Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox planet/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Suggested re-design

{{{name}}}
Orbital Elements
(Epoch {{{epoch}}})
Semi-Major Axis (a) {{{semimajor}}}
Orbital circumference {{{orb_circ}}}
Eccentricity (e) {{{eccentricity}}}
Perihelion Distance (q) {{{perihelion}}}
Aphelion Distance (Q) {{{aphelion}}}
Orbital Period (P) {{{period}}}
Synodic Period {{{synodic_period}}}
Orbital Speed (avg) {{{speed}}}
(max) {{{max_speed}}}
(min) {{{min_speed}}}
Inclination (i) {{{inclination}}}
Longitude of the
Ascending Node		 (Ω) {{{asc_node}}}
Argument of Perihelion (ω) {{{arg_peri}}}
Mean Anomaly (M) {{{mean_anomaly}}}
Physical Characteristics
Dimensions {{{dimensions}}}
Surface Area {{{surface}}}
Volume {{{volume}}}
Mass {{{mass}}}
Density (ρ) {{{density}}}
Surface Gravity {{{gravity}}}
Escape Velocity {{{escape_velocity}}}
Rotation Period {{{p_rot}}}
Rotation Velocity {{{rot_vel}}}
Obliquity {{{obliquity}}}
Right ascension
of North pole 		{{{NPoleRA}}}
Declination {{{NPoleDec}}}
Absolute Magnitude {{{abs_mag}}}
Albedo {{{albedo}}}
Mean Surface Temperature {{{temperature}}} K

Suggested re-design:

  • line up the "variable names"
  • shift the styling about a bit to make the code a bit cleaner
  • center align the sub-headings
  • Point the Escape velocity link directly at the article
  • Re-arrange Orbital speed elements to avoid REDIRECT

--Phil | Talk 13:29, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Gravitational Parameter

I'd like to see the gravitational parameter (μ), specified in km3s-2, in this template. Are there any strong objections to instroducing this value under 'Mass'? Usually, μ is better defined than mass, since G is so inaccurately known. jkl 10:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

In planetary science, the parameter is usually labelled "GM", which I prefer. We could add it, but I think that only someone writing a research article would be concerned with the uncertainty on G. Lunokhod 18:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Planet

(Discussion originally at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects. Mike Peel 17:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

We currently have:

... and others that I have yet to find. This is an incredibly odd way of doing infoboxes. I would propose that all of these infoboxes are merged into a single, new infobox called Template:Infobox Planet, which would be based off the existing Template:Planet. That includes dwarf and minor planets, as these two share the large majority of parameters. This new template would also replace the HTML template provided here. Template:Minor planet would be depreciated; it isn't used at present anyway. Any comments? Mike Peel 19:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Planet/dwarf planet infoboxes could use a common template. The orphan minor planet infobox should be deleted since it is no longer needed. Looks like moons are still missing a common infobox.--JyriL talk 19:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I am all for standardizing the planetary info boxes as much as possible, but I am concerned that the this might be a bit more complicated than the astronomical templates. Here are some things to consider:
  • The color scheme is different for each planet. There seems to be some form of logic to this when one compares, Moon, Sun, Mercury (planet), etc. I'm for keeping this.
  • Each planet has an associated image that has a non-standardized name, as well as a symbol at the top of the info box. Some images also have an associated caption.
  • The section "discovery" will have to optional, as some (like the Moon and Sun) were never really discovered.
  • The "temperature" fields will have to be different for each planet. For some objects it does not make sense to have a minimum or maximum temperature, and for others, temperatures need to be given at more than one locale (such as the pole and equator).
  • The "atmospheric characteristics" will be different for each object. Some only have an atmospheric density, whereas others have a pressure. Some list atmospheric composition, whereas others don't.
  • We should convert all "diameters" to "radii", as per a discussion that took place here about a month ago (I never got around to doing this).
  • Most fields will have an optional measurement unit (or perhaps more), such as km and mi, or "Earths".
  • There should be some way to cite the origin of the numerical values. I have been just adding comments to the fields as the "ref" method doesn't work (at least with the current infoboxes).
  • I don't like the bold variables in the first column of the Planet and Minor Planet templates. This is particularly ugly when the variable is a series of words, and not just a symbol (such as longitude of ascending node).
  • It might be a good idea to decrease the font size of all variables and numerical values. The current planetary infoboxes are kind of wide, and most of the text in the second column is required (in my opinion).
That's about all. Perhaps if you create an example, say for Moon or Mars, we could comment more. Lunokhod 20:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can build a common template that will work for all planets then I think this is a good idea. I agree with all of Lunokhod' comments except for the bold font in the left column. (But that's a minor style issue.) Surface area should be an option field (at best) because it makes no sense (to me) for a gas giant. References should work as long as we can pass variables to a template, rather than the current approach of using static data. — RJH (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

