Talk:Solar System/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Planetary System

User:Eduardo Sellan III clarified the lead to say that the Solar System is a planetary system. User: Serendipodous reverted this and said in xyr edit summary that "The Solar System is not a planetary system." I don't understand why the Solar System wouldn't be considered a planetary system, given that the lead of planetary system states "A planetary system consists of the various non-stellar objects orbiting a star such as planets, dwarf planets, moons, asteroids, meteoroids, comets, and cosmic dust.[1][2] The Sun together with its planetary system, which includes Earth, is known as the Solar System.[3][4]", with 1-4 being valid, reliable sources. Furthermore, the hatnote on this article, which Serendipodous left intact, also states that the Solar System is a planetary system. I reverted Serendipodous, and would welcome xyr explanation of the change. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

A planetary system is the group of objects in orbit around a star. The Solar System, by definition, includes the Sun as well. Yes, the Solar System has a planetary system in it, but it is not a planetary system in itself. There is, at present, no generic word for "Solar System". Serendi^podous 07:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for that clarification, it makes much more sense now. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I still can not understand why the solar system can not be considered a planetary system, but I edited the article with the purpose of giving a definition for the title. The article starts talking about the elements that constitute the solar system, but does not say what it is. Every article should start talking about what it's about the title. - Eduardo Sellan III (talk, contributions).

I didn't get it at first, either. It's a real technical distinction, but a correct one now that I understand. By definition, a planetary system includes only the things orbiting a star. By definition, the Solar System includes both the things orbiting the sun and the sun itself. Thus, the Solar System is actually the Sun plus the sun's planetary system. But I do understand your point about the first sentence not reading like the definition we usually start off with, mainly because (I think) of the use of the word "consists" instead of "is." What do others think about the following:

"The Solar System[a] is the collection of celestial objects bound to the Sun by gravity along with the Sun itself. Those objects were formed from the collapse consists of a giant molecular cloud approximately 4.6 billion years ago."

Would that help fix any confusion and still be logically/scientifically correct?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwyrxian (talk • contribs)

scientifically correct but syntactically awkward. I'll need to think a bit on how to rephrase it. Given that the Sun is 99.9 percent of the matter in the Solar System, it seems a bit odd to add it in a trailing clause. Since there is no word for what the Solar System is (until recently, we didn't need one, since there was only one) I don't think you can say, without lots of repetition, that the solar system "is" anything. Serendi^podous 06:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I am happy with how it reads. The SOLAR system is all about the Sun as the planets are secondary leftovers. -- Kheider (talk) 07:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Me too, except for the "celestial" bodies part, which implies that the Earth is not part of the solar system. It should say "astronomical objects", or even just plain "material" to include dust and other stuff that might not qualify as an "object" or "body". Tbayboy (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest some definitions for "solar system":

• Region of the Milky Way
• Collection of celestial (or astronomical) bodies
• Collection of orbits

- Eduardo Sellan III (talk, contributions).

"Region of the Milky Way" is way too vague- it could apply just as much to the Orion Arm or to the outer regions of the galaxy where the Sun lies. "Collection of orbits" excludes the Sun, unless you count the Sun's orbit around galactic centre. "Collection of astronomical bodies" needs some form of qualifier- "including the Sun" is too vague, as it could just as easily apply to those stars embedded in the Local Interstellar Cloud. "Gravitationally bound to the Sun" excludes the Sun itself. There really is no way to define the Solar System at present, so I think it's best we just stick to what we have. Serendi^podous 15:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that comets such as C/1980 E1 and Comet McNaught that are in the process of being ejected from the Solar System technically no longer orbit the Sun. -- Kheider (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well they don't even fit the definition we have. Serendi^podous 16:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I was kind of suggesting that may not be a perfect "general use" definition. I think mentioning in the opening sentence(s) that the Sun's Hill sphere extends outward for about 3.6 light-years might be a little excessive for the casual reader. Though we could cite Chebotarev(1964). Of course once you reach half way to Alpha Centauri there becomes a serious dominance issue.-- Kheider (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

OK; took me a while but I think I've got it. Serendi^podous 16:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

These edits introduced unnecessary redundancy. The planetary system is part of the group of astronomical objects bound by gravity to the star, so there is no need to refer to it specifically. Also, can we keep "believe" out of it? It suggests we are supposed to take it on faith, rather than from an understanding drawn from the science. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Eris

Eris has just being found to be smaller than Pluto. Check the news here: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/home/106861063.html This makes some of the content in this page inaccurate, including a graphic that displays dwarf planets sizes compared to the Earth.Ricardojimenezr (talk) 03:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I have updated the section to mention that Eris is 25% more massive and roughly the same size. Given the error bars in the different size estimates, it is currently unknown whether Eris or Pluto has the larger diameter. As far as the diagram, it will have to wait for someone with better Photoshop skills than I have. -- Kheider (talk) 06:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Table with key data for planets?

Shouldn't this article include a table (or possible separate tables for the inner and outer system) with key properties of the various planets? Specifically, I would like to see average density in that table...--Larssl (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You can find density information at List of Solar System objects in hydrostatic equilibrium and Terrestrial planet#Density trends. -- Kheider (talk) 12:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Should there be a more obvious link to that list in the article? I mean it's not likely that a reader looking for that information will slap himself on the forehead and cry "Of course! Why didn't I look in List of Solar System objects in hydrostatic equilibrium?" Serendi^podous 00:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking there should be. -- Kheider (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

unusual facts

The Earth and Moon actually orbit a common center of gravity. The Moon does not orbit the Earth, just as Jupiter doesn't orbit the Earth.(Book Of General Ignorance) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.91.92 (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

And I cannot resist adding that the common centre of Mass is within the Earth. So it is perfectly correct to state that the Moon orbits the Earth. −Woodstone (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

By that rationale, Jupiter doesn't orbit the Sun. Technically I guess you could say that we live in a binary system, but that's just going to confuse most people. Feyrauth (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

size/orbits picture

Don't like it. It's unreadable and too large. Also, it's impossible on that scale to show the size difference between Mercury, Pluto and Ceres. Plus, the different scales make it essentially useless. AND the Sun isn't to scale. Serendi^podous 07:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Plus distances are from Earth, not the Sun. And I would prefer AU rather than km. It's too busy, and the scale information is already there, and better demostrated, in other illustrations on the page. Tbayboy (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think that's enough to take it down. If someone disagrees they can put it back. Serendi^podous 14:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Lee's chart additions have raised an issue: should the orbital chart be updated to include Haumea, Makemake and Eris? Serendi^podous 14:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It also doesn't have Ceres, although that would get lost in the belt, and ugly. All those dwarfs (and especially if you think of adding the other non-official dwarfs, like Sedna: Quaoar, OR10, Orcus) would get cluttered. Some additional alternatives to consider: A) remove Pluto :-); B) just add Eris, as a representative of the scattered disc, with Pluto representing the extent of the classical belt and plutinos; C) same as B, but add in Quaoar to represent the cold classical belt. With Sedna there, it's not really a display of the official planets+dwarfs, so adding all the official dwarfs begs the question of why not Quaoar and other unofficial dwarfs -- that would get really messy. Tbayboy (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

A would be simplest, but it would beg the question of what Sedna is doing there. I think B would be best. Alternatively , we can do what image 3 does for Sedna and just have the current position marked, without the orbital path. That would save clutter and allow for more DPs to be added. Serendi^podous 21:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have the following suggestions to improve the image, please tell me whether the image would be suitable for re-insertion into the article if these changes were made:

• Remove all the text (possibly except for the names of the constellations)
• Remove the distance grid in the background
• Change all the planet images to be the same size, don’t bother about scale
• Remove the shadey thing that tries to visualise the size (to scale) of the sun
• Put the names of the planets back, but as a legend in the corner instead of in the middle of the picture
• Add explanation of what the light/dark shading in the orbits mean (the primary thing this diagram is trying to convey) in the legend

What do you guys think? Timwi (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thing is, this article already has an orbits picture and a sizes picture. So I don't know what that picture could add that our current layout doesn't already have. Serendi^podous 19:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see your points and concur. Nevertheless, I find all existing diagrams don't show the relative distances of all the planets at once (they are split into inner and outer planets). How about using this EasyTimeline to show their ranges instead?

Distances of selected bodies of the Solar System from the Sun. The left and right edges of each bar correspond to the perihelion and aphelion of the body, respectively, hence long bars denote high orbital eccentricity. The radius of the Sun is 0.7 million km, and the radius of Jupiter (the largest planet) is 0.07 million km, both too small to resolve on this image.

