Template talk:Infobox planet/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Template-protected edit request on 22 June 2015

Remove: | label35 = {{longitem|[[Mean anomaly]]}} | data35 = {{{mean_anomaly|}}}

Reason: Mean anomaly is a continually changing parameter that specifies a planet's position along its orbit, not an intrinsic property of the orbit itself. Currently, all mean anomalies in planet infoboxes reflect the mean anomaly at the time the infobox was added, which is in all cases now incorrect since the parameter continually changes. In other words, this parameter is necessarily wrong virtually all of the time in every single individual infobox.

Alternatively, if it is possible, the template could be modified to update the mean anomaly daily, but the misleading parameter should be removed while this is being set up. A2soup (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there any discussion about this? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I would prefer to see agreement from a few editors. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Mean anomaly is not a continually changing value. It is constant with the epoch (the time) specified. Only if the epoch changes, does mean anomaly also change. --JorisvS (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a continually changing value, but JorisvS is correct that when you specify an exact point in time, there is a single value for each mean anomaly at that point. A better solution than the change I proposed here is probably to change the mean anomaly value in individual infoboxes to the value at J2000.000 (1/15/2000 12:00 GMT), specifying that it is the value at that time. I'll try to start implementing that and close my request here for now. FYI, the main discussion of this occurred here. A2soup (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay I read the discussion and there doesn't seem to be much support for the parameter so I've removed it for now. If you work out how it should be displayed, or if there is consensus for any other addition, let me know. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay that works. It doesn't seem like anyone who really knows much about how mean anomaly is traditionally noted has chimed in yet, so I'll try to rustle up someone who knows and can clarify for us. A2soup (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The "mean anomaly at epoch" is one of the fundamental orbital parameters. Without it, or without an equivalent quantity (such as the time of pericenter passage), one cannot compute the position along the orbit. Please do not remove. JeanLucMargot (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I thought I agreed with JorisvS above that it would be best to leave it in and correct it in all the individual infoboxes to mean anomaly at J2000.0. My initial understanding of the situation was incomplete: the problem isn't that it's in the template, the problem is that the template has been widely misunderstood. @MSGJ: care to put it back, and I'll get to fixing the infoboxes? Sorry for the hassle. A2soup (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps restore it as:

| label35 = {{longitem|[[Mean anomaly]] at [[J2000.0]]}} | data35 = {{{mean_anomaly|}}} to clear up confusion about the epoch? A2soup (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

There's a whooping 3,000 uses of this parameter, so let's give it some thought before making any changes. If we're gonna settle for J2000, then I'd suggest that a new parameter be added, |mean_anomaly_j2k=. Afterwards, export all of the values into a spreadsheet and make a bot request. Alakzi (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's a bit beyond my ken. As the editor who started this, I will see it through myself if necessary, but it would be great if someone more knowledgable in templates and bots could volunteer. Also, we should consider what our source for the mean anomaly at J2000.0 should be. I have been using WolframAlpha, which I've always known be be reliable, but I have no idea where it sources its numbers, which isn't the best. A2soup (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kheider, Serendipodous, Kwamikagami, Rfassbind, and Drbogdan:.

@MSGJ:. This is one of the fundamental parameters required to define an object's orbit and its position on it. Your removal of it is very much ill-advised and you should revert yourself right away!

The proposal to list mean anomaly at J2000 does not solve the problem. The orbital elements are valid at a certain epoch. If you change the epoch for the mean anomaly to be J2000, you need to recompute all the other orbital elements for that epoch. It's best to leave the mean anomaly at epoch unchanged. JeanLucMargot (talk) 11:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The Mean anomaly needs to be put back for the reasons JeanLucMargot wrote. All orbital parameters are only valid for the date (epoch) specified as orbital parameters change everyday. WolframAlpha is "cute", but I would never use it. Forcing J2000 for mean anomaly when many infoboxes use a different year will only invalidate the other orbital parameters listed. -- Kheider (talk) 11:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I brought up the same issue on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects recently. While it is true that all the orbital parameters change with time, they all change very slowly except for the mean anomaly. It is essential to give the epoch for the mean anomaly, but it's not essential for the other parameters. (In fact, I wouldn't call the mean anomaly a parameter – I would call it a variable, while the others are parameters.) My recommendation would be to modify the infobox somehow so that the epoch is mentioned right by the mean anomaly. For example, say "Mean anomaly: xxxx at epoch: xxxx". Or just change the label to "Mean anomaly at epoch", which is more correct. Then the reader can look for the epoch higher up. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 06:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 October 2015: Remove obsolete param "temperatures"

