like about this article?
• What do you don't like about this article?
• What is something that you wish this article would talk more about?

I want to get some ideas for improvement, because the Mars article as it is right now is great, but not amazing. I want to turn this into an amazing article. Readers, anonymous editors and registered editors, feel free to make a comment.

P.S. you might notice that I made the same thread at Talk:Mars. That's because I don't want to improve an article, I want to improve 2 articles. :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, both this article and the one for Mars are featured articles. Of course that there may still be room for improvement if we find out ways to improve them even further, but "great but not amazing" is not exactly specific. Cambalachero (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Both Mars and the Solar System have passed FAC in 2007, which I was 1 year old at the time and when Wikipedia's FAC standard was still relatively low. If both of these articles must go through FAC again, then it would certainly don't pass. But I feel that there's another problem at play here which is that these articles are simply not interesting enough. I want to have an article that...

• a teacher could copy the lead and give it to student to read in an assignment,
• a person could skim this article for facts to argue on the internet,
• a reader who's interested in astronomy could read as a comprehensive introduction to the topic, and
• an astronomer could read these articles as a refresher.

You know what I mean. I feel that Wikipedia right now is neglecting its readers and I want to reverse that trend. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The page is a feature article and has been edited by scientists, astronomers, and other professionals in their fields. Can you point to an instance in the lead in which an edit would improve the page per the bullet points above, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that the biggest improvement to move towards this direction is to reorganize the content and make it easier to navigate. I can attest to that via my prior revisions to the article. Before, the article's planets and dwarf planets sections are a bit hard to digest. I removed the sub-subsections, turn them into bullet points and move individual images into small galleries at the top of the section. Virtually none of the content has been removed, except for unit conversions. Now, I think that the article is easier to skim compared to before. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Just looked at the page history and see you've done one of your multi-edit runs over the last few days (lot of edits to a featured and well-edited article). I hope page watchers take note and check your edits. Maybe better, maybe worse, but lots of edits on a well-known page, hopefully you know what you are doing. I'm not going to check for awhile but might end up reverting some again, hopefully not too many bad edits to dig out and spend time fixing but maybe a long-time page editor will come by to check. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I did a comparison and most of it seemed okay. I don't think there is a need to expand 'AU' and 'ly' in the infobox; the box should be kept succinct without additional word padding. Expanded definitions are best left to the article body. Praemonitus (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Actually, per the MoS: "Where space is limited (such as tables, infoboxes, parenthetical notes, and mathematical formulas) unit symbols are preferred." Hence they should be reverted. Praemonitus (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Praemonitus, that's encouraging news. Can you please keep further track of the edits as CactiStaccingCrane is continuing the days-long edit run and I don't have the before-and-after mental pattern of the changes. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't need someone to babysit, thank you. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Don't take it personally, but you can expect featured articles to be watched closely. They have already passed a difficult edit review process to get where they are, and nobody wants to have to repeat that process unless they have to. Praemonitus (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that the asteroid belt and kuiper belt section needs some work. I think that the dwarf planets descriptions should be shortened significantly and content summarizing different minor planet populations should be further developed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The article is written Wikipedia:Summary style. There will obviously be differences in content preferences between different editors, but one decent paragraph for each of the dwarf planets seems about right. Praemonitus (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

About gallery

Praemonitus, why do you think that galleries disrupt the flow of text? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

They create a block of space that directly interrupts the text. Where possible, the reader should be given the option of when to view the images. Praemonitus (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Make sense. Let me adjust picture placement accordingly. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Pushing "general characteristics" section below

I don't think that a lot of readers care about stuff in the general characteristics section and would much prefer read about the things that is inside the Solar System. Should I put that section below "Boundary area and uncertainties" section? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Starting with a high level overview makes more sense to me. Praemonitus (talk) 04:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmm... what do you think this article needs work on? I have a feeling that I have to rewrite descriptions about the dwarf planets and expand Solar_System#Centaurs,_trojans_and_resonant_bodies and Solar_System#Asteroids a little bit. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Infobox picture

