Wikipedia

Talk:Solar System/Archive 9

< Talk:Solar System
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Fountains of Bryn Mawr in topic Split into articles "The solar system" and "Solar system"
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

White supremacist tone

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The Original wikipedia article has racist article tone. The article skips over the ancent Egyptian (Khemetic), Mayan, Persian, Nubian astronomy, and cosmology and only gives the white Greek, and white European astronomy facts and scientists. We need not wonder why racism exists, one major component is via educational documents that only highlight supposedly white-skinned scientists, thinkers, history, etc. 2604:2000:DDD1:4900:2195:4268:CD03:6B48 (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Sources to support the expansion you are looking for? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Such info is outside the scope of this article; it would be better placed in Discovery and exploration of the Solar System or Planet#Mythology and naming Serendipodous 14:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Can we add a visual schematic (maybe in the Visual Summary section)?

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Schematic Summary

This is a summary of Solar System objects, including symbol, approximate relative size, whether or not there is a ring system or round moons, object type, and distance from the Sun in AU.

 

Siznax (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate the work, but it has issues. The size images don't make a lot of visual sense, particularly for the non-planets. As for the planets, I have no idea where you got their relative sizes from, but they're way off. The astronomical symbols aren't that relevant to the Solar System as a whole, and it doesn't really give a sense of what the Solar System is like. Serendipodous 17:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Also: Plutoids are TNOS, and the symbol is for Pluto only, not the group. Tbayboy (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Haha. I'm sure someone else can do a better job. I've found a schematic like this useful for helping learners understand what kinds of things are in the solar system (versus deep sky objects), which planets have rings and round moons, where non-planet-like things are (roughly), and how far away from the sun everything is. The idea is just to have a visual summary. The symbols are helpful for them to know so they can read a solar system configuration diagram like John Walker's Solar System Live (https://www.fourmilab.ch/solar/) Siznax (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 
Major moons in the Solar System
This table is misleading and does not strike me as adding much comprehension of the Solar System. The existing explanations and renderings of relative sizes and distances are pretty good. The article lacks a summary view of moons but that certainly can't be dumbed down to a series of dots as proposed. I'd suggest writing a short section excerpted from List of natural satellites and illustrating it with File:Moons_of_solar_system_v7.jpg — JFG talk 12:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Solar System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit request - number of satellites in infobox.

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

173 ---> 175.

Two new moons of Jupiter.

8.40.151.110 (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

  Done Double sharp (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Another one.

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Further down, it says Jupiter has 67 known satellites.

This needs to be updated to 69. 8.40.151.110 (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. Serendipodous 14:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Solar System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Value of Astronomical Unit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the "Distances and scales" section, it reads "The distance from Earth to the Sun is 1 astronomical unit (150,000,000 km), or AU." I feel that this should either be changed to the precise value given in the linked 'Astronomical_unit' article (149 597 870 700 metres (or 149,597,870.7 km)), or prefaced with 'approximately'. I'm unfamiliar with the "{ {convert|1|AU|km|lk=on} }" form though, and don't have time to investigate further. Photastro (talk) 06:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Solar System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Solar System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Solar System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Pluto is not counted as a planet. Pluto is not counted as a planet because of its gas and dust with make is so small. Pluto is only small because there is no water or oxygen there is only gas and dust witch makes it smaller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8D:8900:C8CF:AC35:D676:84C7:1755 (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

No that is not why Pluto is not a planet, which is odd because this article explains why. Just read footnote e. Serendipodous 14:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Can you find a picture of the solar system that includes dwarf planets, moons, and small solar system bodies to show that the solar system is more than the sun and eight planets for the infobox picture? 2601:183:101:58D0:21FA:6823:6996:3DB1 (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you? Brycehughes (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  Not done: Your request consists only of a vague request to add, update, modify, or improve an image, or is a request to include an image that is hosted on an external site. If you want an image changed, you must identify a specific image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. Please note that any image used on any Wikipedia article must comply with the Wikipedia image use policy, particularly where copyright is concerned. —KuyaBriBriTalk 02:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

