Jump to content

Talk:Solar System/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

inaccurate

Hi why is the position of saturn upside down? Its solar maxim was hit during 0 bce now its going towards the sun. However, i don't understand why the picture is upside down when i look at saturn it will be pointed south for some reason. confusing:( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.25.193 (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hatnote

Per WP:RELATED, the hatnote for this article is being improperly used and should be removed. Praemonitus (talk) 04:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, the link to List of gravitationally rounded objects of the Solar System was inappropriate so I removed it. The links to planetary system and star system are appropriate because the word "solar system" is sometimes (inappropriately) used to refer to other stellar systems, so there is a potential confusion. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 04:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, that is an improvement. Praemonitus (talk) 04:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
It was added because people kept asking why there wasn't a list of objects in the Solar System with all their individual properties. Rather than copy the entire article into this page, it made more sense to add a hatnote. If you can think of another way to do that, let me know. Serendipodous 14:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the clarification. The link is currently in See also. A link from "round satellites" in the infobox would make sense. Unfortunately, because the infobox is an allegedly "generic" planetary system infobox, that's not easy. Because {{Template:Infobox planetary system}} isn't used anywhere else, any objection to putting that link in the template? —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 23:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Maybe make it optionally linked and specify the link target in the infobox in the article. --JorisvS (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Done. (My first adventure in conditional statements in templates, so I'd appreciate cleanup if I messed something up!) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 00:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Looks good. --JorisvS (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

New template

I've made a template (Template:Solar System navbox) with content from Template:Lists of Solar System objects and planets illustrations. Can we replace second template with it? --Rezonansowy (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Visual summary section

The 7 by 5 box of assorted solar system objects doesn't give any helpful information about size, location, composition, mass, or orbital relationships that couldn't be better shown with a list or link to such a list. It's supposedly arranged by volume, by there is no relative scale whatsoever; the Sun looks the same size as (actually slightly smaller than) Jupiter. The caption of "selected for size and high-quality imaged" implies this is a list based on prettiness, and if that's the case it might as well be replaced with a link to the commons per WP:Galleries.

And the wide to-scale image...just look at the size of it how can a reader be expected to see anything but the sun and black space? It might as well been a solid black strip for all its usefulness. What does this section add? Reatlas (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm neutral towards it, so it can go if it gets voted down. Serendipodous 15:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I think the big empty black strip is very much unhelpful and would prefer to see it go. There are editors who, in the past, have expressed very strong support for it on the (mistaken, in my opinion) view that we need a single image which conveys both size and distance to scale. I also think the gallery could go, as it's clearly selected for prettiness. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 21:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm neutral w.r.t. the "black strip", but I'd like the gallery to stay- the objects are "selected for size and high-quality imaged" (with "high-quality" apparently just meaning good resolution), not prettiness. (E.g. Pluto does not have any image of a similar resolution as the imaged objects.) But we should probably add a bold "disclaimer": "not to scale". --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm against the black strip, ambivalent on the gallery. One pro for the gallery is that it illustrates the degree of visual difference amongst the objects; i.e., how they don't look all alike. Tbayboy (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the scale image/black strip and moved the lists to see also. Reatlas (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

What is a comet?

what is meant by comet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.223.5.2 (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at comet. HiLo48 (talk) 06:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason I moved the navbox back to the see also section is because it obviously wasn't working where it was, as can be seen by the comment above. I certainly couldn't see it in my browser, because it was dwarfed by the Solar System infobox. And since those lists are already linked in the navbox, they aren't required. Serendipodous 18:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the navbox works better further down. In fact, though I appreciate the effort to put it together, I think that it contributes clutter without a purpose. The links in that navbox are mostly in the info box but in better context, and even more are in the collapsible Solar System template at the bottom of the page, again better organised. I think a third attempt to provide consolidated links does more harm than good. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. The template isn't too useful at the top of the page as a sidebar, but if it in the see also it's only duplicating content that should be in the end of page navboxes. Perhaps the horizontal navbox needs reformatting to be more navigable. — Reatlas (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

11 Planets

There are actually 11 Planets in the Solar System if you include the three dwarf planets: Pluto, Eris and Ceres.

The Planets in order from the Sun (without dwarf planets) are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.

The Planets in order from the Sun (with dwarf planets) are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres + asteroid belt, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and Eris.

Should you have any queries, contact me on JacquelineFernandez™ — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacquelineFernandez (talk • contribs) 03:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeahhhhh no. If you want to limit the planets, use the 8 planets IAU definition. But if you want to include dwarf planets, include ALL of them and not just the "more important" ones. Like, all few thousand of them. Thank you and have a nice day (and technically, if you're using historical objects as the Stern definition of "classical planets", Vesta counts too) 134340Goat (talk) 05:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Typo in Uranus' semi-major axis value

In the Outer Planets section, Uranus' distance is given as 19.6 AU instead of 19.2 AU. Since the latter value is consistently found everywhere else, I can only conclude that this is a typo which needs to be corrected. 217.186.221.136 (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC) Zeromant

Thanks. Revised. Serendipodous 19:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

scientific theory which is actually hypothesis stated as facts?

This sentence :

"It formed 4.6 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a giant molecular cloud.."

Is incorrectly stated as fact.

This is not a fact and is not a neutral opinion for all of mankind. It is a scientific theory or rather a scientific hypothesis. Can anyone verify the origins of the Sun? What a ridiculous notion.

This sentence should be changed to :

"Scientific Theory suggests that It formed 4.6 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a giant molecular cloud." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.229.164.89 (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The same applies to almost every sentence in every Wikipedia article - it would get very tiring if every statement were qualified in this way. We can rely on readers to understand, I think, that if we make such statements without qualification, it means we believe their accuracy to be universally accepted among experts in the field. If there are competing theories, then we need to qualify. W. P. Uzer (talk) 06:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes. We also state the Earth is round, but that's just a theory too, and not universal for all mankind. — kwami (talk) 07:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Hehe, "not universal". Yeah, some deluded and illiterate people may think otherwise. The only viable theory for the formation of the Solar System is collapse of a molecular cloud. Any other opinions about that are ill-informed and inconsistent. --JorisvS (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point Uzer but within this sentence I mentioned if you follow the link to the page for "Molecular cloud" and scroll down to "processes" - "Star formation" the First sentence states the following : "The general hypothesis is that the creation of stars occurs exclusively within molecular clouds." So there seems to be an inconsistency between these two pages. One page admits its general hypothesis and this page states it as fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.229.164.89 (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed. It also called it incorrectly the "creation" instead of the "formation" of stars. --JorisvS (talk) 08:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Boundaries section

The information about Voyager 1 is outdated. It has entered interstellar space now although it has still a few tens of thousand years to go until it leaves the Solar system. --Artman40 (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

