Jump to content

Template talk:Solar System/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Version XX

[edit]

Improvements:

  1. Less blurry, more to scale Mars
  2. Evening out of asteroid belt
  3. Slight difference in colour between asteroids and KBOs - the mainly icy KBOs are now lighter
  4. Better curve for moons of Uranus
  5. Nix & Hydra
  6. Tidied KBOs around Pluto system

The Enlightened 15:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you should make Charon a little bit brighter to distinguish it from Hydra & Nix.
  1. I can hardly see the asteroids at all now.
  2. If the image only includes the larger moons of the big planets, do we need to have Nix and Hydra? They're barely distinguishable from the background KBOs anyway.
  3. Venus could still be a little lighter; at least, the cloud contrast is too much for visible light.
RandomCritic 03:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is evident that some people must have really dark screens!
  1. Ok, I'll revert the asteroids.
  2. Well if Phobos & Deimos qualify I certainly think Nix & Hydra should. They're a closer size to their parent planet than Mars' moons. My personal preference would be to remove all four but people seemed to want Phobos & Deimos in there.
  3. The image of Venus is a true colour one. I don't see why we should move away from this. The Enlightened 19:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Venus is fine for me. I don't see the reason for Nix and Hydra either, and while Phobos and Deimos could go, without them Mars would be shown as moonless, whereas Pluto will never be mistaken as moonless with Charon shown. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 19:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is that really the case though? We would still have the "Martian" moons listed on the footer, which has pretty much stabilised now. And yes, P&D do show Mars as having a moon over none, but N&H show Pluto as having moons over moon. I don't see how the distinction is that great. Personally, I think it would be best if we set a limit of roundness for all moons - this is effectively the limit for satellites of the Sun. The Enlightened 20:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's your source image for Venus? I'm having difficulty believing that it's true color. And I'm pretty sure that no telescope that resolves Venus to the size we're going for is going to show any kind of cloud contrast at all. That is, it looks to me more like a smaller version of this: than this: RandomCritic 06:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear you're right. The website I got my image from was obviously lying! I'll include the true colour on the next image. The Enlightened 17:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Version XXIII

[edit]


Changes:

  1. Mercury increased in size, for scale purposes
  2. Venus now true colour
  3. Earth decreased in size, for scale purposes
  4. Some shading of Earth added
  5. Shading and rounding of Mars
  6. Asteroids lightened for visibility purposes
  7. Ceres darkened, so it appears smaller compared to Eris & Pluto
  8. Removal of unnecessary moons


The Enlightened 15:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I hate to keep complaining, since we've all done good work on this, but I don't like Venus. I don't like the colour, but I can't really complain if that's the way it actually looks. But it's also all squarish around the edges, likely, I assume, because you had to stretch an image that wasn't round, and it didn't turn out right. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 15:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Dysnomia disappeared in this last edit, but based on size alone it might (barely) squeak in; at 300-400 km in diameter, it might be as big as Mimas, which must be the seventh and smallest of Saturn's moons shown. (On the other hand, Proteus is even slightly bigger than Mimas, and doesn't show.) RandomCritic 16:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that Kuiper belt bodies need to be bigger to achieve roundness than objects in the solar system. I think its because there are stronger rigid body forces to overcome in rocky bodies than icy ones. This is why Ceres sneaks in for dwarf planet status but KBOs substatially larger than this aren't definitely in. The Enlightened 20:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's actually the opposite. Rocky bodies achieve Hydrostatic Equilibrium at higher diameters than icier ones.