All of the above points should be possible. I was planning on making all of the template variables optional; if people want some of them required, then that's a little simpler. References should work fine in the new system. I'll put together an example one when I get the time. Mike Peel 21:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that any of the suggestions given by Lunokhod couldn't be done. I agree with RJHall about removing bolding; most infoboxes use bolding on the left column so it is more or less a standard. I'd rather use diameters as it is easier for a layman, but that is more an issue of taste. Using Earth as an unit of measure does help visualizing the values, but using several units make the template even larger. Maybe only the image and most basic parameters should be visible by default, and more detailed data could be opened by clicking a "show" button as it is done in some large templates.--JyriL talk 21:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Planet has now been constructed, and I believe that it is ready to replace the templates listed above. An example of it in action is at User:Mike Peel/test (permanent link) Comments/suggestions before I move the templates over? Mike Peel 23:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm slowly adding info about the Moon on User:Lunokhod/test, and here are some problems I'm running into.
  • For the Moon, we need perigee and apogee, instead of perihelion.
  • There was a typo in the usage. I changed bgcolor to bgcolour in order to get this to work (though perhaps we should use bgcolor)
  • For the Moon, we need argument of perigee instead of perihelion.
  • Temperature should probably be under physical characteristics, and not atmosphere.
Lunokhod 23:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting the spelling; I'm a british person who can write HTML, and that abbreviation's frequently one of the banes of my life. I've now added perigee and apogee to the template. Mike Peel 23:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that it might be good to give "sidereal month" and "synodic month" as well (or instead) of "periods". This way, we could also add "Anomalistic month", "Draconic month", and "Tropical month" (I've never heard of "anomalistic period", but maybe it exists.) Lunokhod 00:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
They have now been added, in addition to the periods. Mike Peel 17:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it would be a good idea to have "obliquity" as well as "axial tilt". For the Moon, one often quotes the angle between the orbit plane (obliquity), and ecliptic, but the latter doesn't have a name (or does it?). Lunokhod 00:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
An "obliquity" parameter has now been added. Mike Peel 17:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sidereal period doesn't seem to show up. Also, for clarity, perhaps the names of the rows following the "temperature table" could be offset, or unbolded. Lunokhod 18:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I misspelled sidereal ("siderial") in the prototype template call; this has now been fixed on both the template and your test page. I've also indented the temperature row names.
This has now been added. Anything else? Mike Peel 18:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The rest are minor: Perhaps we could delete the "the" in "longitude of the ascending node".
  • Perhaps the ordering should be "mean radius, equatorial, polar" instead of putting mean at the end.
  • Perhaps "oblateness" should come after the radii, as this is a derived number.
  • That's it for now (until I start working on the other planets, that is, if I get the time). Everything looks great, thanks. I'll be putting the lunar infobox up in a few minutes. Lunokhod 19:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Changes have been made. I'm currently migrating the planets over to the new system, and will be putting the existing infoboxes up on TfD once I've done so. Mike Peel 20:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
A minor tweak - I've added a new field ("mp_name"), which displays (if filled) as "MPC designation". This should hopefully help to avoid problems with the "NAME" vs. "NUMBER NAME" arguments. (In the old boxes, the dwarf planets did not use the numbers in their titles, but there was a field in the infobox proper. I initially used the "alt name" field, but that too could be a source of disagreement ("Alternative"?!? It's not an "alternative" - it's the "name"!!! - etc.). The "mp_name" field also links to the appropriate article. --Ckatzchatspy 05:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering why that field was present in the old templates; it seemed redundant with the name, so I merged them. Why don't people like using the full name/designation of the object as the name? Mike Peel 11:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, there's considerable disagreement on Wikipedia as to what an "official" name is - and it's not helped by the apparent lack of information available from the governing bodies. The vague details from the MPC with regards to Pluto (for example) seem to indicate that "134340" is a catalogue number, while "Pluto" is the name. (That is to say, Pluto wasn't renamed, it was just added to the MPC catalogue.) Then, of course, the emotional aspect kicks in - those who are determined to have Pluto "reinstated" won't accept anything that "diminishes" it, while the opposite extreme would appear to want to treat the dwarf planets as "just another ball of ice" (or rock, as appropriate...) Personally, I prefer using just the name for the dwarf planets, while ensuring that the designation is noted in the article. I think it's more appropriate for an encyclopedia for a general audience - most people will know them by name, and that is also how they are presented in the media. --Ckatzchatspy 20:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
It's back. I was trying to separate out the sections in the code, to make managing it easier, but evidently broke something. I've now reverted my changes. Mike Peel 19:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for further refactoring of Infobox Planet

Mike Peel's redesign of the planet infoboxes is a big improvement. It does introduce a minor problem, however: the infobox takes up a lot of space at the start of each article and necessitates the comment:

< !-- 

Scroll down to edit the contents of this page.
Additional parameters for this template are available at [ [Template:Infobox Planet] ].

-- >


I would like to suggest that we add a level of indirection, instead of including Template:Infobox Planet, we include (eg) Template:Infobox Planet/Jupiter, and that Template:Infobox Planet/Jupiter (say) includes:

{{Infobox Planet
| bgcolour = #FFC8A0
| name = Jupiter
| symbol = ...
...

Note that I am using Jupiter as an example, the above would apply to all planets.

Note that this is not a reversion to the previous behavior, since the new Template:Infobox Planet template is still used, it is just included in Template:Infobox Planet/Jupiter rather than in Jupiter, and Jupiter now includes Template:Infobox Planet/Jupiter rather than Template:Infobox Planet.

The main benefit of this is that it makes each planetary article easier to edit and also reduces the size of the article.

Any comments/views?