New photo to accurately show the vast distances

Scaled-down Solar System: These nine objects are spread across a radius that spans the two yellow lines.
More comprehensive caption...
With the Sun-Neptune distance scaled to the length of a football field (yellow lines pointing to the 100-yard span of the goal lines, roughly 13 meters shorter than a standard soccer, or Association football field), the Sun scales down to two-thirds the diameter of a golf ball. The gas giants are all smaller than a bb pellet, and the terrestrial planets are all smaller than the ball-tip of a ball-point pen. The yard-line distances for each of the planets are roughly: 1, 2, 3, 5, 17, 32, 64 and 100. (The inset has these objects presented within just the first yard, illustrating how the typical images of the Solar System depict distances compressed by more than two orders of magnitude.) Edited.--Tdadamemd

A long-standing complaint about this article is that it fails to accurately convey the vast distances between the planets. The lede image is typical in how it grossly compresses these distances by orders of magnitude. Today I uploaded my latest effort at communicating these distances accurately. It is being offered for inclusion into the article, or maybe someone has another idea of how this info can best be told to the readers.--Tdadamemd (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

This picture is completely unintelligible. If it requires an entire subsection's worth of text to explain it's not that helpful. Serendipodous 10:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's a disaster. But thank you for providing a perfect example of our systemic bias. Why on earth would you use an American football analogy? Most of the world has no idea how it works. HiLo48 (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think using American football is a problem. The different types of football field are all close enough in size that it doesn't make much difference which we use. — kwami (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
See below for details of how wrong that claim is. HiLo48 (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the tone of some of these comments are appropriate. While I agree that this particular image doesn't work, berating someone for making a good faith effort is detrimental to the project. Make constructive criticism. (Hohum @) 19:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
One explanation as to why the article fails to communicate Solar System distances accurately is because the same core of editors voices objection and summarily removes all attempts that have been made to do so.
The caption thoroughly explains the photo. The inset serves to illustrate just how messed up the typical images of the Solar System are. Perfectly clear to me. And I expect that can be perfectly clear to others too, if not clear to some here.
As to the choice of scaling to an American football field, you might notice that the actual game being played in the photo is not American football, and none of those players seem to be hot and bothered by that fact.--Tdadamemd (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Part of our systemic bias problem is when those who are part of the problem don't realise it. I personally happen to know roughly how long an American football field is (despite the fact that I've never seen a game live and only ever accidentally seen fragments of games on TV), but it's obvious that several here have absolutely no idea how long an Australian rules football playing field is. I don't expect everyone to know it, but when you post as if you do know all that is relevant to your claim, and you're wrong, a lot of Australians say to themselves "Ignorant Americans, again". HiLo48 (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
How many times do we have to have the exact same discussion amongst the same group of editors? My opinion, for one, hasn't changed since the last time the same editor suggested the deeply flawed idea of using a football (whatever code you like) field as a metaphor for the solar system size scales. It's unencyclopedic, violates WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, and isn't very helpful as a teaching tool anyway (both for the reasons HiLo48 mentions and because the metaphor requires such an involved caption that it's not that helpful even for gridiron football fans). I think that portraying the distances and scales separately remains the best approach, as has been the consensus every other time this has been brought up.
What could be potentially useful is something that describes the emptiness of space in the solar system, but I think this has to be done separately from distances between and sizes of objects. At the least, as before, I haven't seen an illustration that does both simultaneously at all well. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 22:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Here is a quote from WP:NOTTEXTBOOK:
The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts...
Well the problem with the article is that it misrepresents the facts. And once you have done that, you take on the burden of correcting the misrepresentation that you have given to the public. As for the caption, it need not be long or wordy. It could simply say: "These nine objects are spread across a radius that spans the two yellow lines." Done. And as always, I'm open to any alternative ideas for improvement. Do the photo with kangaroos kicking around jars of vegemite, and I'll still see it as an improvement on the article as it stands today.--Tdadamemd (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Which size jar of Vegemite should I use? Actually, I know that a jar of Vegemite would be a bad idea because I know that most Americans won't have a clue what 150g means. HiLo48 (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
You're grossly underestimating the percentage of drug users in the American population. Ha!--Tdadamemd (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

OK...

I arrived at a way of addressing this major deficiency of the article. Please see the latest change. I am fully aware that editors who have voiced their opinion here in this Talk section may not like the info added in this change. But please know that you do not represent all of the users. What I am adding may be a HUGE HELP to some people, as much as you or anyone else may hate it.

Because of your objections, I figured out a way to place this info in a way that does not add a single extra pixel nor a single extra ascii character to the article. It's been added to the dead space of one image.

If you happen to feel an urge to revert this change, I will ask that you only do so while making your own correction to the deficiency that this article has failed to accurately communicate the proper scale of the space between planets. If you do not have your own fix, then anyone who reverts will be damaging the article by taking away important info that will be of great help to an untold number of readers.

Basically what I'm saying is that if you don't like it, please just ignore it. The new image conveys all of the same info that the old image was giving.--Tdadamemd (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that addition to the article simply doesn't belong. As well as all the above issues, the picture has been shrunk so much to fit it into the article that the caption is now completely unreadable and the smaller objects are well nigh invisible. PS: I forgot to mention above that BB pellets are something people from non-gun-loving countries like mine are likely to have never heard of. This discussion did not reach a consensus to add that image. HiLo48 (talk) 03:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