What is the justification of the new lead image? Small text is practically useless, and previous image (without the text, but with a caption) in the infobox was imho a better choice. Artem.G (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I'm using an average sized laptop, AND using my reading glasses. I cannot read the smaller text. On any smaller screen that image would be quite useless. HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I would disagree. The text helps match the name of the planets with the planet pictures. I find it pretty helpful to show that to the students. 113.160.44.130 (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations on completely ignoring the concerns expressed in the previous two comments. I suspect that when you show it to students, you display it on a somewhat larger screen than my phone. HiLo48 (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

hey, CactiStaccingCrane, Praemonitus, Randy Kryn, any thoughts on this? Artem.G (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. The present image presents more information than the previous image (seen here). Even without reading the smaller print it presents large-enough useful printed data, and the smaller print is available by one or two clicks on the image. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

From my perspective, it's too cluttered with information for such a small image. I don't find it attractive, artistically. Less is more. Praemonitus (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

well, there was no discussion for the infobox image change, and though some editors like it, some (myself included) prefer the cleaner version without any (poorly readable) text. I'm replacing the image with the previous one, please discuss this change here if you strongly disagree and prefer image with text. Artem.G (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

That works for me. Praemonitus (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Are we done now?

Over the last month, this article has been completely rewritten from the ground up, without discussion or peer review. I think we need to take stock of what has happened. Perhaps bring in a disinterested party. Serendi^podous 12:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree that it has been completely rewritten, but there have been a significant number of changes. I've been making another pass through and trying to tweak the results. It mostly seems to be in decent shape, FA-wise. The one glaring omission I see is there is no mention of planetary migration in the "Formation and evolution" section, but the migration of Neptune is mentioned twice. Praemonitus (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I've attempted to address the last. Praemonitus (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Clean up

I just made some major changes to the article. The most notable of which are:

• Convert small headers listing individual bodies into bullet points, conserving the links using {{visible anchor}}
• Merge oddball sections "Comparison with extrasolar systems" and "Location", create a new section for a general overview (which is basically a repackaged version of "Comparison with extrasolar systems" with some irrelevant information transferred to other parts of the article). Move "General characteristics" down for readability.
• Remove AU to kilometers and miles conversion, strictly only use AU. Also replaced "approximately X AU from the Sun" with clear aphelion and perihelion data.

There are a few parts of this article that I still feel lacking, such as the description of individual bodies or some subsections in "General characteristics". What do you think about the article as it is? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the comparison with extrasolar systems section. It made no sense to take a perfectly good descriptive title and rename it withe the meaningless "overview".

I've also restored the location section. Celestial neighbourhood does not belong in a section called general characteristics of the solar system. Fdfexoex (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Made sense, but I always feel like it is an odd-ball thing... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I merged the "extrasolar systems" section to the general characteristics of the solar system. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

My dear, @Fdfexoex, what exactly would it be "overview" for you? Just a asking. 45.233.183.235 (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Also I just fixed picture placement. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: English Composition 1102 085

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2024 and 2 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jgleana (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jgleana (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jgleana Hey! Do you want some help? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed you commented this 1 month ago, what'sup? 45.233.183.235 (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Poorly-cited infobox

The infobox for this article has an atrociously poor level of citation, and is utterly inadequate for an FA-class article. I think it should be draftified until the citation issue is resolved. Praemonitus (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Praemonitus Cited most of them except for the galactic inclination info. I have no idea where it came from. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Same for the Hill sphere. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I just made a to-do box on top, feel free to add anything more into it – CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that a few uncited numbers in such article justify draftification. Artem.G (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Could you tell me where the problem is? I ain't any FA-class specialist, but I can't found the mistake here, maybe I could be wrong, but it is not clearly wrong. 45.233.183.235 (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Overall, many things need to be clarified here, so that in the future this article will become so unreliable, that it's gonna be almost impossible to redeem this later, It is always good to avoid this kind of referential stagnation—referential, in this sense, of reference sources. 45.233.183.235 (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

What's the point of changing the "asteroid belt" topic header to "asteroids" if you're not going to mention other asteroids?

Asteroids within the asteroid belt are not covered. Serendi^podous 22:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

There's some discussion at the end of the section. Praemonitus (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Never mind. I'll do it. Serendi^podous 16:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)