Thanks, Cmglee (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

That chart is a bit unweildy and I don't really know where it could be placed. Besides, Eris's perihelion is 37 AU; I'm not sure where you got that oribit from. Serendi^podous 08:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reduced the height and fixed Eris' perihelion (I misread the average distance value). Is that better? Cmglee (talk) 12:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks nice but where would you put it? Serendi^podous 15:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Having both AU and km lines is confusing. Either go AU only (both seems two busy), or match the colours of the numbers with the lines. Why Halley's comet? Or, why only Halley's comet, and not Chariklo, Quaoar, Sedna, etc.? The whole Mercury through Earth labelling is messy: maybe stack them vertically, like the plutoids. It might go better on list of solar system objects, at the bottom. Tbayboy (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

new weblink

Hi, may I suggest to add this great weblink to an interactive 3D model of the solarsystem: http://www.solarsystemscope.com/. Kind regards --Frank —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.176.119.51 (talk) 09:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Short answer, no. Wikipedia doesn't do advertising, and unless that site is notable on its own accord, Wikipedia shouldn't link to it. Serendi^podous 10:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Galactic Context, confusingly written

What is the "solar systems ecliptic"? There is only one ecliptic that I know about. Earths orbital ellipse is called the ecliptic. Anything else is just an orbital ellipse. Am I wrong? What defines the "solar systems ecliptic"? Or even the "solar systems orbital plane"? Is the article talking about the Invariable Plane? Because I wouldnt be confused if the person who wrote this article actually knew what they were talking about. CogitoErgoCogitoSum (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Rather than asking rhetorical questions, could you suggest how it might be rephrased? I think what is meant is fairly obvious from the context. Serendi^podous 19:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Deleted "Solar System's". Serendi^podous 07:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

New "ecliptic" picture

Sorry, but if you wanted to show the ecliptic in 3D, wouldn't it be better to show it side on? Serendi^podous 13:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

List the planets (1,2,3...etc)

Hi there,

List the planets. Your first paragraph is way too complicated.

(if I was a betting man, I would put the odds of people wanting to remember a simple list, compared to the first paragraph, as it is now, at 10,000:1)

Thanks. (58.161.50.116 (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC))

have you looked at List of planets? Serendi^podous 12:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Moons in the introduction

There is hardly any information about moons in the introduction. Do you not think it should be expanded as to what some are made of, how they were formed etc. The Gaon (talk) 08:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Structure in the introduction

If you are talking about 'bodies' do you not think it would be more logical to talk about the moons of the planets before you start talking about the solar wind, as the solar wind is not a body but a stream of particles.The Gaon (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Small Edits

Is 'substantially more massive' a bit to long winded. 'Center' should be centre. Did the invention of the telescope not lead to the discovery of some planets not just geological features. Did Newton have anything to do with the fact that the earth moves around the sun. Is there any sources that show that the earth was at the centre of the universe, prob. Aristotle mentions it. 'Nicolaus Copernicus was the first to develop a mathematically predictive heliocentric system' this sounds like he created his own solar system. Shouldn't it be '...was the first to realise that the solar sysyem was governed by 'laws or something on those lines. 'For many thousands of years' is 'many' needed. 'Seasonal' do planets and moons have seasons. I think some moons remain frozen the whole year.The Gaon (talk) 09:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I've had a go at reordering the introduction. "Center" changed to "centre" except in proper nouns or titles. "More massive" has a distinct meaning from simply "larger" and so is required. As to your other comments:

• The line about geology refers to more recent times; ie. the last 100+- years.
• Isaac Newton's theory of gravity made acceptance of the heliocentric cosmos almost universal, because it explained how it could be.
• Copernicus realised nothing. He simply created a mathematical model that put the Sun in the centre of the universe. It was Galileo, Kepler and Newton who found the first evidence of a heliocentric cosmos.
• Most planets and moons have seasons; even Pluto, which is made of ice, has a "summer", in which it has an atmosphere, and "winter", in which its atmosphere freezes to the surface. Seasons depend on axial tilt and orbital eccentricity, not composition. Serendi^podous 09:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Discoveries

Thanks! But Pluto was only discovered in 1930 while the Hubble Space Telescope was used to discover Nix and Hydra two of Plutos moons in 2005.The Gaon (talk) 09:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

So? Pluto isn't a planet, and lots of moons have been discovered since then. Serendi^podous 10:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes but it says that 'telescope and the use of unmanned spacecraft have enabled the investigation of geological phenomena' when telescopes etc. have also been used to discover moons etc.The Gaon (talk) 10:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, fine. Sentence added. Serendi^podous 12:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

More edits

'All the planets and most other objects orbit the Sun in the same direction that the Sun is rotating (counter-clockwise, as viewed from above the Sun's north pole). For exceptions, see retrograde motion.' How is this known? there is no reference.

reference added.

'belt of rocky asteroids' is there any formal name for this.

yes. The asteroid belt.

'According to Kepler's laws' is it according to Kepler's laws if the planets actually move in the way his mathematical model prescripes. Should the section beginning with 'Kepler's laws of planetary motion...' have its own title.

Not sure what you mean. The structure section concerns the way the Solar System is "put together"; how all the various objects interrelate, and also what they're made of.

'(two of which are larger than the planet Mercury)' is this relevant.

If they were orbiting the Sun, we'd call them planets, so yes I'd say it was relevant.

In the paragraph beginning with 'The objects of the inner solar system' do you not think that the paragraph could be shortened if words were given references instead of them being explained. For example the word 'rock' could have a link to a page describing a rock instead of it being described in this article. The same is true for other words. Also the subjects in this section vary and they are not consistent. Compare the fact that the section titled structure focuses on the structure of the solar system. On the other hand the topics in this 'section' have no title and do not have a logical pattern.The Gaon (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Gas, Ice and rock do not mean the same things in planetary science that they do in common conversation. We see rock as always solid, but in planetary science, rock can be solid, liquid or gas. Same with gas and ice. Serendi^podous 10:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

OK but do you not think that it should have its own heading instead of the current 'structure' (if structure refers to those few paragraphs.) Also what I mean by 'according to Kepler's...' that we say according to Plato because Plato is of one opinion while others might disagree. But do we say 'according to Kepler' when Kepler discovered scientific truths which noone disagrees with.The Gaon (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Reworded. I don't think the structure section needs to be subdivided, but that's me. Serendi^podous 12:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I added a "composition" section. I hope that it is adequate to answer all concerns. Serendi^podous 21:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Universe Reference Map (Location) 001.jpeg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Universe Reference Map (Location) 001.jpeg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Questioning The Definition: "bound to" vs "orbits around"

I don't understand what you're trying to correct. You say that "bound to it by gravity" is an innacurate term yet your revision contains the phrase, in gravitationally bound orbits around the Sun. Leaving aside the fact that mentioning the word "Sun" twice in the same sentence is awkward, what, exactly, is the difference between your version and the previous? Serendi^podous 19:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me changing the header to something more descriptive. I thought I had given adequate explanation in the Edit Summaries, but I'll try again here...

The key distinction to which objects are included in the Solar System versus which objects are excluded is whether or not the trajectories of those objects go around the Sun. If they go around the Sun, then they are part of the Solar System. If the Sun goes around them, then they are not. Here's further explanation as I was attempting in the Edit Summaries:

Jupiter and the Sun are bound to each other by gravity. Nothing controversial here. Because of this fact, it is accurate to say that Jupiter is bound to the Sun. Conversely, it is also accurate to say that the Sun is bound to Jupiter. Now consider the Sun's relation to the center of the Milky Way. There likewise is mutual attraction. The Sun is bound to the Center of the Milky Way (similar to how Jupiter is bound to the Sun). This is the error in the Solar System definition as it currently stands. It is totally inaccurate to state:

"The Solar System[a] consists of the Sun and the astronomical objects bound to it by gravity"

...because the Milky Way itself is bound to the Sun, gravitationally, as the Sun is bound to the Milky Way.

Now it is easy to guess how this gross inaccuracy got put into the definition. A peek at the very first archive shows straightforward definitions that specify the Solar System includes the Sun and objects that orbit the Sun. I expect that people came along with gripes about technicalities about object like moons that orbit planets that orbit the Sun. Such a view says that these objects orbit their primaries, therefore it is inaccurate to say that they orbit the Sun. I thoroughly expect that it was someone holding such a view who changed the article to its current definition, that now inadvertently fails to exclude the Milky Way as part of the Solar System.

There is an inherent myopia in the above view. If the trajectory of any moon is to be examined in a Sun-centered frame of reference, it becomes obvious that all objects in the Solar System do indeed orbit the Sun. In such a reference frame, all moons of the Solar System can be seen to orbit the Sun, and their primary bodies (typically, their planets) can be seen as causing perturbations to their orbits around the Sun.

I carefully chose the wording:

"in gravitationally bound orbits around the Sun".

It does not deny that moons within the Solar System orbit around primaries, which themselves orbit around the Sun. All objects of the Solar System are included. All objects that the Sun orbits around are excluded.

Serendipodous, if this explanation leaves any question in your mind about why I've been pushing this change, please let me know. As to the notion that my actions violated Wikipedia policy, you might want to consider this:

"BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes."