This needs to end, Tdadamemd. The "longstanding complaint" only exists because you keep bringing it up. You have tried to bulldoze past consensus twice before based purely on your own interpretation of how this article should be. Wikipedia isn't your personal fantasy project. If you feel the article is unworthy of your presence, make your own and post it on Wikia. Serendipodous 04:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not a real problem I am working to fix? I am the only one who recognizes this issue?
Every editor who has piped in on this, I am sure, is well aware of past efforts by several editors who have worked to fix this. What you and HiLo have done is worked to keep the article broken.
My edit honored all of the objections voiced here by not taking anything away at all from the previous edit of the article. I did not shrink anything with the switched image. All I did was delete dead space and replaced it with info that may be of great help to some. Certainly not to you. And certainly not to several others here. But still to some. It is very easy to ignore, if you don't like it. What BB pellets are is totally irrelevant. People know what a human hand is (unless you were born with none, and for some reason lived your entire life without ever seeing one). The visual is a strong one, and quite pertinent to anyone who may never have heard of a BB pellet and maybe never even heard of a pen. All you have to do is just look at the picture. The info is right there. The text in the image is not readable? Fine. Just ignore it. You are just as good off as with the previous version where all it had was grey. You happen to be curious? Fine there too. Just click on the image and ...viola! You're presented with a complete explanation. Click once more and you get a rich set of details.
The people who seem to be on a "mission" here are the ones who persistently delete the efforts of various editors who strive to communicate the vast space within the Solar System accurately. I am baffled as to why you all want to keep this article broken, when you've been presented with a totally non-intrusive fix.
This article used to have an extremely wide image that a reader could scroll through to convey exactly to scale the vast distances between planets. I had absolutely nothing to do with that edit. If people here are really bent on eliminating my contributions, then you could at least re-add that image to the article. It was not intrusive at all either. This is what I had asked of you all. I find it to be a totally reasonable request.
And if the consensus is that this article is better by maintaining a distorted presentation of distance and not making any attempt to do so in any accurate way, I have yet to see anyone voice that opinion, let alone stand behind it. What I've seen is people adamantly say that it cannot be done. Well it has been done. It's been done by me and it's also been done by other editors.--Tdadamemd (talk) 04:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Adding a useless picture damages the quality of the article. HiLo48 (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
It hasn't been done. YOUR PICTURE IS TERRIBLE. It's unclear; it's ugly; it's cluttered; it's dark. All anyone will see when they look at it is a hand holding what looks like a small orange and, for some reason, pens. I don't know how I can say this any more clearly. As for "various editors", the only other editor who agreed with you (marginally) was Kamikagami, and I'm sure he'll show up soon enough to clarify his position. Serendipodous 05:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
It still hasn't been done. All attempts have been laughable, and this latest is the worst. Tbayboy (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
...so presenting wrong information is preferred to all of these efforts toward presenting accurate info. Very curious.
For anyone who would like a memory jogger regarding past efforts to fix this issue, here is just one image that was added to the article, then summarily eradicated:
Revision as of 22:33, 20 February 2013, by Darklich14 (scroll to the bottom)
I myself was not a big fan of that image. But I still see it as a major improvement over no attempt to accurately communicate scale.--Tdadamemd (talk) 06:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
As I said twice in our previous conversation, we have TWO IMAGES that convey the orbits of the Solar System to scale. We also have several images that show the sizes of the Solar System objects to scale. What we don't have is an image that conveys both at once, because there is no way to do so in a clear, educational manner. So far, all your efforts have done is reinforce that point. Serendipodous 07:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Tdadamemd, you have at least twice said that the article presents "wrong" information. To what are you referring? I see nothing in the article that is wrong, only a presentation that you argue (clearly in the face of consensus, which is fine in itself) is misleading. I think that the distances and scales section of the text is quite clear and accurate, discussing the sizes relative to the distances factually without metaphors that are only helpful to a subset of our readers. I do think the football analogy at the end of that section (which I recall being the outcome of one of these previous rounds of discussion) is not helpful and could go. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 12:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that giving a "familiar objects scaled in a familiar place" scenario can be shown, and in a useful way. An image similar to this giving the distance scale, and a second image with the objects themselves would convey the information, almost without a caption. I don't think a ~100 yard long field, whether it is american football, soccer, etc. is systemic bias, although a 100m sprint track is a fairly universal standard which might be of use. (Hohum @) 13:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I can see why there is so much frustration now. Tdadamemd, please follow WP:BRD. You have made your bold edit - it's been Reverted, we're now in Discussion. I suggest you post any prospective changes here for comment first. (Hohum @) 16:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
This is far too cluttered, the text unreadable as a thumbnail (which makes it pointless) - blocks of text in images is just a bad idea. The image holds too many elements, which clutters it and makes it confusing. An inset in an inset in a thumbnail? Really? (Hohum @) 16:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
First I'd like to reply to Alex's question...
Say you know absolutely nothing about the Solar System. You Google. The very top link is to this article. You click. What do you see?
...Well, the very first image you're presented with is THIS ONE of the Sun and eight planets.
Now you have an image in your head of what the Solar System is. And guess what that image is? The very same image that is placed into the heads of everyone who has sought out info about the Solar System. And, wait for it, ... That image is WRONG. If you don't agree with my point here, I recommend you watch Derek's excellent Veritasium video where he shows how grossly mistaken people are with just their understanding of Earth-Moon distance (video here).
People have NO CLUE.
Try this with Solar System scale and their answers will be even more wrong. Why? Because they are just regurgitating what they've been taught. And every image of the Solar System they've ever been shown is wrong. Wrong by several orders of magnitude.
The image I put into the article (which was quickly removed) happens to be accurate.
The article has been returned to its previous state of not only not having an accurate image, but persisting in presenting these wrong images. How do we editors justify that this article is actually performing a positive service to its readers? We do this by including the caption:
"Sizes are to scale, distances and illumination are not."
Hohum, if you're looking for a "really", I suggest that THERE'S your 'really'. Let's set aside, for a moment, this bizarre concept of illumination not being to scale. Can we really present this image that happens to be distorted by several orders of magnitude, and then go soundly to sleep at night because we told people in the fine print that "distances aren't to scale"?!
What if someone owed you thousands of dollars, and then they hand you a single dollar and tell you, "This dollar I'm handing you is representative of my debt that I'm paying off. We're done here."
THIS is the kind of magnitude of error that I'm talking about, that so many here don't seem to care about.
So what if you think the image sucks? I maintain that it's better than nothing. And I further maintain that it is the absolutely very least we must do after we have lied to the public.
Yes, you heard me correctly: THIS ARTICLE IS LYING TO EVERYONE.
We tell the lie, and in the caption we give the most gentle of hints toward the truth: "distances aren't to scale". Well why not tell the truth in the first place? Why not attempt to present things as accurately as we can?
(Oh, and by the way, if your criteria for eliminating images from the article is that text in the image is hard to read, you'd delete a further 11 more images from the Solar System article, by my count.)
Is the heinous sin here really that I added an image that has a caption built into a thumbnail? I ask you all to reconsider.
No wait, I won't ask. I'm done here. I am announcing that I am leaving this forum for at least a year. People are smart. They will be able to figure out that they've been lied to. What I am pushing for is a paradigm shift regarding how the Solar System is presented. This will take time. Clearly this is not the forum for me to push for change. At least, not the way the vocal majority is currently comprised, and has been comprised for a very long time here.
Those of us who have been pushing for this shift in understanding have continually been squashed. I don't want to waste any more of my time in such a forum. I will check back in a year or so, and see what if any progress has been made. For now, I bid y'all adieu. I don't want to force my opinions onto anyone. What I've presented here is just a glimpse at what I see to be a step in the positive direction. You all can do whatever you want with what I've freely given. Throw it in the trash, if you like. Actually, you have discarded it. So just keep it there. Or perhaps think things over. If someone comes up with some other idea that everyone can agree is an improvement, then great.
...and if you all decide to keep the article just the way it is right now, that's fine too. The masses have maintained this view of the Solar System for as long as I can remember, and as far as I know no one has died because of it. You all do what you think is best, and I for a while will pursue the efforts I see to be best. Bye.--Tdadamemd (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
This isn't a forum. HiLo48 (talk) 08:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
There is no one else, Tdadamemd. There is only you. Only you have raised objections about this, and only you have resurrected them. In fact, it is somewhat hypocritical of you to accuse others on this talk page of misleading people. This is your crusade, no one else's, and if you come back in a year, it will be the same, because no one else cares. Serendipodous 08:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The simple fact that we cannot converge to an agreement on the simple fact that this Talk page is a forum for discussion serves to indicate the level of hope for progress.
I'm a huge fan of Lsmpascal's work. But even the Solar System images at the bottom of this page:
http://www.lesud.com/lesud-astronomy_pageid81.html
...I see as typically tragic. It contains the standard "planets were magnified to be visible" caveat, but for whatever reason chooses to not even tell us how much they were magnified by.
Ok, I would like to make a smooth departure here. I do not intend to post a reply to every parting criticism. I can leave with a general understanding of the consensus opinion versus the opinion I maintain. I am not going to take my time to scour the archives to give a complete list of other editors who have voiced this opinion I have been promoting. One simply can scroll a bit up this page to prove to themselves that I am not alone. But alone or not is irrelevant in the process of science. There is only the path that brings one closer to truth, and the path that keeps one further from truth. Often, that first path is totally empty.
And I'm also well aware that words I have decided to use, like 'lie' and 'wrong' can be read as being harsh or perhaps even abusive. I've used those words for the sole purpose of emphasizing the point. I actually see all images of the Solar System to be people's best efforts. I see our article in its current state to likewise be our collective best effort. But as good as current states are, they almost always have room for improvement. The strength of the words I've been using I offer as a measure of how significant an improvement I think can be made with what we have available today.--Tdadamemd (talk) 09:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's what Derek said in that video:

"Diagrams that are not to scale are pretty common. ... But they can have a problematic effect on learning because they give people the wrong idea about the relative proximities of things."

His words, not mine.
Ok, that looks like a good stopping point for me.--Tdadamemd (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


Wait...
I just now remembered what Bill Nye did to present the Solar System in accurate size&distance. If anyone would like to see his approach, it is here:

Bill Nye The Science Guy - The Planets (aired 1995Jan14)

He rides his bicycle down a very very long stretch of road, starting at the Sun. Then 3 km later, he arrives at Neptune. I probably mentioned this in past discussion, but while I see that effort to be valiant, I don't see his approach to be the best because it introduces an unnecessary complication of adding the dimension of time. You have to somehow gauge how long he has been biking. Does anyone really have a good sense of how far 3km is? With a playing field, however, many people have a lot of first hand experience with how long a distance it stretches. And for those who have never played on one, it is easy to go and just look and see how long it is end to end, visible in one glance. And we also have very good experience with the size of the tip of a ball-point pen. Ok, this is starting to sound like I am raising the debate again. I have no need to spiral in any debate. I just wanted to mention this different approach Bill Nye used, for anyone who may see any value in it. This might spur an idea toward a new approach that hasn't been thought of before.

So if anyone still wants to maintain that no one else cares about this issue, its been made clear here that such a position is ignoring the views of people like Bill Nye and Derek at Veritasium, let alone Wikipedia editors who have raised their voice here on this page over the years. The question I'm leaving you all with is whether you want to leave this article broken*, or whether you want to fix it. Several people are showing paths to getting that done.--Tdadamemd (talk) 11:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
* "Diagrams that are not to scale ...give people the wrong idea about the relative proximities of things." -D at V (my emphasis)

Note that we're having this "discussion" with a user who has been indefinitely blocked for sock puppetry following a block for edit warring, hence the changing username and occasional posts from IPs. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 20:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

While on this discussion, Tdadamemd has added the same image to Solar System model#A model based on a sports field, replacing an even worse image that the same user had put there in a previous round of this discussion when (s)he couldn't get consensus to add it to Solar System. That page could use some attention. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 21:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Really disappointing

I came to this article assuming that it would provide compositional information about the solar system. What is the Sun's mass fraction in the solar system? Mercury? Earth? Jupiter? the asteroids? Kuiper belt? Oort Cloud? Could find nothing. Really disappointing. In addition this article makes the risible claim that "Due to their higher boiling points, only metals and silicates could exist in the warm inner Solar System close to the Sun..." So, I guess we can safely conclude from this that the Sun must be composed of metals and silicates, or that the Earth can have nothing with a lower boiling point than lead??? To be clear, the boiling point of the compounds determined which would migrate away from the heat of the proto-Sun, not which could "exist" near it. Could someone please correct the false statement and consider providing a breakdown of the components of our Solar System? Thanks!72.172.1.20 (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The mass fractions are mentioned in the structure section.Serendipodous 14:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2014

There should be a space between "of" and "Earth" in the phrase, "half the original mass of the Sun but only the size of Earth." 72.92.213.212 (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Done — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2014

Sun radius in A.U. would be better understood with 0 in front of the decimal separator 93.50.158.157 (talk) 10:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done thanks - Arjayay (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2014

I want to edit the page. Lucasnac (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request. - Arjayay (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The person who posted an image on this page bearing the caption "A diagram of Earth's location in the observable Universe" claims that the image is his own work. However, I believe that I recognize this series of graphics from a printed source under copyright -- from an atlas of the world, published, I believe, either under the imprint of National Geographic or of the Times (UK). I don't have access at the moment to an appropriate reference library, but I would suggest that someone who does look into some large-format (folio) bound atlases to see if you can identify the published source of this image. I have in mind an edition of an atlas like one of the following:

National Geographic Atlas of the World, Tenth Edition

Times Atlas of the World : 10th Comprehensive Edition

The edition in which I saw the image would likely have been published sometime between, roughly, 1994 and 2004.

JEM 25Nov201492.229.145.148 (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

As information about position of astronomical objects is widely available, anybody can create similar images using an appropriate software. Ruslik_Zero 12:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The Solar System, to scale, for a school yard

I have made what I believe to be a very useful education resource, The Solar System, to scale, for a school yard. There are obvious non-N-POV reasons why I should not add on Wikipedia a link to this page. But if a respected editor of some experience and expertise should agree that it is a very useful education resource, and should think it worth adding it to an external links § somewhere suitable, I’d be flattered. But if that respected editor of some experience and expertise should think not, then it should not be done. JDAWiseman (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps not here, but I think it would be fitting for Solar System model. Tbayboy (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The lead image

I was wondering, should it be modified to include representations of the asteroid and Kuiper belts? Serendipodous 22:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. On re-reading I’ve realised that I was confused. You weren’t referring to the previous section at all. My fault: sorry. JDAWiseman (talk) 09:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Giant planes vs. gas giants

The first paragraph of Structure and composition refers to the gas giants as the Sun's four largest orbiting bodies, but the linked article on Gas giant names only Jupiter and Saturn as gas giants explaining that Uranus and Neptune are actually ice giants. I would thus propose to replace the link to gas giants with a link to Giant planet. --Simonpf (talk) 10:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The giant planet article originally was at gas giant, but because the gas giants-proper (Jupiter and Saturn) are more and more separated from the ice giants, it was moved to the neutral title "giant planet" and then a separate gas giant article parallel to ice giant was created. Thanks for catching that this article has to be corrected regarding this point. --JorisvS (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Ten planets?