What do you think about changing the infobox image to Planets2008.jpg because it includes the dwarf planets? Then, for the moons of the solar system, what do you think about adding either Small bodies of the Solar System.jpg or Moons of solar system v7.jpg somewhere in the article? 2601:183:101:58D0:B8AB:BDAF:E94A:EBC8 (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

  Not done: Planets2008.jpg was replaced with Planets2013.svg (it is the same image) as it is an .svg version and better quality. Unless you are willing to do the same thing, but include the moons, I don't think reverting back to Planets2008.jpg is constructive.
With regards to Small bodies of the Solar System.jpg and Moons of solar system v7.jpg: these images are already in the article List_of_natural_satellites and since this article doesn't have a section on moons and plenty of other appropriate images I think these additions are unnecessary. Waddie96 (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Change of source for number of comets & minor planets/asteroids

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The current source for this data is the Jet Propulsion Laboratory summary page. The numbers however lag behind that of the Minor Planet Centre's running totals (with much greater and finer level of details). For example, as of the moment I type, the JPC shows 3519 comets & 759,564 mnor planets while the MPC shows 4015 comets and 761,641 minor planets. Since keeping track of these classes of objects, and their accounting on behalf of IAU is the function of the MPC, I propose that the source be changed from JPL to MPC. AshLin (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The data is a moving target, so I'm not clear how the value can be confirmed. Otherwise, sure, why not? The MPC more than satisfies the requirement for a reliable source. Praemonitus (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
The JPL page is of an informatory or educative nature. The MPC page appears to provide an uptodate (probably realtime) counter which can be referred to for very latest state of data by the reader. I'm not certain how frequently and when the JPL page is updated. AshLin (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Either of those sources is fine, as long as it's clear which one is being used. The numbers will continue to increase, so the exact value isn't really that important, just giving the readers a rough idea. Modest Genius talk 16:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 23 May 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments8 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 00:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Solar System → Solar system – MOS:CELESTIALBODIES says that sun, earth, moon and solar system are capitalized when used in an astronomical context, otherwise they are not capitalized. I am in doubt whether solar system should be capitalized because there aren't any uses of the term outside of astronomical use. When it is used some sources like NASA and National Geographic capitalize it. Other sources like Britannica and many dictionaries don't capitalize it. I started a discussion right here to discuss your opinions about this topic. You are also welcome to discuss your opinions in this move request as well. 2601:183:101:58D0:C42:6782:E868:A0D0 (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

We had this discussion years ago. Double capitalisation won, and a footnote was added explaining the capitalisation issue. Beyond that I don't think there's anything else we can do. Serendipodous 22:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes it was closed as move but that was in September 2006 in which was noted a slim majority. It could very well be possible that though have changed in over a decade and I see it as worthwhile to see if the original consensus still holds.--69.157.253.30 (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Let's close this as a good faith attempt to move an accepted proper name, per MOS:Celestial bodies. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Please don't close anything and let the RM run its course. It's a good-faith proposal, the discussion at WT:MOS was procedurally closed, and this page seems to be the right place to decide. Also, consensus can change. (I don't have an opinion on the substance of the proposal). No such user (talk) 10:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
No, it wasn't. The redundant WP:TALKFORK opened at WT:MOSCAPS was procedurally closed. The WT:MOS#Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2018 thread is still open. The request to change the guideline was rejected by someone (at least for now), but no one hatted the thread. And forum-shopping the same idea to three different pages back-to-back isn't a good-faith proposal, its an attempt to WP:WIN by gaming the system and trying to evade opposition. We don't permit this shotgun technique for good reasons: anyone could propose some pet idea on 10 or 50 pages, and claim "victory" if one of them closed their preferred way.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a total mis-reading of MoS, as has already been explained to this anon at WT:MOS. This is precisely the kind of case where MoS expects this to be capitalized. If we end up also having an article on solar systems around other stars, then that one would not be capitalized because it'd be a common-noun-phrase usage, and not about the Solar System (ours, a proper name).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per SMcCandlish. If we're going to do a formal vote (kind of like an RM on lower-casing Madrid) then I hope snow is in the forecast. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • This should be speedily closed as forum-shopping. The anon tried to get this change made, by changing the guideline, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2018, and this was rejected. They then tried to do the same at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Solar System capitalization and got no support at all. This third attempt to get one's way without support – and more to the point after a repeat showing of no support – borders on disruptive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – nom may be forum shopping, and I expect it's a lost cause, but SMcCandlish should read his own essay WP:SSF and realize that this capitalization is just a specialist style of the astronomy community – not counting NASA, whose style guide says not to cap it. Dicklyon (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
    I don't necessarily disagree it's a specialized style, broadly speaking, but it's not fallacious here because the editorial community decided to accept it a long time ago (the fallacy in SSF is "WP has to accept this because we specialists prefer it this way, therefore WP is wrong if they don't follow suit", followed by disruptive antics when the community doesn't buy into it), and there's no indication consensus has changed on this. It's also semantically meaningful. If I say "The sun was hotter on 14 May 2018 than on the same date in 2017 and 2016", you have no idea whether I mean the solar body was emitting more radiation and we measured that from space, or whether I mean that in my location on the ground, the heat generated by sunlight was unusually high this year (perhaps owing to atmospheric or other non-solar conditions). If people want to make a change in this regard, it shouldn't be to carve out one strange exception from a general rule, after two prior proposals for the same carve-out already died on the table just a few days ago. Maybe try an RfC about the entire class of astronomical bodies.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    Like I said, it's a lost cause. Dicklyon (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