I'd at least hope we can recognize members here who are doing their best toward improving Wikipedia, improving the planet, improving the Solar System as a whole.Tdadamemd (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I had no intention of blocking your attempts to edit. I simply wanted clarification because your edit was confusing. Now that I understand what you mean, I will endeavor to rephrase it more simply. Serendi^podous 20:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I like that! I hope others here will too. Thanks for your help.--Tdadamemd (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Object categorisation

I propose to add a section of categorisation to this article. The objects should be categorised according their type, like planets, dwarf planets, minor planets, comets, dust, etc. with an enlisting of known important objects. What do you think about such a section? Sae1962 (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean like this?Serendi^podous 16:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting pixel

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Moon_transit_of_sun_large.ogg There seems to be a "dead" pixel right above the sun, abit right just off the center of the screen. But it slowly moves it's position, at one frame even going very close to the sun and afterwards going back to it's initial location. At first I thought it was a dead pixel, then I thought it was some asteroid crossing by, but it's really strange. Was there any investigation on this or am I the first to discover it? 89.114.56.250 (talk) 00:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Earth... is the only place in the universe where life is known to exist

An almost identical statement was made on the lede for the Earth article. In the discussion over there the consensus was to remove mention of this point as agreement on the wording could not reach a stable outcome. The statement here makes the same universal claim for knowledge of life and just assumes human knowledge but does not acknowledge the anthrocentric subjectivity of this claim given that human exploration of the universe is thus far restricted to our Solar System and therefore this statement is somewhat of a shallow truth to extend to everything in existance. Also the reference link here seems to be dead. SkyMachine (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's earth centric. Wikipedia has to be based on some assumptions. Knowledge being that possessed by humans is one of them. Another is that in many, many articles we simply don't (and cannot) include the possibility that some"one" off earth has run faster, jumped further, experienced higher temperatures, etc. Change this, and you have to change every instance of "greatest" (or smallest, or hottest, etc) something ever recorded. HiLo48 (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes but if some one were to write "Usain Bolt is the fastest known runner in the universe" would you not agree that the universal claim there is on a different order (in terms of justifiable claims) to saying he is "the fastest known man?" In other words, why would you say such a thing if you didn't need to, to get the same point across? SkyMachine (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about men. I'm talking about claims like "...hottest temperature ever recorded...", without context, or "tallest building ever built" or "longest story ever written", etc. Every one of those claims could be exceeded by a hypothetical achievement by an alien race we don't know exists. So, how careful do we have to be? HiLo48 (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Context matters. What frame of reference you use matters. From my frame of reference the sun is the brightest star because it looks to be so, however from a more independant reference frame there are stars in our galaxy that are a thousand times brighter, they are just further away. If you are talking about something on Earth (tallest building etc) we assume the frame of reference of "the world" (this happens to be most things in human culture). However, the universe as a frame of reference is evoked if you mention "the universe" and this is very many orders of magnitude larger than "the world". Our frame of reference for claims about life really should be the Solar System because that is all we have explored to any length (though far from completely), so far. We are not likely to have come close to exploring "the universe" in any near future (if ever). We are just barely at the point of detecting the first extrasolar planets somewhat the size of Earth. SkyMachine (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. So, we must now eliminate from Wikipedia every claim for largest, hottest, fastest, etc. without context. Right? (There are a lot of them.) HiLo48 (talk) 10:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Well no. Just start with the most egregious examples such as this statement that compares Earth (as a location known to harbour life) to the entire unexplored universe and everything in it except our Earth. Most things of interest to humanity assume Earth frame of reference by default without error so there should be no problem (or much less of one) for these fastest (the speed of light), hottest, coldest, smallest, largest claims. SkyMachine (talk) 11:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

@HiLo48. That there imprecisions in other Wikipedia articles is no excuse to create more of them/not to correct at least some of them. It could do us only good to continuously ask ourself it our POV is as neutral as possibly could be and try to correct our ways. --Dia^ (talk) 07:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ceres isn't on the solar system summary

I just noticed that it isn't on there. It's got plenty of other relatively obscure planetoids on it, so why not Ceres? I have probably missied something vitally important here, but as far as I can see, someone should put it on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.185.215 (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not there because there's no good picture of it. Yet. In 2015, we should get a good pic of Ceres, and Pluto & friends, too. Tbayboy (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

we are preparing new results for way of explaining reason of Jupiter’s' fast rotation

--IRAN nov 2011 Akbarmohammadzade (talk) 10:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Well if these results are published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal, and become accepted by a portion of the scientific community, then it should be included in the Jupiter article. However, the currently accepted theory seem pretty rock-solid; by the very nature of the gravitational collapse scenario, more massive bodies will have a higher angular velocity. A new theory does not seem necessary. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 18:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Star system

In astrophysics, the term star system or stellar system refers to any system of one or more stars and their gravitationally bound non-stellar mass. While galaxies are often called stellar systems, recent science indicates that they would be more accurately called "black hole systems", since galaxies seem to have black holes - rather than stars - at their barycenter. "Solar system" = "the stellar system centered on the star, Sol." Planetary system would not be accurate, as this excludes the primary star or stars. Patrickwooldridge (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but there hasn't been a large scale shift in definition yet.

The Universal Book of Astronomy defines a "planetary system" as:

A system of celestial bodies in orbit around a star including planets, moons, asteroids, comets, and dust.

This definition would exclude the parent star.

Collins Dictionary clarifies this distinction:

... A system of planets and other bodies, such as comets and meteroids, that orbits a star. The Sun and its planetary system together comprise the solar system.

The McGraw Hill dictionary of Astronomy defines a "stellar system" as:

A gravitational system of stars.

Chambers 21st Century Dictionary defines a "star system" as:

a group of stars thought of collectively

OED Concise defines "solar system" as

the sun together with the planets, asteroids and comets etc. that orbit around it.

According to these definitions, therefore, there are three separate concepts being defined here:

1. Planetary system: the substellar objects in orbit around a star.

2. Star system or stellar system: a group of stars garvitationally bound to one another

3. Solar system: our Sun, together with its planetary system.

As yet, there isn't a universally accepted general term for "Solar System". Serendi^podous 16:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

While some dictionaries with more abbreviated entries only refer to multi-star systems, those with more comprehensive citations usually also include single star systems. For example, the quote I cited is from the Wikipedia entry. Collins unabridged states "1. (Astronomy) Astronomy a group of celestial bodies that are associated as a result of natural laws." I consider this definition to be too vague; I would rephrase it as "a group of celestial bodies centered on a star or group of stars that are associated as a result of natural laws". From the point of view of just logic, I would contend that, since Sol is (a) name of our star, then the Solar System is by simple definition a stellar system.

Also: why did you object to clarifying that the majority of the mass in this system is not in the planets, but in the Sun? Patrickwooldridge (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It occurs to me that one of the functions of Wikipedia is as a forum for clarifying and refining definitions and explanations. If you and I (and other astrophysicists) can agree that "stellar system" is an appropriate term for single-star systems, then eventually the dictionaries will catch up. The term seems both intuitively and logically correct to me. If the Solar System had a binary as its barycenter - or even if Jupiter had ignited - it seems there would be no question that it is a stellar system. We know that there are other similar systems of a single primary star orbited by a planetary system and, not only do I consider "stellar system" to be an accurate and descriptive term for these systems, but I cannot think of any other term that would be equally accurate and descriptive. Patrickwooldridge (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's job is to report, not to lead the way. Similar discussions have been had over the definition of the Kuiper belt or exactly how many dwarf planets there are. In the end, we simply have to reflect the current situation, no matter how inadequate that situation may be. Serendi^podous 08:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I've condensed the archives

To keep my archives in line with previous ones, I've condensed the number of archives from 8 to 6. ~100k seems to be the minimum established for this archive, so I'll be sticking to that. Serendi^podous 09:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 December 2011

In the Milky Way wiki it says: "The Milky Way is a barred spiral galaxy 100,000-120,000 light years in diameter containing 200–600 billion stars"

In the Solar System wiki it says: "The Solar System is located in the Milky Way galaxy, which contains about 200 billion stars."

Please can one of these statements be changed so that the quantity of stars in the Milky Way is the same in both.

Many thanks.

Grinners80 (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

both say 200 billion; one just allows for possibly more. I don't think there's a discrepancy there. Serendi^podous 22:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: I find myself in agreement with Serendipodous.--Hazel77 ^talk 18:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Title??

Sorry if this has been mentioned before. I expected this article to talk about any solar system and another article titled 'Sol Solar System' or something similar would talk about our solar system. There are billions of other solar systems out there, why does this talk mainly about our own? I know we know lot more about our own than others but still. 124.254.78.121 (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Astronomical literature tends to refer to the systems of planets orbiting other stars as planetary systems: I think that article is what you are looking for. Our system of planets orbits the Sun (Sol in the Latin), so as you said, this is the (Sol)ar System (proper noun). Iridia (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Evolution of Solar System

The current article (May 4 2012)has a section headed "Formation and evolution" devoted almost entirely to the formation and evolution of the Sun. The only reference to the planets is the brief "The planets formed by accretion from this disk". I expanded this to include a shortened summary of the content presented in much greater detail in the article Formation and evolution of the Solar System. My summary was reverted by user Serendipodous, with the comment "This is already covered in Formation and evolution of the Solar System". I think, perhaps, that Serendipodous failed to notice the carefully considered summary nature of my update. If this section is to be present at all, then it must surely contain more than a (fairly detailed) description of the life cycle of the Sun, and no reference to the evolution of the planets. In the light of this belief, I will unrevert my update. Please add some justification here before reverting me again. FredV (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is pushing 100 K; at this point we should be trying to make it shorter, not longer. I've been pushing uphill with recent additions, and really this isn't the only thing I would delete at this point. At the very least, this section can be seriously shortened: 1. Bullet points are not stylistically appropriate for this article and 2. the paragraph on the Nice model could be reduced to a sentence. Serendi^podous 21:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree both that the detail in both the description of the Sun and in the formation of the planets was a bit excessive (with much of the former repeated verbatim in Formation and evolution of the solar system. I've taken a crack at trimming both. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 00:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Comprehending the vast distances subsection

A new subsection "Comprehending the vast distances" was added today. I have a few concerns about this section that I want to mention here instead of just reverting.