Two possible planets have been reported in the ETNO: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/20/two-planets-solar-system_n_6503706.html . Kdammers (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Fascinating. Thank you for link. If the primary source (in MNRAS) should become available, please post link to that. JDAWiseman (talk) 09:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Planets beyond Neptune is the article for that. And it's already in it. Serendipodous 11:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Defining sentence

I simplified the first sentence. It includes the recursive form:

"The Solar System comprises the Sun, objects that orbit the Sun, and objects that orbit other objects that orbit the Sun."

This is essentially what it said before, but not as clearly (if you ask me). Of course, it is still kind odd. I mean we could just as well say:

"The Solar System comprises the Sun, objects that orbit the Sun, objects that orbit objects that orbit the Sun, and objects that orbit objects that orbit objects that orbit the Sun."

I'd prefer to simply say

"The Solar System comprises the Sun and objects that orbit the Sun."

This being a recognition that orbits don't need to be direct anyway. Thoughts anybody? I'm hoping this won't devolve into a lengthy discussion with lots of very strident opinions and RFCs, etc. We already have enough of that sort of thing! Isambard Kingdom (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

That's what it originally said, so have at it as far as I'm concerned. Serendipodous 11:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@Serendipodous, I see you went ahead and did it. Maybe I'm feeling shy, given all that animated discussion we had over at MOS about whether or not we should capitalize "universe". I guess I felt we needed to talk about this one too! Isambard Kingdom (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistency in presentation of inner and outer planets

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On 2015-02-10 I tried to correct some inconsistencies in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System page, but these were reverted. However, I would like to point out the inconsistencies that I tried to fix.

Paragraphs on inner planets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System#Inner_planets) are indented, but those on outer planets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System#Outer_planets) are not. I tried to fix that inconsistency with this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solar_System&oldid=646464122#Outer_planets

Also, references to main articles for inner planets are made through link in the paragraph, but references to main articles on outer planets are made through explicit "Main article: ...".

Updated for inconsistency by @Serendipodous.

MortenZdk (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Capitalization

There is an about-to-close request for comment at WT:MOSCAPS#Capitalization of universe - request for comment about whether "universe" is ever a proper name (and thus capitalized). Some of the very long discussion has included suggestions that the same logic (whatever the conclusion is) will apply to Solar System, so the conclusion of that RfC may apply to whether Solar System is ever a proper name. Editors here may wish to comment. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 15:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

"Solar system" is more of a description than a name: it pertains to the system of objects around (and including) the star Sol. "Sol" is a name so the "Solar" bit should probably be capitalized but "system" can be left as lower case. Example: "Fred's family". 2.31.162.113 (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
'Description' is not a linguistical categorization. It is a proper name (an element like a proper noun, but that can be composed of more than one word). "Fred's family" is different: a 'family' and using 'Fred' (in the genitive, i.e. +'s) to specify which family. "Solar System" isn't 'system' and 'solar' to specify which, because 'solar' is an adjective and adjectives specify a characteristic, not which instance. Compare "Sun system" or "Sol system". --JorisvS (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Contradiction?

These two sentences appear to be contradictory:

Stars following this pattern are said to be on the main sequence, and the Sun lies right in the middle of it. Stars brighter and hotter than the Sun are rare, whereas substantially dimmer and cooler stars, known as red dwarfs, are common, making up 85% of the stars in the galaxy.

The second sentence suggests that the Sun is not in the middle but is much nearer the bright and hot range, while more typical stars are dimmer and cooler.

To those of you who know this stuff, I suspect that the sentences are complete accurate, not at all contradictory. To this ordinary reader it just appears to be contradictory. Is there some way you can rephrase it to be easily understood by the common man? 70.109.141.70 (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The Sun is more or less in the middle of the main sequence as it is normally plotted on a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, ie there is about as much space to the left as to the right of the Sun in the standard way the axes are plotted. However, only about 4% of stars are more massive than the Sun (to the left, hotter, and more luminous when on the main sequence), while 96% are less massive (to the right, cooler, and less luminous). But we're much more likely to see the hot stars because they're brighter. I agree that the sentence is poorly worded; will try to clean up. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 14:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
If you are in the geographic middle of the US (or Canada, Australia, China) there are many more people to the east of you than to the west. The Main Sequence is an area on the graph, but, like nations, it is not evenly populated, so the geographic middle of the graph does not represent the median location of the population of stars. I.e., the sun is in the middle of the main sequence, but the main sequence is not evenly populated. You're equating middle and median, but they're not the same thing so there's no contradiction. Tbayboy (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The section was rewritten by JorisvS in 2013 but in doing so he didn't rewrite the rest of the section to accommodate it. In the end, the term "Main sequence" got mentioned twice without proper explanation. I've brought back the original version, which I think answer's the OP's issues, and if we're going to have a discussion about how to change it, let's start from here. Serendipodous 15:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

A few things I dislike about the now-current version: "yellow dwarf" is a lousy term that I don't see often (ever?) in research or textbook sources, for good reason. (The Sun isn't yellow; it's white, and the peak of the blackbody curve for a 5778 K blackbody is green, not yellow. And "dwarf" is a misleading term as well; instead of explaining why "dwarf" is misleading, why not just avoid the term altogether?) And I agree with the editor who asked the question that "the Sun lies right in the middle of it" is a lousy phrase: the Sun is only in the middle because we choose the logarithmic scale on the horizontal axis of the H-R diagram to put the Sun in the middle. That's why I reworded it to "The Sun's temperature, 5778 K, is intermediate between the hottest stars (>30,000 K) and the coolest stars (≈3000 K)". —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 15:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
OK. I'm still not happy with the overly-technical wording, but I suppose it will have to do for now. Serendipodous 16:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Can't say I'm wild about either version either; other suggestions welcome! —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 16:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Taking a fresh look, I've tweaked it again, hopefully making the wording less technical (but still correct) and more focused on physical descriptions instead of explaining jargon. I think the section can be done cleanly with describing the H-R diagram at all; leave that jargon for more specific articles. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 16:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Time Scale needed

It would be great if a graphic of the time scale of the formation of the solar system were created. How long did it take to form the sun, the planets? Geological time scales start at 3 or so billion years ago. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nantucketbob (talk • contribs) 11:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

See formation and evolution of the Solar System. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 12:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Evolution

Is this information worth including in the article? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/150324-jupiter-super-earth-collisions-planets-astronomy-sky-watching Jcardazzi (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

It's certainly worth including in Formation and evolution of the Solar System. Serendipodous 09:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Galactic orbit and interaction with spiral arms

Currently the article states thus:

"Its orbit is close to circular, and orbits near the Sun are at roughly the same speed as that of the spiral arms."