Version XXIV

[edit]

Venus is rounder (cheat: based on an image of a shaded sphere). └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 16:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Venus is somehow at half phase when all of the other planets are at third quarter? RandomCritic 16:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, goodness gracious! I wanna go back to the silhouettes! └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Version XXV

[edit]

How's this? └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Venus is now bigger than Earth, and it should be the same size. It's actually about 95% of Earth, but even if its the same number of pixels on the image it can appear larger because of its brightness. Also, the inner planets are at about 85-90% phase so I was editing the image to match. This probably accounts for some of the squareness, which I was trying to remove by darkening the right pixels. Obviously, I didn't go far enough... but I still feel the size issue is more important than close inspection roundness. The Enlightened 20:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a substantially rounded shadow makes Venus look much more 3-D than the other terrestrials, and again makes it look a lot bigger than Earth. This is why I removed a lot of it on mine.The Enlightened 20:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this version of Venus as larger than Earth at all. I also don't think we should even be attempting to make Earth look bigger than Venus, since the difference is quite small. As for the three-dimensionality, I agree with version XXIV, but not XXV. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 20:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incluion of minor moons

[edit]
Wait a minute... please restore the Martian moons, Enlightened. It was agreed upon some time back that they should stay, for good reason. There was no consensus for deleting them. --Ckatzchatspy 20:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on a minute, I never saw any "agreement". Three people have at various points supported keeping them in, and two people (myself and Nbound) have suggested removing them. I never agreed, I let it be. I only took them off when people objected to having Nix & Hydra on there. I said that P&D should go as well in that case an no-one objected. We need a sensible dividing line between including moons and not including them. Nix & Hydra are both larger than Phobos & Deimos, and larger relative to their host planet. The Enlightened 21:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Version XXVI

[edit]

  1. Phobos, Deimos, and Dysnomia re-added
  2. Venus modified again
    └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 20:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you... it is appreciated. I really think that the image - being the first thing readers will see - should at least suggest that a planet/dwarf planet has satellite(s). --Ckatzchatspy 20:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your Venus is definitely a lot better shape now. Is there any way you could get the colour tint in on the rounded image. Its grey there and it has a pinkish-yellowish hue (not quite sure how to describe it actually: color.jpg The Enlightened 21:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if it's quite right, but it's got some colour now. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 21:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, maybe a little browner? Plus, would it be posible for even less shadow? Maybe just a slight edge on the right side to get it similar to Earth? I know I'm being picky! Then I'll have a go at trying to put some of the white cloud wisps in. The Enlightened 12:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I took one more crack at it, but I don't know what else I can do. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 13:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect! You've done a fine job! The Enlightened 16:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with Venus the way it is; you can vary the brightness, but probably the governing factor has to be the perceived size of the planet, and not its actual brightness. With an albedo of about .65, a true-brightness Venus would scream off the page compared to the other planets. And the faint tints of yellowish color in its atmosphere are probably barely detectable at this scale. RandomCritic 13:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think you're right. The Enlightened 16:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Version XXVII

[edit]

  • More rounded Mars
  • Nix & Hydra restored

The Enlightened 20:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which moons

[edit]

I think we need a proper discussion about which moons to include, as so far we've only had isolated exchanges between two or three people at a time. I'd like to see what the wider group of editors think, and give some time to collect views. These are the options as I see them (feel free to add more):

  1. No moons at all The image is only a schematic and most moons wouldn't be visible at this scale anyway, so why not just have each planet image symbolising both the planet and its satellites? Makes a clearer image, too.
  2. Just Charon Reasons as above, but we include Charon as its effectively a double system. Again, a clearer image.
  3. Just the Moon as its the Moon, and could be considered to be the most important one to us.
  4. Just visible moons We only include moons that would be visible at the scale of the planet's image. This would be an option for giving the most accurate visual snapshot. By my reckoning it would include the Moon, Charon, maybe Dysnomia and some gas giant moons too.
  5. Just round moons As its only the round objects that are included for orbiting the Sun, why not apply this to the planets too? This way we shown all significant solar system objects, and no "lumps of rock." This would include the major gas giant moons, Luna and Charon.
  6. Round moons for gas giants, all moons for the rest We try and get as many moons as we can in, accepting that the multiple gas giant moons are too many (e.g. 56 for Jupiter!). But this brings in the question, why include tiny moons yet not much bigger KBOs/asteroids etc? This would include large gas giant moons, Luna, Phobos, Deimos, Charon, Nix, Hydra and Dysnomia.
  7. Round moons for gas giants; plus Phobos, Deimos and Dysnomia (no Nix & Hydra) I'm not sure if anyone actually wanted this or it just existed by a mix of different people's views or simply people forgetting about Pluto's ickle ones. Doesn't seem to be a consistent reason for this, but feel free provide one here if there is.
  8. Moons for all planets with natural satellites (as per current graphic) The actual number represented per planet can be decided separately; the image visually indicates the presence of satellites.
Just say we take this option. Why not then one "moon symbol" image on each planet? Or why not 5? The Enlightened
Ugly option to resolve this (I'm not supporting it, just noting it as a potential solution): Show an image of a moon for each planet and next to it put x2 for Mars, x3 for Pluto, etc. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the sizes (radius in km) for the smaller planets moons (and their parents), as they seem to be the ones mainly in question:

  • Earth - 6371
  • The Moon - 1737
  • Mars - 3390
  • Phobos - 11
  • Deimos - 6
  • Pluto - 1153
  • Charon - 606
  • Nix - 45
  • Hydra - 45
  • Eris - 1200
  • Dysnomia - 350

The Enlightened 20:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's one more potential option: No moons except for the Moon, since it is by far the most important to us. I wouldn't be able to support a decision to include Charon but ignore the Moon. Also, 4) is too much actual calculation (and I'm not sure it makes that much sense). If I have to make a choice, I'd go with everything we've had so far minus Nix and Hydra. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 21:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask why? To my mind, this is the worst option as I can't see any logic behind it. Could you enlighten me to your reasoning? The Enlightened 21:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning is that if we start with the assumption that moons are going to be listed, then all planets with moons should have at least one moon shown. If were not going to go with just one for each planet (seems odd), and we're not going to show every moon (seems quite cluttered), then those planets with several moons should have the large ones shown. As for Mars, it only has two tiny moons, so to show it having moons, we'd have to show a tiny one, so why not show both tiny ones? └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enlightened, if you don't like how I organised the list, fine, revert away - but the least you could do is attempt to make this discussion a bit more coherent. As it is, we've got a rather scattered list with your preferences and opinions written right into the text for each option. Even now, it's hard to read. (And by the way, option 8 IS the method used on the current graphic.) --Ckatzchatspy 23:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current graphic includes Nix & Hydra, so its currently 6. Previously it was 7. I guess your 8 does cover both options (plus a whole load more) due to its vagueness, but it seems unfair to mark it out as such when it is more specifically 6. Otherwise I could also say "Option 9. Show a random number of each planets moons (this is the current option)". I'm not saying your idea is necessarily bad or random, but do you see the point I'm making? Also, I would like to ask when and how you'd like to "decide separately" the number of planets for each case. Why not just do it with one of the specific options (or a new specific option of your choosing) now?
As for your other points, I had actually organised the original list with all the options I could think of in a least moons to most moons order. I then put the pluses and minuses that I could think of next to them. Your suggestion didn't seem to list a precise number, so I put it at the end. I then felt that adding Ozlawyer's in the appropriate place would mess up the numbering people were referring to. I'll change that now. If people wish to put their own reasons or disadvantages in they are welcome to add them. If you have either, or even another option, please go ahead. That's what these polls are all about. The Enlightened 01:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be my preference to keep at least a few moons per planet. Given that Jupiter's Galilean satellites are readily and easily seen with just a pair of binoculars (with Jupiter at a resolution considerably inferior to what we're portraying here) it seems that they would certainly pass Criterion (4).
The current situation could be justified by the following criteria, though whether they were exactly what people had in mind at the various stages of this image's construction I can't say:
1) If a planet has only a few moons (fewer than 8?), include them all (this applies to all the smaller planets/dwarf planets in the image)
2) If a planet has many moons, include just the larger, round ones (this applies to the giant planets).
It works well enough for me, but I'm not picky. You could come up with other justifications that would produce more or fewer moons per planet. I do like the visual of the planets accompanied by the moons, though, and I think it would make the image less attractive (and instructive) to omit them. RandomCritic 00:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is effectively 5. For the sake of compromise I'll back this option too. Given the small number interested in this topic we'll leave it at that. The Enlightened 18:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it actually be 6? --Ckatzchatspy 19:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yes. My mistake. The Enlightened 01:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archive again please!