Replace in template: {{{temperatures|}}} with {{{temp_name1|}}}, which is used as a selector (condition) for displaying header "Physical conditions" on line | header66 = {{#if:{{{dimensions|}}}....

Reason: the parameter "temperatures" does not exist. Probably a leftover from previous incomplete amendments. For consistency, param "temp_name1" should be checked instead -- Cheers, Rfassbind – talk 14:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rfassbind:  Done. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 October 2015: Parameter "minorplanet"

The usage of parameter |minorplanet = yes changes the output of the template's section-headers and parameter-labels in six different locations. These locations and their different output are (output when parameter is set vs. not set):

• header (1): Discovery and designation vs. Discovery
• header (66): Physical characteristics vs. Physical characteristics
• label (77): Equatorial surface gravity vs. Surface gravity
• label (79): Equatorial escape velocity vs. Escape velocity
• label (88): Geometric albedo vs. Albedo
• label (77): Spectral type vs. Spectral type

There are just two possibilities: either the template's modified appearance is desired or not. If it is desired, then the documentation and the example template in Minor_planets must display |minorplanet = yes (which it currently does not). If the modifications are not desired, then they must be removed from the template's code. You can not have both. Using #if:{{{minorplanet|}}} in the template's logic and omitting it in the description of recommended parameters is inconsistent and produces inconsistencies every time the example template is copy-pasted. Alternatively, if it is a legacy thing, then it must be declared deprecated in the documentation and guidelines should be given.

Without being able to reproduce what might have been discussed and decided in the past ten years, my suggestion is that these modifications are useful with the exception of "header (1)" (see above). This one should be removed from the template. In addition, I suggest to add |minorplanet = yes to the recommended parameters in the templates description for Minor planets.

There are some other issues I came across. For the moment, I restrict myself to this particular one. -- Cheers, Rfassbind – talk 14:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rfassbind: If you want to be WP:BOLD, you can just edit the documentation yourself (it shouldn't require any special permissions). What's the rationale for removing the "Discovery and designation" option? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Ahecht:. The suggested changes in the documentation and in the template's code depend on each other. That's why the option "..and designation" should be removed first from the template, before I amend the documentation suggesting the usage of parameter |minorplanet = yes. Rationale: Currently a template with the minorplanet=yes parameter will produce these two inconsistent headers:

1. Discovery and designation
2. Designations

instead of the more consistent:

1. Discovery
2. Designations

The "Designations" header is going to be displayed anyway, if one of the following parameters is set : |mp_name, |named_after, |alt_names, |mp_category, |pronounce(d), and |adjective(s). So there really is no functionality for the "and designation"-option, other than leading to an inconsistent header when "minorplanet" is used. I think the mentioned option is, again, a leftover, from previous edits that added all theses conditional parameters. It was probably overlooked, because the "minorplanet" param had been removed as well, thus causing no notable changes. The question as to why there should be a "minorplanet"-parameter in the first place, I already addressed in my first post. Hope that wasn't too long, -- Cheers, Rfassbind – talk 17:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rfassbind: Got it. I removed "and Designation" from the template. You can go ahead and update the documentation. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 October 2015 remove designation from condition

This request concerns the conditional header "Designation" (header10) which also includes a link to Extrasolar planet § Nomenclature

Statement

Currently, the header looks like this:

| header10 = {{#if:{{{designations|{{{mp_name|}}}{{{named_after|}}}{{{alt_names|}}}{{{mp_category|}}}{{{pronounce|}}}{{{pronounced|}}}{{{adjective|}}}{{{adjectives|}}}}}}|{{#if:{{{exosolar planets|}}}|[[Extrasolar planet#Nomenclature|Designations]]|Designations}} }}

Requesting changes

1. remove designations {{{designations| and closing }}} just after {{{adjectives|}}}
2. change parameter {{{exosolar planets|}}} to {{{extrasolarplanet|}}} to be consistent with parameter {{{minorplanet}}}.