However, Innanen et al (1978) state that, "the two-arm wave revolves about the galactic center at a constant pattern speed whose angular rate is one-half the angular rate of revolution of stars, dust and gas in the solar vicinity of the Galaxy". Those statements appear to be at odds with each other. Praemonitus (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The statement is just wrong. The spiral arm pattern speed is quite different than the orbital speed of individual objects like the Sun. Maybe the intent was to say that the Sun orbits at roughly the speed of the gas and stars around it? —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 00:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The cited source (citation 137 supports all four sentences before it in the paragraph) does indeed say that the Sun orbits at about the local spiral pattern speed. I think that's wrong; will look into it. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 00:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I stand corrected; it apparently is true that the spiral pattern speed and the orbital speed are about the same near the Sun's orbit. I added a better, recent ref. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 00:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The way I'm interpreting that reference, the co-rotation speed lies halfway between the Sun and the Galactic Center. To me, that would suggest the two differ at the solar orbit. Am I misinterpreting it? Praemonitus (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you're misinterpreting it. The bar's corotation radius is half the Sun's radius. The general galactic matter's corotation radius is just outside the Sun's orbit, the ref says. (I know you're misinterpreting it from experience: I read it the same way at a skim.) —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 01:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah yes, as it says in the abstract. *sigh* Praemonitus (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement about angular momentum

The following statement:

Although the Sun dominates the system by mass, it accounts for only about 2% of the angular momentum due to the differential rotation within the gaseous Sun

asserts that the differential rotation is the cause of the Sun's low contribution to the system's angular momentum. Presumably conservation of angular momentum still applies, regardless of how the Sun is rotating. Praemonitus (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

You're quite right! It is meaningless like that. The reason is that angular momentum is L = r × mv and r is quite small for a rotating body compared to those for orbiting bodies. --JorisvS (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Conservation of the A.M. - Hi everyone. I have noticed that in his contribution User:Praemonitus has created a direct link to the "Angular momentum#Conservation of angular momentum" article/section which does not exist in the "Solar System#Formation and evolution" article/section (it links directly to the "Angular momentum" article). IMHO I suggest that this link should be updated also in the Solar System article because the first notable thing that appears to the wp:reader is the picture of an ice-skater rotating on herself that gives a very good visual idea of what we are talking about. Comments are welcome from User:JorisvS too. Thanks.   M aurice   Carbonaro  08:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're getting at. --JorisvS (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for repyling so quickly User:JorisvS. Maybe I haven't been clear enough. If so I apologize. In the "Solar System#Formation and evolution" article/section I was proposing to change this

(...) collapsed, conservation of angular momentum caused it to rotate faster. (...)

(...) collapsed, conservation of angular momentum caused it to rotate faster. (...)

The former (left box link) links to the "Angular momentum" article, the latter (right box link) to the "Angular momentum#Conservation of angular momentum" article/section. I hope this helps.   M aurice  10:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It does. I would say: Naturally! And it would have been no problem at all if you would simply have changed it in the first place. --JorisvS (talk) 11:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Solar system Vs Sol System

As solar system technically applies to any orbiting star system with at least one star, I believe clarification is needed to differentiate this article is about the local solar system (Sol System) versus Solar systems in general. At this point no edits have been made, but comments would be appreciated. Rhinorulz (talk) 06:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

No it doesn't. "Solar" means "of or pertaining to the Sun". Which is the name of our star. Our star is not called "Sol"; at least not in English. Only science fiction books use the term. There is, as yet, no generic term for "Solar System", because there hasn't needed to be. Serendipodous 07:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Almost completely agree with Serendipodous. There is a term for other solar systems: planetary system. Some sources do use "solar system" as a generic common noun, but that's bad usage. Few if any sources use "Sol System", and we can't make up a term. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 11:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Aren't planetary systems formally the systems without the star(s) they orbit, whereas the Solar System includes the Sun? --JorisvS (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Serendipodous 12:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Learn something new every day. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't know why it should be considered "bad usage". All Main Sequence stars are suns to the planets that orbit them, so "solar system" works just fine. Since you're arguing that "planetary system" is not a synonym, "solar system" would indeed appear to be the only word for it. — kwami (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not bad usage. It's just not a confirmed usage. Yet. But it may be someday. Serendipodous 09:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, star system and stellar system are used to refer to systems of orbiting stars. Perhaps that's why some authors turn to using 'solar system'? Praemonitus (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2015

for telluric planets image it should be earth, Venus, mars, mercury, not earth, mars, venus, mercury. Please change on that image Earth, Mars, Venus, Mercury to Earth, Venus, Mars, Mercury. (Venus is bigger than Mars) 86.176.6.94 (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done. That would no longer be "From left to right:" and from the image it should be crystal-clear that Venus is larger than Mars. --JorisvS (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Fully Protection Edit Request?

All I ask a is a

article? — 73.47.37.131 (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Solar System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2015

The first sentence of this article reads "The Solar System[a] comprises the Sun and the objects that orbit it, either directly or indirectly." This is an incorrect usage of the word 'comprises' and should be changed to "The Solar System[a] is composed of the Sun and the objects that orbit it, either directly or indirectly." Parts comprise a whole; a whole is composed of parts. The Solar System cannot "comprise" anything, because that's not how the English language works.

Please change this. Thank you. 2601:19D:101:F580:F9B1:BCAB:1B92:4EAE (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

 Not done My dictionary (Mac OS X built-in) definition of comprise is "consist of; be made up of: the country comprises twenty states." That usage looks exactly consistent with the current usage. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 17:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Look at wikt:comprise: The whole comprises the parts and the parts are comprised by the whole. --JorisvS (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 28 November 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


Solar System → Sun's System – To fit the naming conventions of the Moon and Sun pages. 50.43.20.30 (talk) 07:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2015

The Solar System[a] (also called The Sol System), comprises the Sun 2602:306:80C9:2750:2CB4:C8C9:58CA:C7CE (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

 Not done. "Sol system" is not a term that reliable sources widely used outside of science fiction. See also discussion above: #Solar system Vs Sol System. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 16:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Question? Ashill, there is no such discussion above: #Solar system Vs Sol System. --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
It was automatically moved to the archive (here). Modest Genius talk 12:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request

The references of this article are not actually an exclusion of the issues of what's good for the sociological environment of the human species. I am requesting that the name of what's referenced "the Sun" be changed to "Apollo", & each of the Planet Names published be changed to reflect the Greek Pagan Deities of Greek Pagan Literary context. The various moons of the planets actually are mostly Greek Pagan Female spouses of the particular Male Greek Pagan Deity references, & thus it's more the appropriate for global sociological conditions that the published references reflect the spouses of the published Female Lunes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.238.150.111 (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Some photos in need of replacement

There are two or three pictures of Ceres (within other pictures, of course) that are still of the black and white photos. Since there have been higher quality colour photos released. We should replace them with those pictures. 134340Goat (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Planet Nine

There was news today about 9th planet. 176.221.76.3 (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


There's quite a few extrasolar systems pages on Wikipedia that list candidates. I think the fact that this is at 70% says that it deserves to be listed as such. Matthurricane (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

According to TWP 90% chance, added.prokaryotes (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Not comfortable that this article should talk about a hypothetical planet before it is discovered as there have been too many failed Px ideas in the past. -- Kheider (talk) 09:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree it should stay in list of hypothetical Solar System objects for now. William Avery (talk) 12:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Alpha Centauri Bb

Looking at this page, and comparing it to the Alpha Centauri page, there's an inconsistency. On the solar system page it says that Alpha Centauri Bb is confirmed to exist, and on the Alpha Centauri page it says that it probably does not exist. I'm not sure however which page is wrong, but I'm guessing it's probably this page.