[edit]

Higher resolution

[edit]

Why is the image so small? Would anyone be angry with me if I made a high resolution version, which, when scaled down, looked the same as the current one? —Bromskloss 12:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, goodness freakin' gracious. Yes, we would be angry. First off, we worked very hard on this, but secondly, and more importantly, the only purpose of this image is for use in the template. There's no need to view it at a larger size. Solar system has any image you might want of the solar system. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 15:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! No biting! It's a fair question, and the image probably should have been made larger (and then scaled) to begin with. I can't see why it would be a problem. --Ckatzchatspy 19:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but after all that work and countless versions, I have to say "no, we're good now." We've got to pick a version eventually and stick with it, and this seems good to me. Anyway, why should it be scaled? Is there any possible reason we would need to see it in a larger size? If not, then there is no point in taking up space with larger images. Remember, this is a template, not the article itself! └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 20:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with Ozlawyer. The size is quite appropriate by my reckoning. Of course Bromskloss is quite welcome to make a larger image so we can compare the two - but it would have to have the consensus of editors choose to change it. And before he/she goes to all that effort I would have to warn him or her that there are many issues that we had to get right on this one that would be needed for any new image. For example, the right colouring of various moons, the shadow being similar on all the planets, the spacing between each one, the distribution of the asteroid pattern in the two belts and oort cloud. And even if we did get that all to as good a standard as this one, several people would still be more likely to prefer this size. Remember, it's just an image for a linking template. If Bromskloss wishes to go ahead and create a competing image he/she should do, but must still bear in mind that it could take a lot of effort and may never be used. The Enlightened 01:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry for my delayed response. I forgot to put the page on watch.) I definitely see a reason for a higher quality image. When someone, like I did, comes along, likes the image and wants to zoom in at the details for their viewing pleasure, the detail is currently just not there! As you all are very clear about, a new version should of course be backward compatible in that it, when scaled down, looks like the current one.
In any case (with or without a high resolution version), it would be nice to know what images were used as sources to make the banner, and what objects (if any) are not images but just colour spots. Also, a reader could very well be informed about all the details you have paid attention to, such as scale and shadows. Apparently, you were very careful in the design, which I applaud.
Just an idea. The individual planets could be made into links to their respective pages, by splitting the image or by using imagemaps. Again, just an idea. —Bromskloss 15:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a demo. I do not mean to say that it is mature enough to replace the current one – there are probably many things in it you could object to – it's just a first approximation. I made an SVG file into which I brought images of the celestial bodies, placing them as to match the current banner. I am aware of that there are discepancies in colour between my version and the original. I don't know what you have been aiming for here, really, as some images claiming to display natural colours doesn't look the same as those you have used. Anyway, I can now generate ordinary raster images of different sizes from my SVG, so one can have it in the original size, zoom in a bit or really blow some detail up (here, a few moons of Saturn's). I would share with you the SVG if I only could manage to embed the individual images I have used into it – currently, only the path to each image is stored in the SVG. —Bromskloss 22:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your interest is much appreciated, but unfortunately there were no easy answers to your questions. The dwarf planets and most moons were simply drawn in pixel-by-pixel, Venus was made using sphere creating software (due to the lack of a Venus image with the correct shadow), the rest were made from various images on the internet or their respective planet pages, but often corrected at the pixel level to make sure they appeared as spheres. The Sun's atmosphere was also somewhat artificially created. The problem with larger images scaled down is they create a very unnatural looking pixelated effect, and it took us a lot of time to correct this on a pixel-by-pixel nature. Also many of your images have shadows on different sizes and to different effects which again takes away from some of the naturalness of the image. I think perhaps you are being overambitious - this image is simply there to make the template more attractive and give a very general idea of the shape of the solar system. If you want to see individual photos then you can goto the individual planet links, and there is also a great artist's impression released by the IAU on the planets page. I believe someone tried your links through each image idea before but it proved unsuccessful as nine times out of ten at least one of the images wouldn't correctly load on many peoples computers. And this was on a simpler, small memory size, image. The Enlightened 23:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Solar_System/Archive_4&oldid=1083544629"