1. The entire section is unreferenced (though I don't think there's anything factually controversial there) and seems a bit like original research.
2. It doesn't present any new information and is quite different in tone than the rest of the article; the rest of the article focuses much more on the scientific facts instead of pedagogical presentation. I'm not sure if that's a bad thing.
3. The article is already quite large. That's not a reason in itself not to include new material, but might this material be better off somewhere else (either in a separater article or not on Wikipedia at all?

—Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 10:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This is adequately covered in Solar System model. No need for a repeat here. Reverted. Serendi^podous 10:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

To clarify my reversion: I think the image used, like the text that was reverted as described above, is way too much on the pedagogical side for Wikipedia. See WP:NOTTEXTBOOK: "The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter." —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 02:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Ashill. This article already has about as many images as it can handle, and the mini-essay in the thumbnail does not conform with Wiki style rules. Serendi^podous 05:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed the image from the structure section as well. In addition to my objections above: a) I don't think this image does convey both the relative sizes of the objects and the distances at the same time; it just gloms together the two concepts, which is already done separately -- and better -- in several of the other images in the article. b) Much of the text is illegibly small. c) The relevance of the golf ball and chewing gum pack require so much explanation that I don't think its helpful, certainly not encyclopedic, and perhaps only helpful to a subset of the world's English-speaking population. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 10:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The text and image I added were deleted for the reason that the vast distances were conveyed somewhere there already. Where? I can't find it - neither in words nor in images. Quite to the contrary, every single image in the article presents a grossly distorted view of the Solar System.

I definitely agree with the criticism that the article is way too long. Info about greenhouse gases does not belong here, along with about half of the other info it presents. But there is fundamental Solar System info that this article, in its present state, utterly fails on. Perhaps the most glaring:

- The lede never states that the Solar System is a planetary system.

- Nowhere in the body of the article is this ever stated either.

Reverting unnecessary info is a vital aspect to Wikipedia editing. But in this article, the baby has been thrown out and an excess of murky bath water has been preserved for public display. If this article were properly written, it would convey the basic info about the Solar System all contained within the lede. And a key part of that is how vast the spaces are between objects. With very few exceptions, just about everyone has a gross misunderstanding of those vast distances, because all they've ever seen are this dramatically misrepresented diagrams of the solar system.

Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a primer. But when that encyclopedia presents info in a very distorted manner, it takes on the duty of correcting that very misrepreresentation it made. One way to do that is to make note in the images. But to simply state "distances not to scale" fails to quantify the extent of distortion. Imagine instead if the note were to state "sizes shown to scale, distances compressed by a factor of 10,000", (or whatever it actually is). And even to quantify it like this, it still runs into the problem of numbers that are incomprehensible.

What my effort was trying to do was to simply state that on the scale of a football field, you'd have a object smaller than a golf ball at one end and an object smaller than a BB at the other end, with a few other BBs and several much smaller objects distributed in between. This is basic info that people do not comprehend. Not even many (probably most) astronomers. If they did, they would be a lot more careful when presenting these outrageously distorted images.--Tdadamemd (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Uh, the Solar System is not a planetary system. It has one in it, but it is not one. This article has two images listing the distances to scale, both in the Structure section, so I don't really know what you're talking about there. The only time greenhouse gases are mentioned is in regards to Venus, where they are quite relevant. As far as mentioning the distances in the lead, well, which distances? The distance to Sedna? The Oort cloud? Alpha Centauri? Space is big. Serendi^podous 18:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be perfectly ok that nowhere in this article is it stated that the Solar System includes the Sun with its planetary system.

And I did not say that the article does not have anything that shows distances to scale. The very point at issue is that nowhere is the vast distances between the objects communicated. In other words, how extremely small these objects are in relation to those vast distances.

As to the point about space being big, people have a general understanding that space is big. But then the Solar System is thought of as this local clump of matter. What the huge disconnect is is that the Solar System itself has vast space within it. Matter is the great exception, even with the Sun and Jupiter. As for the relevant distance to scale to, the one that was being highlighted was the space within the Solar System, with the key length being from the Sun to the outer most planet. Yes, the distance across the Oort cloud would be good to convey ...as soon as that info becomes available. And no, the distance to Alpha Centauri is not totally relevant to this article. That would be good to have in an article about Alpha Centauri, or an article about the Milky Way.

And yes, greenhouse gases are very relevant to Venus. I see that info belonging in the Venus article. If you wanted to get down to that level of detail in an article about the Solar System then you'd have an article as long as the current one: way too long with trivial details in relation to the Solar System as a whole, yet missing key info about what the Solar System really is, and what it isn't.--Tdadamemd (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The "planetary system" discussion has been had before. Please be sure to see the link marked "These edits". The article also has an image that shows the sizes of the Solar planets to scale, so what exactly is your point? Serendi^podous 19:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that pointer. As for the original issue being discussed here:

There is no image, nor text, that describes how small these Solar System objects are in relation to the vast distances between them. Even to represent the largest object, the Sun, as a single pixel in those images is a gross distortion.

For anyone who maintains that this is adequately done already, I would like to see the exact words or image(s) where you feel this is properly communicated in the article, pre-reversion. For reference, here's the image and caption that got deleted:

Diagram of the Solar System including its eight planets and five known dwarf planets, with sizes shown to scale and distances modeled to the size of an American football field. At this scale, the Sun would be smaller than a golf ball, and the gas giants located far down the field would each be smaller than the size of a BB pellet.

This is the only image that I know of where this small size-vast distance is accurately communicated. Everything else I'm seeing in the article looks grossly distorted.--Tdadamemd (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm unclear as to why you think your image is an improvement. It's unclear, cluttered, and completley fails to get its point accross. The fact that it requires so much exposition to explain shows that it is not conveying the idea visually. And there's a reason for that: YOU CAN'T convey this idea visually. It's impossible wihtout a page the size of a football field. Serendi^podous 20:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It can be easily stated with words:

"If the distance from the Sun to the outer-most planet, Neptune, were scaled to the 100 yard length of a football field, then the Sun would be smaller than a golf ball, and Neptune along with all of the other Gas Giants would each be smaller than a BB pellet."

There. Done. Maybe I'm the only one who thinks this is key info that belongs in the lede.

As for why this article does not communicate the Solar System in relation to the generalized concept of a planetary system, I'm still reading through that archived talk to try to understand the reasoning that was arrived at. Whatever it may have been, I see it to be a major mistake. That is one of the very first things I would want to see stated in an article about the Solar System. I'm now curious as to whether the article conveys at all that the Solar System is not at all unique in this respect. That it has just one of a multitude of planetary systems. Again, very basic info that belongs in the lede!--Tdadamemd (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Serendipodous. The image is more confusing than enlightening. The text by itself is better, but it should be less culturally specific. I don't think it is key or essential information, so I don't think it belongs in the lead. Something like it could extend the paragraph about Solar System models (at the end of Structure).

As for "Solar System", there is no generalised term for a star together with its planetary system. The "see also" note (at the very top of the article) indicates the distinction between "the Solar System" and "the planetary system orbiting Sol". The first sentence of the lead could be amended to include "planetary system" (splitting the collapse bit off to its own sentence), but I think that would read poorly with the note there, unless we're not supposed to "see" the note and lead together (dunno the Wiki-stance on that). Tbayboy (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The image is wholly uninformative for me. I have no idea what the upside-down numbers on the green background are meant to be. And what is the picture of the rectangular thing in the bottom right corner? I've got some idea of the normal size of a golf ball but how does that scale to the other things in the picture.

And what is a BB pellet? I've never seen or heard of one before. I would have to go and research that before the explanation made any sense to me. By which time I would have given up and ignored the whole thing completely. HumphreyW (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone named Tim back in the early 90's popularized this thing called hypertext. <=See how those letters are a different color? You can click on it if you don't know what it means, and it magically takes you to a new page that explains it to you. It's called "the internet". Oh wait, you're soaking in it!--Tdadamemd (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

@Tbayboy: I'm not seeing what is so culturally exclusive about a golf ball, a stick of chewing gum, and a BB pellet. Those seem like items that are ubiquitous to the English-speaking world, for this English wikipage. And if there are better items to use for scale comparison, I am all for it. As for the football field, it covers pretty much the whole world to let people know that it's nearly the length of a soccer field (other football field). ...which might be nice to go with from the get-go if that 100 yards thing wasn't so convenient.