Subbed Gliese 674. Serendipodous 18:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Formation and evolution

Something doesn't look right in the section "Formation and evolution." It says:

Within 50 million years, the pressure and density of hydrogen in the centre of the protostar became great enough for it to begin thermonuclear fusion.[42] The temperature, reaction rate, pressure, and density increased until hydrostatic equilibrium was achieved: the thermal pressure equaled the force of gravity.

The problem is that there were earlier points at which the sun (or its predessors) were in hydrostatic equilibrium. First, molecular clouds are, at least nominally, in hydrostatic equilibrium (i.e., in the simple textbook version).

Next, just before our sun became a protostar, it was a First Core (or First Hydrostatic Core) with a radius of about 1 AU. Until then the cloud was contracting isothermally, radiating heat so fast that the temperature did not increase. The First Core, on the other hand, is so dense that it contracts adiabatically (getting hotter). At the same time, infalling material adds to its mass and makes it hotter due to the speed of the collisions. When the temperature of the First Core reaches 2000 k, the molecules of hydrogen dissociate. The resulting atomic hydrogen is denser, and so falls toward the center. This eventually form a Second Core. Once it acheives a new hydrostatic equilibrium, it is known as a protostar.

Our protosun was surrounded by a disk of dust and ice crystals, most of which would eventually fall into the protosun. At some point it got hot enough for light and solar wind to push away infalling matter, so that its net mass stopped increasing. That is the point at which it became a star. Observationally, it would have become a star just a little later, when it pushed away enough dust to be visible from a distance.

When full-scale nuclear fusion kicked in about 30-50 million years later, the hydrostatic equilibrium was disrupted until a new one was established. Zyxwv99 (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2016

for planet nine:

99.993% chance of outer solar system objects being influenced by a large, planet sized mass. RoebertMcCenei (talk) 03:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Chamith (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
There have been a few papers about this. here (with 10 citations) and here. Apparently its size is greater than 10 Earth masses. If it turns out to be real, it would be the mother of all KBOs (Kuiper-belt objects). On the other hand, we need to weigh these things on the notability scale. Scientists are always coming up with new theories. If enough other scientists start to take it seriously, then we can mention it as a theory. However, someone else should take a look to see if it's crossed the notability threshold. Zyxwv99 (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Sure there have been, but we haven't found it yet, and until we do, it doesn't belong in this article. We do link to its article though. Serendipodous 23:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Please do not speak as if you own this article (WP:OWN). In my opinion, the decision to include or not include a mention of Planet Nine should be based on its notability. To argue that something should not be mentioned in an encyclopedia article if it has not been observed is absurd. Gravity waves were just observed for the first time recently. The whole edifice of science would fall apart if it were limited to things that had been observed. Making observation the sole criteria for inclusion is violently anti-scientific. Zyxwv99 (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Lots of notable objects may or may not be in the Solar System: Vulcan, Vulcanoids, Planet X, Tyche, Nemesis, rogue planets and many other things. All are notable. None are worthy of inclusion. Serendipodous 22:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually, Planet X and Nemesis should go in this article as well. There is no need to go into any detail on them, other than to mention that they were proposed and subsequently found to be illusory. That would also provide a good context for Planet Nine. Zyxwv99 (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Why Planet X and Nemesis and none of the other ones? Serendipodous 04:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Planet X is an important part of the history of the solar system. Nemesis is far less notable except for how recent it was and for how much publicity it got. (It is now generally accepted as illusory.) Nemesis would be more the hysteria associated with Haley's Comet in 1911. Incidentally, I only began participating in this discussion because I'm interested in the formation of the solar system, have seen some things in various articles relating to that which could use some improvement, and like to read talk pages and drop a few comments before making substantive edits. Planet Nine was never one of my interests. I was just leaving what I thought was a helpful comment, as I've only recently become aware of it in the last week or two, and noticed that it actually had some notability in the scientific community. Zyxwv99 (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Vulcan is just as notable as Planet X from a historical standpoint, perhaps more so. And if we're going to go by publicity, then the Nibiru cataclysm would be included too. Point is, we could go on like this forever, because there's no real way to gauge the notability of non-existent or potentially non-existent objects. Serendipodous 20:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Planet Nine

Under "known planets" in the infobox, should we include Planet Nine? We know that there is a 99.993% chance that it is a planet, so shouldn't we include it? --Sir Cumference π 04:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Mike Brown is the one saying 90+ percent; Batygin will only say 60 percent. We won't know until we image it. Serendipodous 06:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I think the 0.007% is the odds of the orbital alignments being random. There might be other explanations than P9, including a planet (or two) in a different orbit. Tbayboy (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2016

72.201.162.146 (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC) Earth's Moon is listed as Moon. That is not correct, Earth's moon is Luna.

Not done: see Moon#Name and etymology. The Moon is the correct name. Cannolis (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Luna can be correct in technical usage (not to mention science fiction) but in English "the Moon" is correct for linguistic and historical reasons. Zyxwv99 (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Just theories.

Is it interesting how some of this so called science is worded as if facts are known when much of it is pure speculation. Mysphet (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Unable to edit

Unable to edit a picture caption — as it doesn’t seem to have an ‘Edit’ button. > The left and right edges of each bar correspond to the perihelion and aphelion of the body, respectively. Long bars denote high orbital eccentricity. to become > 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. Instruction (or action) welcomed. Thank you. JDAWiseman (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Try editing Template:Distance_from_Sun_using_EasyTimeline. Tbayboy (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, done. But it hasn’t come into this article. Maybe I should wait a day or two for it to come across? JDAWiseman (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:OWN - This Article Is BROKEN

This article is suffering from a major illness. And that is the issue of WP:Ownership. No one owns this article. Yet there is at least one editor who acts as though they do own it.

Stats: https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/wikihistory/wh.php?page_title=Solar_System

This is severely unhealthy behavior, and the public at large deserves much better. Even if this editor happened to be the world's foremost expert on the subject. This editor has one order of magnitude more edits greater than the second person on that list.

"...if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia."