Rationale

1. There is no need to check for either designations or a number of parameters such as mp_name, as all parameters are listed. Therefore {{{designations}}} can be ignored (it is completely useless).
2. {{{exosolar planets}}}: Obviously, this param should have never been named like this. Fortunately, the "Infobox planet"-template is at best rarely used for articles about extrasolar planets (if at all) as the vast majority of them uses the {{Planetbox xyz}} templates. Moreover, the parameter is nowhere documented. For this reason, it's OK to break logic for potentially existing templates already using it and fixing the parameter once and for all.

Follow-ups

After the removal/amendment, I'll update the documentation accordingly. Thx for the effort and please check whether my interpretation of the conditional statement (above) is correct. Cheers, Rfassbind – talk 22:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES.

• You have a pretty clear idea of the change you want and the syntax needed. Why do you need help checking it? There's sandbox and testcases where you can test it for yourself. You can find links to them at the bottom of the template page.
• it's OK to break logic for potentially existing templates already using it - No it isn't. That's why the template is protected.

Regards, Bazj (talk) 08:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes that's correct: I should have tested the template myself. I did so and I can now confirm my assertion about the parameter {{{designations}}} above. As for the parameter {{{exosolar planets}}} and your: "No it isn't. That's why the template is protected", I can only point out, that it is actually the other way around: Because it wasn't protected, it accumulated several inconsistencies. I presume, this should be obvious to anybody even remotely familiar with the template and its documentation. Rfassbind – talk 02:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Rfassbind, you seem to have a mis-understanding of our roles here. This is your change, not the template editor's (TE). You are supposed to code the change in the sand box and test it in the testcases, not the TE. The role of the TE is as a second pair of eyes, to ensure that nothing breaks. When you declare that your change will "break logic for potentially existing templates already using it", it's the TE's role to reject it unless there's been comprehensive discussion.

You claim it "should be obvious to anybody even remotely familiar with the template" which may be true, but it's not the role of the TE to be familiar, that's your job. You need to make the case clearly in your request, not leave it to the TE to make the case for you.

That said, I've found only four exoplanets in Category:Exoplanets using this template, Aldebaran b, CFBDSIR 2149-0403, GU Piscium b, and Kepler-19c which should be altered to use {{Planetboxes}} as the other exoplanet articles do.

None of the live transclusions of this template use {{{exosolar planets}}}. It only appears in the template itself, its sandbox and doc page. If exoplanets should be using {{Planetboxes}} then I see no purpose in keeping that section of the template at all.

Since I've had to involve myself in the change, I'm no longer an impartial second pair of eyes and you'll need to reactivate the request when you're ready to get another TE to review and implement. Bazj (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, thx for checking which articles about exoplanets use {{Infobox planet}}. -- Rfassbind – talk 13:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 October 2015 Parameter removal and renaming

Please amend the conditional statement responsible for displaying the heading "Designations" in line header10 of the template

Current status

| header10 = {{#if:{{{designations|{{{mp_name|}}}{{{named_after|}}}{{{alt_names|}}}{{{mp_category|}}}{{{pronounce|}}}{{{pronounced|}}}{{{adjective|}}}{{{adjectives|}}}}}}|{{#if:{{{exosolar planets|}}}|[[Extrasolar planet#Nomenclature|Designations]]|Designations}} }}