comprehensive graphic

Latest comment: 6 years ago20 comments6 people in discussion

Would someone support the integration of this comprehensive graphic about the major objects in the Solar System?

For example instead of this graphic in the infobox.

--Beinahegut (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

 
The major objects in the Solar System
It's a nice graphic, but I don't think it's suitable for the infobox -- it is too finely detailed, and needs to be enlarged (from infobox size) to see it. It would be good in the Distances and scales section, possibly replacing one of the other two.
One typo though (or missed translation): It says "1 AE (149.9 MIL km)", should be "1 AU". Tbayboy (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
It's not particularly suitable to the distances and scales section, because it isn't based on any scale. Serendipodous 07:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. But anyway; I have corrected the mistake.

About the use: I know there are better graphics for specific topics like the distances and scales section. But here's my point, there isn't any graphic which combines it all. --Beinahegut (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I think this diagram would make an excellent illustration of the Structure and composition section. The picture that is there (a rendering of the 8 major planets) could be placed elsewhere, for example at "Outer planets". — JFG talk 09:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes this section would fit (@JFG:). Another suggestion: May be it would fit in this box about the Solar System - objects?

I know there are very fine and small details in this graphic. But at first glance you obviously see what's it about and then if you want to know more, you can enlarge it anyway (and zoom in...). --Beinahegut (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Put it in the "Distances and scales" section, with WP:Gallery markup as a stand-alone, article-width image. It's very nice, but it's way too big for an infobox or a sidebar image.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Agree to make this article-wide, but still a better fit for the beginning of the "Structure and composition" section. "Distances and scales" already has a very good article-wide image and an article-wide graph, both of which are specifically focused on distances and scales, whereas this illustration is more generic in coverage, and functions well as a global overview of the Solar System. — JFG talk 03:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the "Distances and scales"-section has very good images. I think this section does not need any further graphics. --Beinahegut (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
"Structure and composition" works for me, too.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Two cents on the graphic - its unreadable as a thumb, its unreadable on its image page, its unreadable when bumped up to 1024px across. Font size and judicious editing would fix a bit of it but its missing a few things: no Oort cloud, Asteroid and Kuiper belt not to scale <--- all could be added to scale chart at bottom. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I uploaded a newer version of the graphic. Updates:

PS: I don't think including the Oort cloud would make sense. In most graphics about the Solar Systems - and also in those at the "Distances and scales"-section - the Oort cloud isn't included. You have to stop at one point with a graphic and if you include this region you have to include others and other objekts ... it would never end. --Beinahegut (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's already better. Further suggestions:
  • Increase the font size again for all satellites; they are hard to read even at full screen width. You can alternate left/right placement of the names to avoid clutter while making the text large enough.
  • Remove the explanatory text under "The Solar System"; place it in a caption instead.
I agree that stopping at the Kuiper belt is fine. — JFG talk 12:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I increased the font size of the satellites and planets again. Do you (@JFG:) mean I should place the description in the caption on the file page like I did it now. Or should I place the description somewhere else in the graphic? --Beinahegut (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