Martin.Budden 17:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean along the lines of what is already done for the Sun with Template:Solar_System_Infobox/Sun? Well, it sounds like a useful idea for the major planets and maybe a few other bodies. Especially ones like Earth that contain a lot of information that is atypical on the whole. Deuar 16:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I strongly object to this. Before I set up this template, such a setup already existed for the solar system planets, albeit using HTML and independent parameters rather than a template and wikicode. However, it had several serious problems: it hid the infobox away from casual editors, and it meant that none of the facts in the infobox could be referenced, as inline citations don't work when they're in included templates. The HTML in use wasn't the issue, although to a certain extent the different parameters were.
As an alternative to doing this, I would suggest that unnecessary information is simply removed from the infobox call. Not every parameter needs to be used (the template copes fine even if most of the parameters are missing), and it would probably make the infobox more useful on the article, as people looking for the main facts (e.g. mass, radius, distance from sun, main atmospheric components, etc.) don't have to wade through a lot of smaller facts that could just as well be in the article. Mike Peel 18:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm not proposing something along the lines of what is already done for Sun - that is effectively a reversion to the previous behaviour. I am proposing that we keep Mike's new Template:Infobox Planet, but with one level of indirection.
In terms of the problems that Mike mentions: hiding the infobox from casual editors was the behaviour that I was trying to achieve, the argument being that a casual editor would be interested in editing the main text of the article, not the contents of the infobox (the effort to obtain verified data to change the contents of the infobox puts you outside of the category of "casual editor"). I do accept the point about references and citations, though. This seems to be the only argument against my proposal, but it is a killer argument.
Martin.Budden 09:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I see, I wasn't aware of the history and the problems that ensued. In that case the arguments against are strong. Removing minor parameters from the call is the natural way to deal with the spurious data problem, at least. Deuar 10:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor planets

For minor planets, several links can be hard-wired to point to minor-planet specific pages which are much more informative. Hence, I have made a few alterations that do this dependent on the minorplanet=yes setting.

I wonder what people think about several other suggestions for improvement:

1) Quite a few (several dozen) minor planets have their spin direction known. However this axis is usually given in ecliptic coordinates rather than RA and declination. (ecliptic coordinates are physically more meaningful). So I propose to also add in new parameters:

  • ecliptic_pole_longitude
  • ecliptic_pole_latitude

2)Also, many bodies have known values for the parameters

  • satellites
  • axial tilt

which could also be put in the standard example.

3) Finally, I feel that the narrow width of the standard infobox makes most minor planet articles ungainly. For many of them, almost all the information is in this infobox. The end result is that you get a narrow infobox on the right, which you have to scroll down to see in its entirety, and blank space on most of the rest of the page bordering the infobox. For example see 244 Sita. Setting width=25em in the suggested infobox on the template seems sensible to me. Deuar 14:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. Mike Peel 17:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

the Sun

Would anyone like to try updating the Sun infobox using this template? Lunokhod 00:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Adjective is a physical characteristic?

The 'adjective' field appears under 'physical characteristics'. This can't be what the template designer intended. --Heron 14:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This has been like this for a long time, and while I don't totally agree with listing it under 'physical characterstics', this field does serve some purpose. In short, many of the introductions for the planets are (or were) filled with lists of adjectives, which is really boring stuff. Look at the Moon. The first paragraph says "The related adjective for the Moon is lunar (from the Latin root), but this is not found in combination with words using the prefix seleno- or suffix -selene (from the Greek deity Selene)." It used to be much worse. I don't know why people give this stuff so much emphasis, but it is something that I think we need to live with. Perhaps you've got a suggestion on where to put this? Or we could call for consensus on deleting this at WP:ASTRO. Lunokhod 14:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The only place I can think of that it could be moved to is just below the caption. Or alternatively into a renamed Discovery section, along with the alternative names and designations. I'm not sure what the discovery section could be renamed to, though. Mike Peel 16:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Orbital direction

Today someone on the science reference desk asked what direction the various planets orbited in. That seems like a basic piece of information that should be in the "orbital characteristics" section. For most bodies, the answer would be "prograde", but some are "retrograde". (See Retrograde and direct motion). -- Beland 04:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It's evident from the inclination. If it's above 90°, the orbit is retrograde, below 90°: prograde. Deuar 15:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Syntax question

Is the syntax: {{#if:{{{symbol|}}} | {{{symbol}}} | }} equivalent to just {{{symbol}}}? Martin.Budden 18:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Angular distance does not show up

After I add angular distance to Infobox:Exosolar planets and all parameters, it doesn't show up in their templates and in planet articles neither, but it is visible in edit page. Can you do something to make it appear on their templates? BlueEarth 19:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Provisional designation in astronomy/Nickname

Why was the "Provisional designation in astronomy/Nickname" property removed? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 09:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Because planetary number is a make up designation and there are no official names for extrasolar planets. BlueEarth 19:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
It's already covered by the alt_names property. Deuar 16:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Group option to standardise subgroups of objects

Since Martin.Budden raised a fairly general topic, there is another issue that could be addressed. For smaller bodies, they tend to come in a variety of groups where a few parameters are kept standard (e.g. subheading colour, names of orbits, etc.) Such groups include e.g. satellites of jupiter, satellites of saturn, ..., minor planets, extrasolar planets, comets, etc. We could introduce some sort of toggle to keep these groups synchronised in these respects for the future, along the lines of how the option "minorplanet=yes" can be used. That is one would have a paremeter "group", say, which can take on values "jupiter, saturn, uranus, neptune, minor, comet, extrasolar, ..." This would set a variety of stuff that we want to keep standard for each subgroup but different between the different varieties. Deuar 16:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Orbital area?