But for whatever reason there is an amazing amount of pushback against just the concept of trying to accurately communicate this info about how vast the expanse is. Humphrey's reply above really went the extra mile! Or make that "extra kilometer", as he will say that he has no idea of what a "mile" is (nor the inclination to look it up).

As for what you're saying about the header note, trying to convey article information through those notes is a misconstructed article. Those header notes are properly used to redirect a person who is looking for a totally different topic. If the concepts are related, then the note should be deleted, and the info moved into the article where it belongs.

My understanding of how Wikipedia should work seems to be the outlyer from the vocal majority here. Because of that, I'm going to step back from any more input here for the time being. I've made my critiques known. You all can do whatever you see to be best with that info. I'll check back after some time to see what, if anything, has changed.--Tdadamemd (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) While I agree with all but one editor in this discussion that the proposed edits would make the article worse, it is true that there's no mention that most of the volume of the Solar System is outer space. I added a mention of this to the lede. I'm not entirely convinced that the way I added it is the best possible, though. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 11:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"Volume of the Solar System" makes little sense, since the Solar System is a collection of objects, not a region of space. The biggest issue I have with the whole "vast distances" thing is that where you decide to measure those vast distances from is entirely arbitrary. Do we start from Neptune? The Kuiper Belt? The heliopause? The Oort cloud? The Sun's Roche sphere? If we're only talking about distances between planets, then that arguably belongs in the structure section, not in the lead, since the planets are not the only things in the Solar System, and the structure section already covers distances tolerably well. Serendi^podous 12:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've added a brief description of the Sweden Solar System to the paragraph on models. Don't know why I've bent over backwards to appease this guy, given that he has done nothing but insult us, but there. It's done. Serendi^podous 14:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I came here to this article to make constructive edits. When those edits were reverted, I moved to this Talk page to present constructive criticisms. It became clear that my positive intentions were not being taken positively, so I decided to step back. If you feel personally insulted by my criticisms, then perhaps that is because you feel personal ownership of this article, and perhaps it is attitudes like that that are the fundamental problem that have manifested into this article. You do not own this. I do not own this. It is a shared community.

This is not an insult. This is another example of me trying to offer constructive criticism on how this article (and Wikipedia on the whole) can be improved. I would hope that we all share the goal of having the best article, the best community, the best planet, and the best Solar System.

I'm going to step back into the observer mode here once again.--Tdadamemd (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Re "the Solar System is a collection of objects, not a region of space." Really? I don't think that makes sense. The article uses the concept "outside the Solar System" twice, which implies that the Solar System is a region of space, and we would certainly say that, for example, Pioneer is within the Solar System, and the interplanetary medium obviously is. I think this depends on context. Britannica (whose words we obviously can't use verbatim), says "solar system, assemblage of [a bunch of objects]; and vast reaches of highly tenuous gas and dust known as the interplanetary medium."

You're certainly right that the Solar System doesn't have a clearly defined volume, but I think it is perfectly clear what "volume of the Solar System" means in this context. I could have said "the volume which contains the objects that make up the Solar System", but that's just clumsy and conveys no more information than "the volume of the Solar System", in my opinion. Though I think that the (good faith) text and image proposed by Tdadmemd have mostly made the article worse, the editor is not without a point: I do think an encyclopedic (and brief -- probably less than a sentence!) mention that nearly all the mass is contained in essentially none of the volume would improve the article. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 01:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Re your last sentence: Second sentence of the lead. Tbayboy (talk) 03:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

New Image Showing Sizes in Orders of Magnitude

Earlier today I made a new image to show diameter comparisons in how the Sun, Jupiter, Earth and the Moon are related in orders of magnitude. These are arguably the four most important objects of the Solar System (from an Earthling's perspective). I think it would be an excellent addition to the article, and I would add it myself, but during the above discussion about communicating the vast distances between these objects, I committed to holding off from making edits to the article. I hope you all like it, and that you find it as useful as I do. Here it is...

Ironically, while this image may make the size relationships much more clear, it may contribute to people having a distorted understanding of the distances between objects (particularly in the first frame with all four bodies). It may be helpful to add a note directly onto the image.

I'll be glad to address feedback on this new image in this section, but I still prefer to hold off on adding to the discussion in the previous section, for the time being. What this section would best be used for is the appropriateness and helpfulness of this image if it were to be used in the Solar System article. For anyone who has feedback specific to the image itself, it would probably be better to add that over at its Wikicommons page.--Tdadamemd (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I think this image would be an excellent companion to the orbits image in the 'Structure' section.--Tdadamemd (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not necessary. The very first image in the article gives the size scales of all the planets. And there are more images below that that do various comparisons. This image appears to add nothing that isn't already in the article. HumphreyW (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

What you are saying is akin to holding the view that all the info in the new image is contained within the very first quadrant, and that the other three quadrants are unnecessary. But notice how much more detailed info those other three quadrants give. It shows at a glance that Jupiter is one tenth the diameter of the Sun, and that the Earth fits 11 times across Jupiter. And the bigger point is in identifying the general trend of the order of magnitude relationship between various categories of bodies found in the Solar System. This does not come across at all in the first image of the article (not to me at least). It is a fundamental quality of the Solar System. I'm not sure how well it comes across in the text of the article. This image is offered as a very quick and convenient way to communicate that fundamental info.

If the concern is that the article already has too many images, I would agree. I can also suggest several images that the article would not lose much by eliminating (actually, the article would be improved by eliminating).--Tdadamemd (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC) [edited]

I also don't see the point of the image. It might be useful in Orders of magnitude (length) though. Serendi^podous 08:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The point was that this image is illustrating a fundamental characteristic of the solar system. I don't see how this is communicated clearly in the article as it currently stands. Another way this could be communicated is through a graph that lists the diameters of Solar System objects in descending order. My expectation is that such a graph would clearly show that these major objects fall into four distinct categories that would look like stair-steps (if the y-axis showed diameter logarithmically), roughly speaking. The Sun would be on the top step. The gas giants would be on the next step. The terrestrial planets one step down from that. Then the dwarf planets on the bottom step. This image was my way of showing the transitions between those four steps, but instead I showed the Moon at the bottom end with a comment in the description of how it is very large proportionally, which is a distinctive feature of it as a moon in our Solar System.--Tdadamemd (talk) 05:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Add infobox

Hi there, what do you think about including an infobox for this article? This would allow readers to quickly see some key facts about the Solar System. It could have the some of the following headings for example:

No. of Planets: 8
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Diameter: 9.09 billion km
Formed: 4.6 billion years ago

Any thoughts? Nozzleberry (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

How would you define the diameter of such a fuzzy system like the Solar System? --JorisvS (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I totally see your point about the difficulty in defining the size of the fuzzy solar system. Perhaps the mean radius of Neptune's orbit could be stated under one heading and the estimated average radius of the heliopause under another? Just a thought.Nozzleberry (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding several of such more precise figures could work, but there would still be certain uncertainties we would have to deal with. For example, the distance to the heliopause is still somewhat uncertain. --JorisvS (talk) 11:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes the current uncertainty perhaps makes it a bit premature to specify a distance to the heliopause. Maybe it would be better to include this once Voyager 1 data indicates it has reached the boundary. The other problem with specifying the diameter of Neptune's orbit is that the heading would be a bit too long - e.g. "mean diameter of outer planet's orbit". Any thoughts on a more concise way to specify this?Nozzleberry (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

"Semi-major axis of the outer known planet". I doubt it can be any more concise without compromising its accuracy. --JorisvS (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Do we have data on enough planetary systems besides the Solar System to make it worthwhile having infoboxes to compare them? cmɢʟee☎✉ 17:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think we have that kind of data for any other solar system yet. I guess I was imagining this being used to aid people's understanding of our own solar system only.Nozzleberry (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hm, yes, think that could be worthwhile too. --JorisvS (talk) 11:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Glad you think so too.Nozzleberry (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good in principle, but I don't think there's enough solid facts to fill a box. Location seems meaningless, since anybody who doesn't know that doesn't know what a galaxy is, anyway. As JorisvS pointed out, diameter is fuzzy, both in concept and in actual measurements. (I would rather see "diameter of planetary disc" than "...outermost planet", though.) Tbayboy (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that an infobox would probably add more clutter than useful information. I think that the lead image provides an excellent summary much more efficiently than a collection of statistics would; it tells the reader not just how many planets there are, but also their relative sizes, order, and about the existence and relative size of some of the smaller bodies. It doesn't relay distances or the size of the Solar System, but I don't think that choosing a number or two for an infobox would do that well either. Because there's nothing else like the Solar System for which we know the kind of numbers we'd put in an infobox with anywhere near enough precision, I don't think an infobox would be useful as a comparative device either. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 00:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Tbabyboy, why would you rather see "diameter of planetary disc" than "...outermost planet"? --JorisvS (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

We can see discs in a few other systems, so it's comparable. Outer planet is not well known for other systems. Plus, it's the biggest measurement we have for the system as a group of things, as opposed to a property of the the sun by itself (Hill's sphere, heliopause, etc.). The Oort cloud is still theoretical, with no direct measurements, but the Kuiper cliff is known by measurements. Tbayboy (talk) 12:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