The above quote is direct from the Wikipedia policy statement warning against article ownership.--Tdadamemd sioz (talk) 11:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The comment just posted below, quote: "Everyone who is going to have this conversation with you has already had this conversation with you."
...is offered as a perfect case in point of OWNERSHIP mindset that Wikipedia Policy speaks so strongly against. How can any person know such a thing? This is based upon conversation that took place in this forum more than two years ago. Clearly it is possible that absolutely anyone on our planet can jump in here at any time they feel like.
I for one welcome such new contributions.
And I will repeat the understanding that it is highly dangerous to this project to give anyone the impression that their contributions are not welcome. And I will give a reminder that this is a just the Talk Page that that comment is speaking to.--Tdadamemd sioz (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Scale - Another way that this article is broken

Accurate scaling of sizes and distances in the Solar System. With the Sun-Neptune distance scaled to the length of a football field, the Sun is about two-thirds the diameter of a golf ball, the four terrestrial planets are about the size of the ball in the tip of a fine-point pen, and the four outer planets are about the size of a BB pellet. (Inset at the bottom-right shows how typical depictions have distance scaling that is grossly distorted by several orders of magnitude.)
Edit: (image with no markings & no inset)

The images in this article do a huge disservice to the reader in that, as with just about every image of the Solar System, they grossly exaggerate sizes, and drastically shrink distances.

Here are two hideous examples:
- File:Planets2013.svg
- File:Solarsystemobjectsinscale.jpg

The fix for this severe problem is to present at least one image to the reader that shows an accurate depiction of both sizes and distances. One suggestion is currently being offered:
- File:Solar System to Scale to a Football Field.jpg (see thumbnail on right side w/caption)

I myself do not care which particular image is used to correct this problem. It is just that this image is the only one that I know of that does this. And the way that it solves the problem is by using perspective. If anyone knows of a similar image, I would be very glad to learn about it. Until such time, it is clear to me that this proposed image is vital to convey what the Solar System is really like. Let's put an end to all of the gross exaggerations that are presented without so much as a note explaining how distorted they are.--Tdadamemd sioz (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Why do you keep doing this? There are no new people here for you to impress. Everyone who is going to have this conversation with you has already had this conversation with you. And your constant berating and harping isn't going to change our minds. Serendipodous 12:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I will suggest that you carefully read the feedback being offered in the section above. You have the choice to refrain from involvement in this particular discussion. The Earth will continue to rotate without your continual edits to this article. Or if you have concerns that it might stop turning, you can take this opportunity to conduct an experiment.--Tdadamemd sioz (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Looking at just the image (un-involved and unknolagable about its history) I would say the image is a borderline pass for inclusion. Small MOS:PERTINENCE re: hard to read at thumb, field should be smaller, hand/objects should be bigger/closer to the camera, and thumb insert should go bye-bye. The article currently has 5 other redundant "scale" images (all showing size, not distance). A few of those should probably go. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The image and caption are both confusing and unhelpful. Please abide by WP:BRD and remove it while we discuss whether it should be included in the article. (Hohum @) 16:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I've patiently sat back for half a moon on this. Thanks for the feedback.
I will be the first to say that there is room for improvement. What we are discussing here is the first image (that I'm aware of) that presents both sizes and distances of the Solar System to scale. I am sure that the image and the caption can be improved upon. Almost nothing is done perfectly at first. For anyone who does not like the inset (bottom-right) the image was published with no markings at all, so it would be easy for anyone who doesn't like it to remove the inset. That clean image is here: File:Solar System to Scale to a Football Field (no inset).jpg.

A decision needs to be made on whether or not to include this particular photo. My own vote is that I don't care.
But what I do feel strongly about is that some image that presents this info IS included. I consider this to be vital to presenting an accurate article on this subject. If anyone feels that the field should be smaller, or that anything should be closer to the camera, or whatever, this kind of photo is very easy to do. Just find a field and hold these 9 common objects (or something else that works).

And it could very well be that there is a much better way to present this info. Someone out there could surprise us.
But as it stands now, this is the only image of this type being proposed. And until an alternate image with this info comes to light, then it seems clear that the basic question being asked here right now is this:

Do we want to present any image of the Solar System that accurately presents sizes and distances at the same time, or are we cool with limiting the article to the standard distortions of what the Solar System actually looks like?

It's as simple as that, as I see it.--Tdadamemd sioz (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

This is the fifth time you've brought this up Td, and the fifth time you've been reverted. And this time, as per your recommendation, I stayed out of it. When are you going to accept that people just don't like your idea? Serendipodous 17:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Bill Nye quote: "...way out here, at Jupiter."
Thank you for sitting back.
You know, I was actually thinking the exact same thing. I was just now watching this YouTube video posted to the NASA JPL channel. It is of Bill Nye trying to educate people about Jupiter. He has nicely size-scaled models of the Sun and Jupiter, and then he says this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmMT4mHgzS4&t=55
"...way out here, at Jupiter."
And this is the exact image of his representation of what "way out here" means: screenshot
This source is NASA, and the person is someone extremely well known for science education, a person who has gone through great lengths in the past toward educating the public on what the exact scale of the Solar System is, and here we see him presenting a typical standard gross distortion of the distance between Jupiter and the Sun, without so much as a footnote that this representation is not to scale.
So an obvious conclusion is that even the people who have acted like they care about this issue don't really care.--Tdadamemd sioz (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


It's not that they don't care Td. I will say this one final time, as I have already said it many times in the many occasions you have insisted our paths cross. There is no way to express both the size and distance scale of the Solar System in a manner that is both informative and easily comprehensible to the human eye. The Solar System is just too big. Serendipodous 20:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

If Bill Nye cared, or if JPL cared, or if NASA cared, they would have included a caveat that flashed on the screen to inform the viewer that Jupiter would actually be located X.X miles away, and not right there on the same table.
Now I care. And Fountains of Bryn Mawr gives supportive words. Also at least one other editor here is encouraging a healthy discussion over this issue.
There are some who believe that accurate scaling of size&distance cannot be communicated concisely in one image. It is clear to me that the photo being proposed here is proof that it can.
The question in my mind now becomes:
What can it possibly hurt by including this in the article?!
I understand if some of you find it confusing. But there are people who will look at it and get it right away. I say that there are two great reasons for adding this photo:
- It will speak clearly to those readers, and
- It might serve as inspiration to someone who will figure out a way to come up with a different way to capture this info that even more people can connect with.
Serendipodous, I expect that you may feel an urge to respond. I will ask you to give greater consideration to the other issue raised on how this article is 'broken'. As it was, I posted that, and you held off all of 3 days before editing the article again. If the Ownership Policy is to be honored, editors in question would be looking at taking months, or even a full year off before returning to an active role in an article.
To everyone else, I invite whatever feedback you may have.--Tdadamemd sioz (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Solar_System/Archive_8&oldid=1251363513"