Is this really a useful quantity? I'd be up for removing it. Chaos syndrome 23:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a make-up quantity that used to find the area of ellipse surrounded by orbiting planet. BlueEarth 19:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I know what it means. I'm just asking: is it a useful quantity? Does anyone use this quantity in practice? If not, there's no reason to include it, other than basically saying "Look! I can do math!" - which isn't really the point of an encyclopaedia. References would be useful. Chaos syndrome 21:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I do; I put it to infoboxes in several extrasolar planet articles such as Pi Mensae b, Rho Indi b, Tau¹ Gruis b, Epsilon Eridani b, HIP 14810 planets, and GJ 317 planets. Planets in the solar system are also used. BlueEarth 20:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether you personally use it or not: what matters is whether this quantity is used in sources outside the Wikipedia. Chaos syndrome 23:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Extrasolar planets perspective

From the background of mainly working on extrasolar planets articles, to me it doesn't make much sense to have semimajor axis further down the list of properties than periapsis/apoapsis etc, which are derived from the semimajor axis and the eccentricity (furthermore, given that semimajor axis is itself derived from period and stellar mass, it would make more sense to keep period at the top, but I'm less concerned with that). Also, in the recommended properties for extrasolar planets, I would suggest getting rid of semi-minor axis, orbital circumference (those two I'd suggest getting rid of from the template), orbital area, orbital speed, circumference, surface area, volume and escape velocity, as filling all these in would only be an exercise in mathematics. Surely an infobox is to provide a concise summary of basic properties, not an exhaustive list of every derived quantity we can think of. Chaos syndrome 00:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A naive suggestion: They don't have to be all filled out. Just deleting the spurious ones. Deuar 12:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed cleanup/additions

This template seems to have a lot of fields which may perhaps be unnecessary, and contains a lot of quantities which seem to be there just to prove we can do mathematics. The purpose of an infobox is surely to quickly summarise properties rather than exhaustively list a bunch of maths. Furthermore, excessively long infoboxes are a pain for article layout and suchlike. Discussion on the following issues would be welcome.

  • Discovery location - is this actually vital enough to put in the infobox? In today's environment of extrasolar planet discovery via data sources from various different observatories with teams spread over various different institutions, it seems strange to say the discovery occurred at one specific location.
  • Semi-major axis - move above perihelion/aphelion as this is one of the main orbital elements used to describe an orbit, rather than perihelion/aphelion.
  • Semi-minor axis - does anyone actually use this quantity anywhere? If not, remove it... just maths.
  • Orbital area - remove as unnecessary maths.
  • Orbital circumference - might be useful if this quantity is discussed somewhere, otherwise it is so much more mathematical manipulation.
  • Mean radius of orbit - remove this one as it is potentially unclear - is this the mean radius as averaged over space or time? Semi-major axis is less ambiguous.
  • Angular distance - again, this seems like mathematical calculation based on distance of star and radius of orbit - not usually interesting in most cases, and not actually a measured quantity for most planets.
  • Semi-Amplitude - inconsistent capitalisation. Maybe indicate it refers to velocity: "Velocity half-amplitude" perhaps?
  • Satellites - rename to "Known satellites"
  • Oblateness/Aspect ratio/Ellipticity - can we settle on just one of these? I'd be inclined to prefer "oblateness" myself.
  • Angular size - as seen from where? And doesn't this vary with orbit... does any infobox use this apart from the Moon?

Proposed additions, for :

  • Transit time and Transit duration for transiting planets... maybe also Impact parameter and Transit depth?
  • Closest approach to lens (time in JD) for microlensing planets. Another parameter that also would be useful for such planets would be the time taken to traverse the radius of the Einstein ring, but I can't think of a concise way of expressing that.
  • Observed separation, Position angle for extrasolar planets whose orbits haven't been determined (this would include planets detected by gravitational microlensing, and worlds such as 2M1207b). Putting semi-major axis instead of observed separation for these planets implies we know more about their orbits than we do.

Chaos syndrome 12:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The template was extensively reworked not too long ago. I'd be reluctant to remove data fields as there is no real reason to do so. Even if only a handful of people read the info, it will still benefit them, and it doesn't take up much room. (Some of the cleanup ideas might be warranted, though.) --Ckatzchatspy 17:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I also find a lot of these parameters annoying to look at, and sometimes even more annoying to see, in an infobox because of their derived nature. Still, it's very difficult to tell whether a particular pet hate is being used meaningfully anywhere or not. I'd love to kill a few, but I worry that their deletion may maim some article somewhere, without it even being noticed by the appropriate watchers (the change won't come up on the watchlist of the relevant individual articles, just the data will stealthily cease to be shown). Having said that, here's a few more parameters which look purely like a mathematical exercise based on the articles I'm most familiar with (minor planets and moons):
  • average speed, max speed and min speed: they're almost always just an opportunity for someone to plug in numbers into a formula using the period, semi-major axis and ecentricity
  • equatorial circumference, meridional circumference, mean circumference: easily calculated if you need them from the dimensions for spheroidal bodies, inaccurate for irregular bodies, and who really cares in that case anyway.
  • surface area: ditto.
  • volume: formula plug again, with typically huge inaccuracies to boot.
  • time periastron - presumably can be calculated from all the other orbital elements?
Deuar 13:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps these should be removed from the infobox, but there should be a separate "planetary statistics" template, formatted horizontally, for use near the foot of an article,' which could contain such values, under a suitable sub-heading? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Time of periastron says when the planet passes through periastron. The other orbital elements specify the orbit in space, but the time of periastron is required to specify the planet's orbital position at a certain time. Alternatively you need to specify an anomaly (the usual one is the mean anomaly) and the time when you're specifying the mean anomaly, but that is potentially misleading (you'd have to state VERY CLEARLY that the mean anomaly was being specified for some fixed time, rather than the present). Chaos syndrome 19:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, that's what the epoch parameter is for. If we want to be accurate, epoch should always be specified anyway since the orbital elements change around a bit over time due to perturbations. Deuar 13:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess the best option is to choose the conventional parameters (as these are most likely to be available so can easily be checked against sources!). For extrasolar planets, this is usually time of periastron, though time of maximum radial velocity is also a common one. Furthermore, it is best to select the slowest-varying parameters. For example, the mean anomaly of the Earth changes by slightly less than one degree per day (for a typical hot Jupiter in a 3-day orbit, the increment is 120 degrees per day!), whereas the timescale for variations of the orbit is rather longer (hence the time of periastron measurement stays approximately correct for a longer time). Since mean anomaly varies rapidly, a correspondingly high precision must be specified for the epoch to specify exactly when it is being measured. Chaos syndrome 16:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Right, that makes sense. In fact, I would expect mean anomaly to always vary faster than almost all other elements, for the Eath as well. Deuar 11:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
A starting suggestion that is more innocuous than removing paremeters altogether: Let's at least cut them down in the suggested usage on the template page (apart from the "All paremeters" subsection). Deuar 11:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on whether specific parameters should be removed or not (that's better left to people more familiar with their usage than I); I just want to say that, if any of them are removed, someone should check whether the parameters are in use anywhere, and make sure that the information isn't just hidden from view (i.e. it should be worked into the article, or the values that allow its derivation should be present, and preferably the method of calculating it should be linked to). It's possible to put all pages using a parameter into a category by putting something like 