What disks are you talking about? Protoplanetary disks? Then how could we use it for evolved systems like the Solar System? The Kuiper cliff? --JorisvS (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Protoplanetary and a bit more advanced, with some young planets -- see exoplanet hunting. There's only a few I've read about (from somewhat advanced systems), but there's the promise of finding more with the new IR scopes, and from more advanced discs. The K-cliff seems to make a fairly clear boundary of the Sun's evolved accretion disc. Anyway, that's just one potential number for the box. Without several more added to the above, I don't think the infobox is desirable. What other properties are there? Which do we have actual measurements for? And which aren't just a property of the sun alone? Tbayboy (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Either seems pretty arbitrary to me. The only absolute value for the size of the Solar System is the diameter of the Sun's Roche sphere, and most people would be rather confused to learn that the Solar System has a 2 light-year radius. Serendi^podous 11:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The size of the solar system seems to be difficult to get any agreement over but there are many other attributes that I think are interesting to see summarised. Below is a revised infobox suggestion:

Formed: 4.6 billion years ago
Location: [[Local Interstellar Cloud]], [[Local Bubble]], [[Orion–Cygnus Arm]], [[Milky Way]]
Total mass: 1.992 x 10^30kg
Semi-major axis of outer known planet: 4,503,000,000 km (30.10 AU)
Distance to the [[Kuiper cliff]]: 50 AU
Nearest star system: [[Alpha Centauri]] (4.3 ly)

---Objects---
No. of stars: 1
No. of planets: 8
No. of [[dwarf planet]]s: 5 (dozens more awaiting confirmation, possibly hundreds)
No. of known natural satellites: 176
No. of known [[minor planet]]s: 586,000+<ref>[http://www.minorplanetcenter.net/iau/lists/ArchiveStatistics.html]</ref>
No. of known [[comet]]s: 4,185 (as of Jan 2011)
No. of identified round satellites: 19

---Orbital characteristics---
Inclination of [[invariable plane]] to the [[galactic plane]]: 60°
Distance to [[Galactic Center]]: 27,000±1,000 ly
Orbital speed: 220 km/s
Orbital period: 250 Myr

---Star-related properties-----
[[Frost line (astrophysics)|Frost line]]: 2.7 AU
Distance to [[heliopause]]: ~120 AU
[[Hill sphere]] diameter: ~1–2 ly

The planets could also be split into terrestrial 4 and jovian 4 also if desired. If this infobox suggestion is still unpopular I'll happily keep quite after this attempt!Nozzleberry (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Given that the chances of us finding an extrasolar planet in another galaxy are pretty minimal, I think the location line is a bit redundant. Also, "known" dwarf planets should be "accepted" or "official" dwarf planets or similar, while "number of natural satellites" should be "known". Serendi^podous 07:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

If we're going to include the no. of known comets, we should also include "No. of known minor planets: ...". And we could add "No. of identified planemo satellites: 19". It should definitely also include (as already mentioned above) the distance to the Kuiper cliff. And because the Sun is the most important component of the Solar System, I think adding a few figures that are primarily the result of the Sun would also be useful: frostline, heliopause, and Hill sphere.

While it is not very useful to just say that the Sun is located in the Milky Way, it would be if we are more specific, something like "Location: Local Interstellar Cloud, Local Bubble, Orion–Cygnus Arm, Milky Way" and "Distance to galactic center: ...". And to provide some more info on its surroundings, maybe "Nearest star system: Alpha Centauri (4.3 ly)" would also be useful. Furthermore, we could add "Orbital speed: 220 km/s", "Orbital period: 250 Myr", and "Inclination of invariable plane to the galactic plane: ...". --JorisvS (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I have edited the revised infobox proposal above to include all of the great suggestions. I would be grateful if anyone could edit any numbers or wording that seem inaccurate. I would also would be interested to hear any feedback about the section headings and order. RegardsNozzleberry (talk) 11:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I've tweaked a few things. There is still an issue with the number of dwarf planets. Stating that there are five is misleading without also stating that there hundreds of candidates. I would add a figure for "No. of dwarf-planet candidates: ...", but where would be the cut-off? When would something still be a candidate and when would it not be? Brown's list includes a set that are 'probably not' dwarf planets but "A few of these object could be bigger than expected, however, and could turn out to be large enough to round themselves.". This description suggests that these can be considered candidates, although very weak. --JorisvS (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Re DP: something like "five certain, dozens awaiting confirmation, possibly hundreds". Tbayboy (talk) 12:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

That does give the correct impression to the readers. Do you know of a way we could be more precise? --JorisvS (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

"5 certain, ≈18 awaiting confirmation, ≈150 possible", referencing Tancredi and/or Brown for the actual numbers (these are just my guesses). Tbayboy (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

How about combining Brown's "likely", "highly likely" and "probable" into the one heading ("probable"). Then writing "5 certain", "4 nearly certain", "93 probable", "289 possible"? Maybe with a note saying there could be many more?Nozzleberry (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Something like that could work. However, if we're going to follow Brown that way, then we're faced with the problem that his "nearly certain" actually means that these 'must be dwarf planets even if predominantly rocky' and that this is the same category in which he places Pluto, Eris, etc.. --JorisvS (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

That's totally true. I was actually going to ask if you knew of any source for definitively labelling the main 5 as dwarf planets? As you say Brown doesn't go that far.Nozzleberry (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

They are the only ones on the IAU list. It is, however, problematic to use your suggested phrasing for the reason I pointed out. This issue has been discussed ad nauseam on Wikipedia in various locations (e.g. Talk:Dwarf planet) and not worth repeating here. The best I can think of would be to combine those 4 with the "highly likely" ones into a separate category we could mention. --JorisvS (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

So do you mean, "5 certain", "26 highly likely", "71 probable", "289 possible"? Where "probable" is a combination of Brown's "likely" and "probable".Nozzleberry (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I recognize that it is, however, a large string that will not be very meaningful to many. Maybe it is better to leave out the subtle differences altogether and only give a general number of candidate? --JorisvS (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

How about just writing "Dwarf Planets: 5" but adding a comment saying either "hundreds more possible candidates" or "300+ possible candidates"? Any suggestions on the best wording?Nozzleberry (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Even that is problematic because we don't know enough about these objects. There might only be a dozen or two, or there might be thousands (or even more in the hypothetical Oort cloud). I don't think any astronomer doubts that there many more than the 5 IAU identified ones, but the lower bound (mass or diameter) is little better than a guess, and the difference between reasonable guesses could be hundreds of bodies. Even a ballpark number (like 300+ above) is grossly misleading. So the three numbers I was thinking of are the current officially listed number, the approximate pessimistic number, and the ballpark optimistic number. (And I previously forgot about the Oort cloud, so even Brown's numbers aren't much good.) I now think it's probably too fuzzy a number for an infobox entry. :-(

Note that this is not the same issue that we've had with "is it a DP?" elsewhere, since this is just an aggregate number, not a statement of a specific body's status. We don't have to determine whether or not, e.g., Orcus is a DP here, since even if it isn't, another body we thought too small may turn out to be much larger. I.e., this is a statistical number, not a hard count. Tbayboy (talk) 03:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Given our limited knowledge about the lower limit, all those in Brown's list are candidates (by definition of the word), regardless of how many will actually turn to be dwarf planets. It may be better to just use your original suggestion of "five certain, dozens awaiting confirmation, possibly hundreds". Do you think that it is useful to mention that there are also likely many more in the uncharted outer regions? --JorisvS (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

See Oort cloud. Out there, we're at the "here there be dragons" stage of exploration. Sedna might be a lone freak, or it might be a common type of object. I think we should leave it to the Oort cloud article, and just go with a the vague "dozens ... hundreds" in the infobox. The problem is the sourcing, and it looks like Brown's web page is all we've got. Tbayboy (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I've adjusted the infobox suggestion above. The "dozens awaiting confirmation, possibly hundreds" I was imagining could be a comment just underneath the "5". How does that sound? Also, does the estimated distance to the heliopause = 120AU sound ok?Nozzleberry (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I've tweaked the presentation of the dwarf-planet info. I don't think we would have to say something like 'estimated distance' (hence one of my previous changes to the infobox), as long as we include some indication about how certain or precise a figure is. The Sun's Hill radius is also not precisely known and thus still needs some tweaking. --JorisvS (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the adjustments. Could we not just use the same system for the Sun's hill radius? - i.e. Hill radius ≈ 1 lyNozzleberry (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've tweaked it. --JorisvS (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