Edit request in line: header10

1. remove {{{designations| and closing }}} just after {{{adjectives|}}}
2. rename {{{exosolar planets|}}} to {{{extrasolarplanet|}}}

Rationale

1. The usage of {{{designations}}} is obsolete. All potential parameters to trigger the heading are already present in the conditional statement. In fact, {{{designations}}} is detrimental, because it can trigger an undesired rendering of two consecutive, adjunct headings and no data in between.
2. {{{exosolar planets}}}: the parameter lacks proper syntax/nomenclature. "extrasolarplanet" is a better choice and consistent with "minorplanet". Currently, only a handful of articles are destined to use this parameter (see below). It is now possible to fix the parameter and amend the corresponding articles with little effort.

Follow-ups

After the deletion/refactoring, I'll update the documentation accordingly. I also will also amend the previously mentioned exoplanet articles (Aldebaran b, CFBDSIR 2149-0403, GU Piscium b, and Kepler-19c) accordingly. Thx for the effort, Rfassbind – talk 13:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done Please, also synchronize it to the sandbox. Ruslik_Zero 20:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thx for the effort. I presume, there are – as of now – no articles using the old param "exosolar planets" for their templates. Do you know how to query wiki in order to find all articles that use a particular template, so that these legacy parameters can all be removed rather than new aliases being created all the time? Cheers, Rfassbind – talk 05:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Add porosity parameter

Please add a porosity parameter by changing

| label76 = {{longitem|Mean [[density]]}}

| data76 = {{{density|}}}

to (and of course update the following parameter numbers accordingly)

| label76 = {{longitem|Mean [[density]]}}

| data76 = {{{density|}}}

| label77 = {{longitem|Mean [[porosity]]}}

| data77 = {{{porosity|}}}

This is an important parameter to go alongside the density parameter with respect to an object's composition. --JorisvS (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

A couple of concerns. Is this intended for small asteroids only? The porosity of a large body can vary enormously as a function of depth. As far as I know, there is no bulk porosity equivalent of bulk density, except perhaps for very small bodies. Bulk density is an observable physical quantity. Porosity estimates require assumptions about the interior composition and density structure. JeanLucMargot (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It is intended as a mean value, just like density is (which can also vary significantly with depth). The best example for a usage where it had added value would be Comet Churyumov–Gerasimenko, whose density was determined and which was determined to contain some silicates, at some point leading to a porosity value of 0.72, which was then determined to be due to how its materials are put together, not due to large caverns. For most objects, it is either irrelevant (large objects), or poorly known, so I see usage of this parameter either for cases like Comet CG, or with ranges of values (whether it has added value in these cases would have to be determined on a case-to-case basis). --JorisvS (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Bulk density is mass (observable) divided by volume (observable). Bulk porosity is not observable. A porosity value is ill-defined unless the assumed material density is stated with it. An infobox entry would need to state the corresponding assumption, otherwise it would be meaningless. JeanLucMargot (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Care to discuss that with those who concluded that Comet Churyumov–Gerasimenko has a porosity of 72%?[1] --JorisvS (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Feel free to reactivate the request once the discussion has reached consensus. Bazj (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 March 2016 (addition of mean_motion)

|mean_motion= should be added as an orbital characteristic at header20, and anywhere between label/data 21–52 (though after |mean_anomaly= at label/data 35 seems most natural). |mean_motion= is provided by both JPL and MPC, and can be confused as exactly 1/365.25th of |p_mean_motion=, or |p_mean_motion= itself. Please use:

| label35     = {{longitem|[[Mean motion]]}}
|  data35     = {{{mean_motion|}}}

  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with adding this mean_motion parameter as too many people assume proper orbital elements and instantaneous orbital elements are the same thing. -- Kheider (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support: it seems roughly equivalent to providing the proper motion for stars. Praemonitus (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support: sure, there is no disagreement at all. Rfassbind – talk 15:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support --JorisvS (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding:  Done. Looks like a pretty good consensus here. Please update the documentation at Template:Infobox planet/doc. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

 Updated doc Thank you!   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)