{{#if:{{{parameter|}}}|[[Category:Temporary test category with an appropriate name]]}}

at the bottom of the template, where "parameter" should be replaced by the appropriate parameter name and the category should have an appropriate name, as well as an explanation of why it exists, and after it's been used it should be deleted (e.g. by {{db-author}}) and the code removed from the template. Mike Peel 18:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A cunning trick! Thanks for sharing that with the rest of us, it solves a problem that, at least to me, looked intractable. Deuar 10:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I should have mentioned that it will take time for the test category for {{Infobox Planet}} to be populated with pages once you add the category to the template, as it takes a while before the template is updated on all of the pages it is in use by. I'd recommend you leave somewhere in the region of an hour for the category to populate, depending on the size of the job queue (see Special:Statistics). Mike Peel 06:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


Feature creep

Trawling through all the parameters (see section below), I find that there has been such severe feature creep in this template that it is in need of serious slimming down. In particular, as Chaos Syndrome has pointed out above, there is a bunch of useless orbital quantities being displayed, and obscuring the ones which are actually significant and conceptually revealing. In particular - semiminor axis, orbital circumference, and orbital area. They are just a gratuitous exercise in basic maths, and, importantly, provide no new conceptual insight, or data.

  • semiminor axis — nothing new in comparison with what can be seen from four other fields all devoted to orbit size and shape: semi-major axis, periapsis, apoapsis, and eccentricity.
  • orbital area — π a² apart from some minor tweaking that depends on eccentricity, and is of no particular conceptual interest.
  • orbital circumference — speed times orbital period or approximately 2πa. Nothing new

I'm going to remove them from the recommended parameters immediately, and progressively remove them from the articles. Simplicity and compactness are notable virtues. Furthermore, getting rid of the weeds frees up space for potentially much more interesting fields that could be used to give other independent data in the future. This has also been discussed in the section above. Deuar 09:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Very good idea.--CWitte 10:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Unused or rarely used parameters

I'm in the process of trying to cull/survey a few parameters that are unused or used only by one or a few instances of this template. One of the main uses of these infoboxes is for comparison between bodies after all.

  • atmosphere_density — this was used only at Moon, and has now been removed from there as well. In any case, it's not clear what is meant to be meant by this. Density at what height?

More to come, probably. Deuar 11:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  • angular_size — here's another one used only at Moon. At least this one makes sense and is of some interest. What shall we do: remove it or calculate it for a couple of other planets at least? Deuar 15:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • magnitude — for the apparent magnitude from Earth. Currently used for just four randomly selected bodies: Moon, Callisto, Europa, and Ganymede. No Io, or Jupiter even. Remove it or calculate it for a couple of other planets at least? Deuar 15:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Would/(should?) that be refer to the mean apparent magnitude or just the peak magnitude? Perhaps this is something I could start adding to the planets, largest moons, and brightest asteroids. Kheider 18:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, good question. I suspect that the only quantity that is reasonably easy to compute is peak magnitude. Values for mean magnitude found on the web should be taken with a grain of salt - doing the averaging properly is no easy task. The Moon has a reasonable solution: it says "up to -12.74". Deuar 15:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking about this while I was checking sources on the net and I agree. It is easier to locate or calculate a peak magnitude. Where is this list showing which objects make use of the entry, "magnitude"? Should this value be renamed from apparent magnitude to "Max AP magnitude" or "Max APmag" (while still linking to apparent magnitude) to make it's general use clearer to readers and editors? -- Kheider 16:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Not sure about the rename, the suggestions make for difficult reading, but I can't come up with anything clearer that fits niecly in the left column of the infobox. Maybe just write "(max)" after the number in the field? For some objects you probably don't have to worry about max, etc. E.g. does the apparent magnitude of Pluto ever change by more than 0.1? Regarding the list, it used to be at Category:Temp test category for InfoboxPlanet, but I've since moved on with what field that relates to. The automatic list is at Category:Temp_category_InfoboxPlanet-magnitude (give it an hour or so after this post to fill up). Deuar 21:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The magnitude parameter/list is very populated now. I will leave it to the specific articles to decide how to handle the whole (Peak) verbiage. At least for now it allows a reasonable comparison amongst planets/moons/asteroids. With Pluto's eccentric orbit, Pluto varies from mag 13.65 (1988) to 15.2 (2048) over long time peroids. :-) Kheider 03:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well done, Kheider! :-) Deuar 10:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

APMag and AngSize: If I use Horizons to calculate a range for the asteroids for 1950-2100AD, how should I list the ranges, with the brightest magnitude first? I have updated 1 Ceres as an example. I think I want to list the brightest magnitude and largest angular size first since I figure most people will want to know favorable opposition magnitudes/sizes more than conjunction magnitudes/sizes. Keep in mind that the dates (or even years) of the brightest magnitude are not necessarily the same as the date of greatest angular size. The greatest angular size is always at the point of closest approach. In contrast, the planets list their dimmest magnitudes first, but then again the major planets are always comparatively easy to find.
-- Kheider 15:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