That's great, thanks once again. Does anyone here have the know how to do the coding for the infobox template?Nozzleberry (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that the template be located at Template:Infobox planetary system. Its sytax would probably be akin to that of Template:Infobox planet. I'm not very familiar with the latter's syntax, though, and could only build it by changing things I recognize. --JorisvS (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll see if I can track down a different infobox which would be simpler to modify, or find a user who can make the changes to the Template:Infobox planet. Will post a message here if I find anything useful.Nozzleberry (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I saw Nozzleberry's {{help me}} request - just to clarify, are you guys looking to make an infobox that could be used for potentially any solar system, or one just for this? (Simply because we wouldn't necessarily want to make this with just the params you listed.. we could include others as well for other solar systems in future.) Let me know if this isn't clear. Thanks! :) Theopolisme _TALK 01:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, for any planetary system. Hence, it should also include distance to Earth/Sun, and right ascension and declination. Furthermore, we should also include the spectral type of the star(s) in the system and maybe variable type. Am I forgetting other parameters? --JorisvS (talk) 09:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Theopolisme! Sounds like all the relevant parameters. Could we just add the right ascension and declination as a part of the location? Then have the spectral class and variable type in the "sun-related properties" section?Nozzleberry (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The location parameter is (for the Solar System) already pretty full. I think that RA and declination would best be separate parameters that would always directly follow 'location' in the infobox. You are obviously correct that spectral class and variable type should go into the star-related-properties section (I've renamed it, appropriately). I've also renamed the 'Solar System objects' to simply 'Objects' (because it is, in principle, about any planetary system) and added a 'No. of stars' parameter. --JorisvS (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Is the layout above (of the potential infobox) correct - or rather, I base the infobox off of that, correct? And if so, can you check and make sure it has everything you need/want? Thanks! Theopolisme _TALK 15:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

 Doing... - Working on an infobox using info above now. Theopolisme _TALK 15:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Check this out: [see below for updated] Let me know your thoughts, comments, etc. Theopolisme _TALK 16:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice job, but a few issues and suggestions. Note that I'm assuming this is intended as a general infobox for other systems as well. (in no particular order)

1. total mass: We don't know this with any real accuracy, other than about the mass of the sun. It's still possible that there's a large companion out there that we haven't found (bigger than Jupiter). Perhaps move this to star properties and sum the stellar masses.
2. "Kuiper cliff" is not appropriate to other systems. Say "Size of planetary disc".
3. "nearest star system": A "star system" is a system of stars, not a singular star with its attendent planets and debris. Just say "nearest star". Our nearst neighbour happens to be a star system, but many others will neighbour singular stars.
4. "nearest star": Not very interesting for other systems, and hard to tell.
5. System mass: This is huge number in Kg, to the point of begin meaningless, especially if it's about other systems. Use solar masses. So our system might be 1.01.
6. Change "objects" to "planetary system" and move semi-major axis and Kuiper cliff (disc size) into that section.

Tbayboy (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so I made some revisions per your comments -- I don't know if I got everything you said, so let me know. But.... we can make the nearest star field optional, if that could solve the problem. Or... hmmm, I don't know. Ideas? Theopolisme _TALK 20:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Superb work on the infobox!:) I think having the distance to "nearest star" as an optional field, as you've suggested solves the problem nicely. Also it would be nice if the "AU" units were links to the Astronomical unit page so that the layman will have something to click on. One last thing - I think the mass should be "1.001" Solar masses" not "1.01"Nozzleberry (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the 1.01; I meant to add a parenthetical remark about it not being the real number, then forgot. The real number (1.001 or thereabouts) gives you a good feeling for how insignificant the system is next to the sun.

A couple more comments: Most of the entries would have to be optional, especially the planetary ones. "No. of known ..." could be just "No. of ...", or, alternatively, also say "No. of known ..." for planets, DPs, etc. Tbayboy (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks -- here's my question for you guys... do we really think that this should become its own template? Simply because I don't know how people would feel about a custom template for just one page - unless we add this template to other systems on Wikipedia.. and I have no idea simply how much info we have on those, as this isn't my field at all.. so... for space (not that sense, I mean in the sense of area available), and to ensure that some button pushing admin doesn't want to delete simply because it's a single-use'd template, should we make it just on a case-by-case basis and, if it receives enough traction/potentials for use, shall we say, convert it to a full fledged template? Just a thought. So, in a nutshell, not make it a full template as of yet and just use it for this one page. Theopolisme _TALK 01:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right. As discussed above but then forgotten, it's very unlikely that we'll have comparable information about any other planetary system in the next many years. Therefore, I think this infobox is really only applicable to the Solar System.

More specific comments: 1) The mass of the Solar System is actually 1.0014 solar masses (derived from the cited statement in the article that the Sun accounts for 99.86% of the mass of the system), not 1.01. Solar masses should be wikilinked. Really, the mass of the system is the mass of the Sun; this is even more true if we're trying to compare to other planetary systems, where the mass is definitely not known to 4 significant figures! 2) The "orbital characteristics" could use a better name that indicates (concisely) that it refers to the Sun's orbit in the Galaxy. I don't have a great suggestion, though. "Orbit within the Milky Way"? "Orbit about the Galactic centre"? —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 04:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

A stripped down version (minus the dwarf/minor planet and satellite info) could be used for other systems. I would also get rid of "size of planetary disc". It's a fairly meaningless phrase and predicated on the assumption that the edge of the Kuiper belt is the edge of the Solar System. Serendi^podous 06:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not so predicated. It's intended to be an approximation of the size of the formation disc, before scattering, which is visible in very young systems. Everything beyond that has been scattered or captured. I.e., it's the limit of where the native bodies of the system were formed. The protoplanetary disc is visible in a few very young systems, but it's probably not determinable (in the foreseeable future) for systems that have started scattering. I find it more interesting than, say, the heliopause, but maybe that's just me. Also, "outermost planet" might be an indirect indicator of the same thing, depending on the theory of planet migration, and it's a lot easier for us to detect. Tbayboy (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I made your changes, Alex. /// Is there a consensus - should we remove the "size of planetary disc" (suggested removal by Serendipodous)? I'm just not feeling too WP:BOLD right now. ;) Theopolisme _TALK 13:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I would remove the planetary disk; if it's intended to represent the size of the disk during formation for comparison to other systems, which time are we choosing? Also, I don't see the 50 AU number anywhere in the article; where is it from? —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 23:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

By making most, if not all, parameters optional this template could be used to summarize what is known about other planetary systems, too. This could also solve the planetary-disc-vs.-Kuiper-cliff issue: Just include both as optional parameters. I originally suggested 'Nearest star system' because for the Solar System (and likely for many other planetary systems) the Alpha Centauri system is nearest. The nearest star would be Proxima Centauri. Is calling this parameter 'Nearest planetary system' an option or is this problematic because nothing but the three stars of the α Cen system are known? --JorisvS (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Re the Kuiper cliff thing: If I'm the only one who sees any utility in it, then don't include it. We don't want too much crammed in there, either. Tbayboy (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I consider it useful/interesting, too. I don't think it suddenly makes the infobox crammed. --JorisvS (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

While the "No. of known dwarf planets" would typically be 0 for extrasolar planetary systems due to detection limits (and hence including this parameter would not be very useful), PSR B1257+12 likely has a detected dwarf planet. --JorisvS (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

So should we just go for just making everything optional? I think that would be the easiest method. If we want to do this, I'll go through and "infoboxize" it - making the params and everything for the {{infobox BLAH BLAH BLAH or whatever}} - because it sounds like we're near done. K? Theopolisme _TALK 17:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. --JorisvS (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I've also added a 'spectral type'. Please include 'right ascension' and 'declination' parameters and split the 'size of planetary disc' into a 'distance to the Kuiper cliff' and a 'size of proto-planetary disc' parameters when "infoboxizing" it. --JorisvS (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

@Joris: I'd rather call both the Solar System and the α Cen system a "stellar system" than a "planetary system"; I think this is the better "general" term. (Note that this is just how the Solar System itself is named: a stellar system, with the star being the Sun, so "stellar" → "Solar".)

Yes, 'stellar system' is perfect. I've changed it. --JorisvS (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't. See Stellar system, which is something different. Unfortunately, there is no general term for Solar system. How about something like "Nearest neighbouring system"? Or just "nearest neighbour"? Tbayboy (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see much opposition between the two. What about binary or trinary systems that include planets? I don't much care about what it is called, only that it is accurate and precise. Would "Nearest system" (also) be possible? --JorisvS (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Read the first paragraph of the article. E.g., the Solar system is not a star/stellar system. "Planetary system" does not include the star itself. Also note that alpha centauri is not known to have any planets (although, since it comprises 3 stars, it is a star system)! I think "nearest star", with no "system", is probably best. Tbayboy (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I have read it. It is not black and white. How would you call a system with a circumbinary planet? --JorisvS (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

That planet would be part of the planetary system of that binary star system. I don't see much grey in the article, just the upper bound of how many stars it takes until it's called a cluster. A "star system" (a.k.a. "stellar system") refers to a system of gravitationally bound stars, not any associated sub-stellar objects, and not to singular stars. There is no term that generalises "Solar system". What exactly is the entry supposed to indicate? The nearest star to Sol is Proxima Centauri. The nearest star system is Alpha Centauri, which is a binary, and probably a trinary that includes Proxima. It is unknown if there is any planetary system bound to any or all of those stars. Such distinctions will be extremely difficult with any other star and planetary system; just finding the nearest star will be tough enough. Tbayboy (talk) 01:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