  • obliquity — another one used only at Moon. This is a synonym for axial tilt anyway. Will convert Moon and then remove the field from the template. Deuar 15:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Done. Deuar 16:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • land_area and water_area — applicable only to Earth (the first, potentially also to Titan). The relevant data is easily moved to additional lines in the "surface_area" field. Deuar 21:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Removed Deuar 23:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • mean_circ, equatorial_circ, and meridional_circ (circumferences) — Used only for three bodies: Earth, Moon, and ... can anyobdy guess? ... think you've got it? ... wrong!, no it's Themisto an irregular moon of Jupiter! In fact, the last two are only at Earth. Other things being equal I would suggest to get rid of them all, but I suppose that the Earth's circumference is often looked for, and it's nice to have it relatively easy to find there in the infobox. In any case, they can all be co-massed into one parameter instead of three. In fact, I have amalgamated them all into a circumference field, since the cases where these values are used refer to various varieties. Deuar 12:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • ellipticity and aspect_ratio — every article apart from Earth uses "oblateness" which gives the same information. No need for Earth to do it twice, either. Deuar 10:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the proper term is flattening. The aspect ratio is a complement value, equaling the polar/equatorial ratio: If the ratio is 4:5, then the aspect ratio is .8 and the flattening us .2. If you were to look at such a planet, the aspect ratio would tell you that the polar radius is 80% of the equatorial, while the flattening tells you that the planet deviates from circularity ("flattens") by 20%——not as visually illustrative as the aspect ratio. A common practice is to define the inverse flattening, 1/f. Perhaps a better approach would be to provide the aspect ratio and inverse flattening (for Earth, about 298.257)?  ~Kaimbridge~ 16:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess it depends on whether you want a measure of "roundness" or of "departure from roundness". For me the flattening/oblateness is more visually intuitive (almost all aspect ratios will start with 0.9... , and 0.998 and 0.98 look much the same, while 0.002 and 0.02 are much more revealing); 1/f requires noticeably more mental gymnastics to get a good feel; anyway these are just my personal opinions. The main issue is to keep it to one single field, to combat the feature creep that has been plaguing this template. Deuar 16:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with using "flattening" rather than "oblateness". Best to reduce jargon. Will implement. Deuar 09:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! P=) I attempted it a couple of weeks ago and either I did something wrong or didn't wait for it to catch, so I reverted it (I planned on trying again after I finish my "verbose explanation" you requested, regarding (Talk Earth) "Mean radius"! P=)  ~Kaimbridge~ 14:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
:) Deuar 16:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Converted all "arg_perihelion" to "arg_peri". Removing the deprecated field. Deuar 14:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • max_speed and min_speed — these are used on 18 pages (Planets, Moon, Pluto, Eris, Galilean satellites, two minor satellites of Neptune, and Themisto). There is also an avg_speed parameter. Given that, adding more lines for these quantities is just causing clutter and an excuse for gratuitous use of a calculator. In almost all the above cases, (exceptions: Pluto and Eris), these min and max speeds do not even differ appreciably from the average. I'm going to remove these fields from those pages, and then remove the field from this template. Deuar 14:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, there's been no complaints so far after about a day of removing these fields from all articles, so removing them from template and doc as well. Deuar 13:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • sidereal_month, synodic_month, tropical_month, anomalistic_month, and draconic_month — quite a monthful. Used, of course, only at Moon. There's no reason why we cannot use "period" for these like for all other bodies, including hundreds of other satellites. This woud also have the advantage of making it explicit that we're talking about physical parameters and nothing related to culture. Finally, the last three are so obscure they should be removed from such a prominent place, lest they cause confusion as to which one a casual reader is looking for. It's all discussed in detail at Month and Orbit of the Moon in any case, for the interested. Deuar 23:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • sidereal_period — synonymous with "period" parameter which specifies the physical orbital period relative to the "fixed" stars. Used on 13 pages. I'll relabel them, and remove the spurious field. Should someone be in doubt about the terminology, it is explained at the top of orbital period which is the wiki link from the "period" field's label. Deuar 12:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • astron — a useful parameter which gives the suffix for fields like perihelion when the central body is not the Sun, hence -helion is not appropriate. However, it appears to be misnamed because apsis not "astron" is the general term. Changing. Deuar 13:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • perigee and apogee — used only at Moon. Will convert to use the periapsis field to slim down the template.
Similarly, periastron and apastron are used only on 11 pages. Will also convert. Deuar 09:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Change temperatures field to detect no

Is it possible to read the temperatures value and if it is 'no' to treat it as if it was not supplied? As currently written, it seems the presence of any value causes the temperatures to be included in the output. WilliamKF (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What is a day?

Many of the values of this template (e.g. Orbital period, Synodic period, Rotation period) are expressed in days. Is the same definition of a day used in each one of these fields? What does it mean by a day in each of these cases? There are many possible definitions (e.g. 86,400 SI seconds, the average sidereal and solar days on Earth, the average sidereal and solar days of the planet that is the subject of the article that this template is placed on). Thank you. Jecowa (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixing the 'adjective' problem

Like some people above, I find it silly that 'adjective' appears under 'physical characteristics'. It's useful information but I don't think anyone will find it there except by accident.

The problem has been where else to put it. I propose (1) renaming the "Discovery" section to "Discovery and name" (these things are often closely related) (2) Adding 'adjective' to that section and (3) Also adding "eponym" to that section (i.e. the thing the planet is named after, so e.g. Mercury's eponym would be a link to the god Mercury) - 'eponym' already appears in Template:Lunar crater data, as a precedent.

I think this is sensible. Anyone agree? Rubble pile (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Alternative names

I just created the page 14827 Hypnos. Is there any reason that "Alternative names" shows a "[1]" in the infobox? Did I violate the template? Thanks. -- Kheider (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Distance units

I notice that Eris (dwarf planet) lists the perihelion and aphelion in units of 10^9 km, 90377 Sedna lists them in 10^14 m, (136472) 2005 FY9 lists them in gigameters, and 50000 Quaoar lists them in terameters. I think all articles that use this template should give distances using the same unit. Which unit should be standard? SharkD (talk) 06:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What exactly does Semi-amplitude mean?

Above someone referred to it meaning "Velocity half-amplitude", but what does that mean? It links to Amplitude, but that mentions neither semi nor velocity. I need a definition so that the confusing terms in HD 189733 b can be clarified. Thanks.-Wikianon (talk) 09:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Template's name

Since this template is used for nonstellar bodies such as moons, TNOs, etc as well as planets, anyone think renaming it "Infobox Nonstellar body" doesn't make sense? (I'm assuming an astronomical/scientific context.) Alternatively, any better generic names to suggest? Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need to rename it, but if so "nonstellar body" isn't particularly intuitive. (Unfortunately, our old alternate title Template:Infobox Small, Medium, or Large Lump of Rock, Gas, or Ice, possibly Spherical, that May (or May Not) be a Planet isn't terribly practical either...) --Ckatzchatspy 07:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Leave it where it is - There is nothing wrong with the term "planet" in this context, as it makes sense to everybody. Seeing the name doesn't appear in the article, there is no need to be politically correct. "Nonstellar body" is too generic, as it implies any body which is not a star, including Jupiter, Pluto, 1 Ceres, a Cat, Gordon Brown, and my Desk. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 08:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming the old alternate title Ckatz mentions was a joke! Sorry if my idea suggests political correctness; it just struck me as odd that non-planetary/non-stellar/whatever bodies were being identified as planets. That's all. Sardanaphalus (talk) 08:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I was surprised to see the mention of it had been pulled from the template docs... undeleted for now, just for fun. --Ckatzchatspy 09:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Since the party's starting, how about "Infobox Planet or planety thing"? Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC) (This thread gives me idea that I'm not the first to've queried the name!)
Actually, "T:ISMoLLoRGoIpStM(oMN)baP" didn't stem from a naming issue here. It is/was an in-joke from when Mike Peel did a major overhaul of the template last year. That was around the same time as the extensive, everlasting, and exhausting discussions about Pluto, Pluto's status, what to name the Pluto article, what to name dwarf planet articles, where should Ceres be, and so on. --Ckatzchatspy 09:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I concur with the above; it seems fine for now. Perhaps if there were a more general template of which infobox planet were a subset, then it would make sense.—RJH (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Leave it where it is. However keep the note on the page that it is perfectly acceptable to use this for things which aren't strictly (by the IAU definition) planets - I've seen edit wars where certain more obsessive types have advocated removing templates with the word "planet" in their names from articles detailing things like brown dwarfs, extrasolar minor planets, etc. Icalanise (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor planet discovery site

The box containing the code to copy-paste for a minor planet article should probably also list the 'discovery_site' parameter as this is standard information regarding asteroid and other minor planet discoveries. -AndrewBuck (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

template error

This template creates a references atop articles, above the article text. See 17198 Gorjup for an example. Please fix. Kingturtle (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

it appears fixed now. The bot edit was reverted. Kingturtle (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I reverted the edit made by the bot that broke the template however I'm not sure what the bot was trying to do. I would assume it was a useful edit that would have improved the page however it just didn't work because of the special care needed to edit template pages. Someone who really understands this template should take a look at it to resolve the issue more appropriately; my revert is merely a band-aid. -AndrewBuck (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The bot was apparently inserting link titles (which is a good thing), but it also inserted a "missing" references section (which is also a good thing, but only in the article namespace). I've added the link title manually, so that should be it. GregorB (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Addition of pp-template

{{editprotected}}
Based on User:Wknight94 protection, suggest adding {{pp-template}} to the top of the template page Tamr007 (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Y Done through unprotected documentation subpage. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 13:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Minor Planet Box

Has the old Minor Planet box been changed from diameter to radius? Sethhater123 noticed that 10199 Chariklo had the diameter mentioned in the box instead of the radius (Now edited). I have noticed that 2007 WD5 (an article I worked on a lot) is also mentioning the radius instead of the diameter. -- Kheider (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I found the edit to template minor planet that caused the problem on 18:13, 6 July 2008. -- Kheider (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Planetary discriminant

How about to add planetary discriminant into the list of parameters?--Dojarca (talk) 08:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Adjective or Demonym?

It's the Demonym not Adjective --125.25.25.63 (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Alternate name

Could the citation attached to the "Alternate name" field be modified to use a proper citation template? Example:

"Minor Planet Designations". Minor Planet Center. Retrieved 2008-12-05.

Right now the citation is little more than a link and title, with no indication of publisher or an access date. If this is unacceptible, then a better solution may be to just leave the citation off and let editors manage it at the page level. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

When I enter minor planet designation, error 404 occurs. — Chesnok (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for design

Hey all, I think the template looks better than most out there, but I have some suggestions about the aesthetics. First off, I believe "Discovery", "Orbital Characteristics", "Physical Characteristics", and "Atmosphere" should have a size of 13px (regular 1em) and it should have more padding, maybe about 0.5em. Second, could you up the cellspacing to 5? And finally, if it's possible, could you add some rounding to the box for Mozilla? I personally like 0.4em rounding on the outer box and 0.6em on the smaller headers in the box. Feel free to send me a message if you have any questions regarding my request. Thanks! obentomusubi 06:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Diameter?