So what term do you suggest for a gravitationally bound system in orbit around the Galactic Center that may consist of zero, one, or more stars and zero, one, or more planemos? --JorisvS (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Zero stars? You're including brown dwarfs (or sub-BD), I assume. Then simply "nearest neighbour", as mentioned above. Tbayboy (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

What about "nearest system"? --JorisvS (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Is a singular star (so not a star system) with no known planetary system still a system? Or is it safe to assume that all stars (+BDs?) have a planetary system, even if it's just asteroids and dust? If the latter, then "nearest system" works. Tbayboy (talk) 04:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's see. Star system. HTH HumphreyW (talk) 04:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it even possible for stars to form without even a tiny accretion disc? Even the gas giants did. And even if it is possible, wouldn't such a star still collect some debris from interstellar space? In other words, what is the likelihood that absolutely nothing would be gravitationally bound to it? --JorisvS (talk) 10:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Consider a small star that forms in tight star system (dissipating the close-in disc), then gets ejected by its larger siblings. Or maybe a really big star that blows away its disc before anything accretes. That brings us back to: why require "system"? Why not just say "nearest star"? Then we don't have to guess whether or not all stars have planetary systems. Tbayboy (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

What about solitary sub-brown dwarfs, then? --JorisvS (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Or even full blown BDs, even non-solitary. The answer there is that we can't see enough of them yet for it to matter. We don't even know for sure if there's a similarly sized body at 1000 AU, let alone halfway to Alpha Centauri, or in the vicinity of any other planetary system. Stars are easy to see, so there's a chance of filling in that line for other systems, although even that might be too uncertain, given the error bars on stellar distances. I haven't looked, but if the error bars are really that bad, then the line would never be filled for other systems, so "nearest system" would be okay for the Solar system, since A-C is a star system. Tbayboy (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't we just have both "nearest stellar system" and "nearest star", both optional? (I think this may have been suggested earlier by someone here)Nozzleberry (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

We could just say "nearest star = Proxima Centauri, Alpha Centauri system", and only worry about BDs and sub-BDs if and when they become relevant. We could also include a parameter "nearest known planetary system = ....". Any objections to this? --JorisvS (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Tbayboy (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've implemented it. --JorisvS (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I like the proposed infobox very much, but I'd suggest removing the "known"s in front of "planet(s)" (if not all "known"s) - for the Solar System, it's very unlikely another planet will be found, and "known" is meant to be implicit in any Wikipedia information. (E.g. α Cen is only the nearest known star, etc.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

In the Solar System it is indeed very unlikely, but for most extrasolar systems it very likely that our knowledge about the number of planets is complete, hence the 'known'. It is to bring the incomplete knowledge to the attention of the naive reader. Maybe we could go for a more sophisticated infobox that suppresses the 'known' where desired? --JorisvS (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree re other systems, but I think that including the word "known" here for the solar system could easily do the reverse, implying that the discovery of more planets is likely (like it is for dwarf planets). I don't care how that fix is implemented. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 23:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going to convert this into an actual template-like infobox now, with space for the parameters and such. Note that doing this will wipe out everything we put in there, so the infobox to the right will look quite funky for a while - until I reenter all the details. Just please don't make any more modifications to the infobox for the next hour or so. Thanks! Theopolisme _TALK 00:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Updated Infobox Below - Note that all parameters can now be modified in the code itself (right below) rather than on User:Theopolisme/SolarSystem - however, if we want to change labels/etc, it still has to be done there. I know I didn't address everyone's comments with this, but if you could make a list of what specifically to change (I'm sorry, I have problems reading between the lines, as they say), that would be awesome. Theopolisme _TALK 00:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Solar System

Planets and dwarf planets of the Solar System. Sizes are to scale. Distances from the Sun are not to scale.
Age	4.568 billion years
Location	Local Interstellar Cloud, Local Bubble, Orion–Cygnus Arm, Milky Way
System mass	1.0014 solar masses
Nearest star	Proxima Centauri (4.22 ly), Alpha Centauri system (4.37 ly)
Nearest planetary system	Epsilon Eridani system (10.49 ly)
Population
Stars	1
Planets	8
Known dwarf planets	5 (dozens more awaiting confirmation, possibly hundreds)
Known natural satellites	401 (176 of planets and 225 of minor planets)
Known minor planets	587,527
Known comets	3,155
Identified rounded satellites	19
Planetary system
Star spectral type	G2V
Frost line	2.7 AU
Semi-major axis of outermost planet	4.503 billion km (30.10 AU) (Neptune)
Kuiper cliff	50 AU
Heliopause	~120 AU
Hill sphere	~1–2 ly
Orbit about Galactic Center
Invariable-to-galactic plane inclination	60.19° (ecliptic)
Distance to Galactic Center	27,000±1,000 ly
Orbital speed	220 km/s
Orbital period	225–250 Myr

Looks nice. Technically, it should be "Semi-major axis of outer known planet's orbit". I think "Semi-major axis of Neptune's orbit" is cleaner, though obviously not applicable to other systems. Also, dwarf planet is linked twice (in the image caption and the table proper), while planet us only linked in the caption. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 03:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added right-ascension and declination parameters and made the template distinguish between Kuiper cliff vs. size of proto-planetary disc. Theo, is there an elegant way to make the 'known' in 'No. of known planets' optional to include? --JorisvS (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this is elegant, but two fields: knownplanets and planets? —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 18:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought of that, but I was hoping for something more elegant. Would it be possible to convert the "known" to an optional parameter, maybe using something like {{#if: {{{known=no}}} }}...?? --JorisvS (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I get what you're saying, and that sounds quite doable. I'm actually traveling right now, so I have to do everything from my iPod... But when I get back home in a week, I'll get right on it. Thanks- and sorry to suddenly disappear. :) Theopolisme _TALK 11:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all Theopolisme! Your expertise is much appreciated. Look forward to hearing from you when you're back:)Nozzleberry (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I put some params in there - check out the documentation for how to use them. As I have to go for a bit, if one of you wants to test it out (as I have no idea if this hack will work), that'd be great - otherwise, I'll get testing this evening (CST). :) Theopolisme _TALK 16:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I have tried a bit, but it seems I can't get it to work properly. --JorisvS (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I've also had a go and can't get it working.Nozzleberry (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Working now! Finally! Documentation is your friend... but more so is racking up lots of userspace edits! Take a look and make sure it works for you guys, too.... but yay! :) Theopolisme _TALK 14:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, works for me too. :) --JorisvS (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record, to call another parameter INSIDE an if statement, you have to encase that param inside triple {{{ }}} tags. Just putting that out there. Theopolisme _TALK 14:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

So... next steps? Theopolisme _TALK 00:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

There's been some discussion above about the "nearest stellar system" heading, but I think it's nearly sorted. I think it's time to go live, what does everyone else think? (Thanks for the coding tip above by the way, will come in handy when I finally take the plunge and start experimenting!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nozzleberry (talk • contribs) 08:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Is everyone happy with the infobox? shall we move it to the article? Nozzleberry (talk) 09:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we should still look critically at some of the figures in the infobox and add citations. These are no. of known natural satellites, no. of known comets (incl. a more recent figure), Hill sphere radius, inclination of invariable plane (60° refers to the inclination of the ecliptic), and maybe the other orbit-related figures. Furthermore, could someone check the location of the Solar System? And maybe we could still add a parameter that adds the name/designation of the outer (known) planet between parentheses: E.g. outername=Neptune → "Semi-major axis of outer planet (Neptune)", of course with the parentheses only showing if the parameter is used? --JorisvS (talk) 11:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll get right on the outer planet parameter. However, I won't be much use with fact checking, I'm afraid. :) Theopolisme _TALK 11:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Corrected the no. of known natural satellites. --JorisvS (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Added referenced figures for no. of known minor planets and of known comets. I'm interested if anyone can dig up an up-to-date source with different numbers. --JorisvS (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I've managed to implement my suggestion myself. I think once we have corrected the inclination parameter we can go live. --JorisvS (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone find this value? The best I have managed to get is this: 'The ecliptic is currently tilted by 1.57° with respect to the invariable plane and the inclination of the ecliptic to the galactic plane is ~60°, which means the value has to be somewhere between about 58° and 62°.' --JorisvS (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll see if I can track down a more precise figure, or some info on the relative directions of the angles so we can make a more accurate estimate. Will post anything I find tomorrow. Nice additions btw :)Nozzleberry (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't had any luck finding out more info on the angles. Maybe we should just leave it as an approximate angle? I'll keep on looking when I get the time anyway.Nozzleberry (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

How about the new format: "... 60° (ecliptic)"? --JorisvS (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not ideal, but I think it's the best we can do for now. If anyone finds the actual figure for the angle between the invariable plane and the galactic plane then it can be added later and remove the "(ecliptic)" text. If we stick with the angle with the ecliptic though, the main article actually has the value 62.19° in the reference {{ref_label|F|f|none}} which shows the calculation. Should we use this value and reference?Nozzleberry (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I've put in the more precise value and taken it live. --JorisvS (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The infobox looks great! Thanks to all for everything :)Nozzleberry (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)