How about adding a section for diameter? I noticed a request for this info on Talk Pluto, and I think it would make sense to put this in the infoboxes of all solar system bodies. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Diameter would be redundant with mean radius. -- Kheider (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
You know that and I know that, but a lot of people reading Wikipedia won't make the connection, as evidenced by the request on Talk:Pluto. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

But the diameter is mentioned in the Mass and Size section of Pluto article. I do expect people to make a reasonable effort to read the articles. The anon poster requesting the diameter did not appear to read the article at all. Cluttering the info box with redundant info will not be very useful to people making a honest effort. Even a middle school child should have no problem learning the difference between radius vs diameter and Celsius vs Fahrenheit. -- Kheider (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a global medium and what constitutes a middle-school level education varies across and within countries, and no doubt some of our users are even younger. I don't see how it would hurt to have a few extra characters in the infobox, and it could even be parenthesized within the radius entry for more economical representation. Besides, there's plenty of redundant info in there already. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate a way to toggle between dimensions and diameter. There's definitely a possibility for confusion, given that some articles have radius and some have dimensions, where by dimensions they mean diameter. I didn't initially see it as a problem, but as this discussion at Haumea shows, it needs to be made explicit due to the current mixed usage among TNO articles. I'd also mention that it's not about the education level of Wikipedia readers in this case: diameter is the standard usage in the TNO literature, eg. Stansberry; et al. (2007). "Physical Properties of Kuiper Belt and Centaur Objects: Constraints from Spitzer Space Telescope". {{cite web}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help). Iridia (talk) 01:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Bad reference being dragged in

FYI, at least in some cases, e.g. 3320 Namba, the template is dragging in a reference to here, a non-specific page that used to be backed by a search script. However, that script is down "until further notice", so the reference is effectively broken.

Also, when the reference is brought in on a page that doesn't have a proper references section, a big red "Cite error" is now displayed, and the page ends up in the hidden category Category:Wikipedia pages with broken references.

Both problems would be fixed by removing the ref; fixing the ref to an alternate would still require fixing the cite errors. Studerby (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The simplest way to fix this is to change the <ref> to <ref group=note> and add {{reflist|group=note}} at the bottom of the template. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 08:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


Please edit the article

Please change link Absolute magnitude#Planets (H) to Absolute magnitude#Solar System bodies (H). — Chesnok (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Planned update to fix references in 10,788 asteroid articles

18-Feb-2009: I have tested an update for Template:Infobox_Planet to show the source footnote as "[a]" listed at the bottom of the infobox in a new "Notes" section. The new version has been tested from:

version: User:Wikid77/Template:Infobox_Planet
edit-summary will be:
"changed Designations ref-tag footnote [1] to be note "[a]" at bottom of infobox; shortened internal HTML comments"

That will fix all 10,788 articles in "Category:Asteroid stubs" to stop the red error message "Cite error:...no <references/> tag was found". This problem was listed at WP:Help_desk. I had been compiling an essay about news, user-surveys and help-pages when I accidentally saw that problem about asteroid articles. Also, I had worked on some of the lists of the 171,000 asteroids (2 years ago), so I knew about the general situation. Changing the template will avoid the need to edit any more of those various 10,788 bot-generated articles.

Please note that it might take the Wikipedia servers more than a week to schedule the auto-formatting of all 10,788 articles: for over 3 months now, Wikipedia no longer instantly reformats all related articles (as was formerly done within minutes) after a template is modified/saved. However, the anticipated results for a particular asteroid-article could be viewed by clicking the "prev" differences of the top revision (under the History-tab) of an article. The diff-page must reformat the article, to display, using the latest revisions of templates in the text coding. The actual "live" article is a canned page, as formatted when Wikipedia last had the need to reformat that article. The canned pages are shared for viewing, rather than reformat the article for each viewing. Eventually, after several days, each canned page will be updated when slowly reformatting all 10,788 (or more) articles using that template.

If there are no objections, let's proceed with {Editprotected} to get the updates started. Many of the 10,788 asteroid-articles are viewed 1 or 3 times per day. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't mean to seem too pushy about this update. Some other kind of change could be used, rather than showing "Notes:   [a] - Minor Planet Designations" at the infobox bottom. I imagine those who read each article, 1-to-3 times per day, have come to expect "Cite error" as a current glitch on many pages. I had wanted to just quickly fix those 10,788 stubs, while working on other articles, but the changes could wait to be coordinated with other issues. Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I think this solution, if it works would be great - it would clear out about half the pages currently at Category:Wikipedia pages with broken references which would mean less work for my bot (my bot can't fix these changes anyways). The Helpful One 20:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Note: I have been WP:BOLD and completed this, [1]. Let's hope this works! :) The Helpful One 21:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Whatever change was made is now causing the infobox notes to appear in the infobox and the article notes down in the Notes section, at least on the Earth article. This seems very irregular, unwieldy and can add significant size to the infobox. Please change it back, or split off the minor planet template and modify it therein. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I added 'note' parameter, which can be used to disable this feature. Ruslik (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you!—RJH (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

PDF Translation

The new "Create book" version of this page produces a badly formatted table ( check out Mars or Venus). For some reason four columns are created instead of two. This seems to be a problem with the "Orbital Characterstics" section judging from the PDF. You can see the problem quickly by using the option "PDF Version", but this also occurs when you export to OpenDocument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akademy (talk • contribs) 14:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This has been fixed now. Akademy (talk) 12:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_planet/Archive_1&oldid=1146277399"