So, no integration of this proposed graphic? Is the discussion over jet, or is there someone who would support the integration of the graphic, in its current version?
Or are there further suggestions to improve the graphic?
So many questions ; ) --Beinahegut (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
@Beinahegut: I think you can insert the illustration now, at the top of the "Structure and composition" section, with a caption explaining what is illustrated and any relevant details to help with a quick understanding. Further changes can occur via the normal editing process. Probably your version of 10 July is better, without lots of text inside, that can go in the caption instead. Thanks for your contribution! — JFG talk 23:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I have inserted the graphic now in the "Structure and composition" section. Therefore I moved the rendering which was in this section before, to the "Outer planets" section. In this section I removed the existing rendering, which was redundant.
another question: I noticed, while editing the site, that this "Solar System sidebar" (the one with the objects, lists and planets) messes up the whole layout. All the pictures move downwards and are not in there sections anymore. Could this sidebar maybe be moved or arrange differently or deleted (it is a bit redundant, because there is a content bar anyway)--Beinahegut (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I have improved the layout and modified the caption, hope this helps. The sidebar does not disturb layout on my device: it is displayed to the right of the table of contents, which itself is rather long. — JFG talk 19:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Ok, it looks good now. --Beinahegut (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion affecting this WikiProject - The Sun

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a discussion about whether The Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should redirect to Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) or to Sun (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). THe discussion is at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 25#The Sun. The editor whose username is Z0 06:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
2003:CB:A3D4:FE0C:6134:5696:778:1497 (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Article for deletion discussion - Modern Mars habitability

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is an article at AfD that may interest you. The article is here Modern Mars habitability. Please vote or comment at WP:Articles for deletion/Modern Mars habitability

Robert Walker (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

IAU definition of "planet"

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The IAU definitions of "planet" and "dwarf planet" have too much weight in this article. For example, throughout the article, "the 8 planets" are referenced (which is part of the IAU definition). More weight should be given to the geophysical definition of "planet"; under this definition, large moons (such as Titan) are considered planets ("satellite planets"), and dwarf planets are considered planets (because they have enough gravity to be spherical). LumaP15 (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The geological definition of planet is an idea of Alan Stern, and has the backing of no official organizations. If the IUGS approves the definition, then absolutely it will be put in here, but not until then. Serendipodous 07:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

2014 UZ224?

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

what would warrant inclusion of 2014 UZ224 in this article? Or is it just that no one has gotten around to it? Wingspan Shadow (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

What's notable about it to warrant inclusion here? It's just a mid-sized SDO. It's not here for the same reasons, e.g., Salacia and Varda are absent. Tbayboy (talk) 02:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Problem with this article

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I did a change to this article for a mistake of data about the nearest planetary system to the solar system, but I did some bad process and the article is wrong right now. I need help to fix it. I do not know to do it. I am sorry. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosttradamuz (talk • contribs) 01:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not a mistake. The nearest planetary system is Proxima Centauri's, as the article states. It is also the nearest star. The only known planet or disc in the AC star system only orbits Proxima. Tbayboy (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

INNER PLANETS!

The inner planets of the solar system are also called terrestrial planets, and include Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars. They are mostly made up of silicate rock and metals and have solid surfaces. Earth is the only one of the inner planets to liquid oceans but some believe that Mars once did as well. The atmosphere of the inner planets ranges from very thin to very thick. The inner planets orbit the closest to the Sun, and Earth is the only one with known life. Some believe that Mars may have supported life at one point, but proof has not been found. Venus and Mercury are not hospitable to life and it is believed that life has never existed there. Facts About The Terrestrial Planets! The terrestrial planets in our solar system orbit relatively close to the Sun, this gives them their other name; the “Inner Planets” Earth is the most hospitable to life. Mars may have supported life in the past, but there is no evidence that conditions have ever been life-friendly on Mercury or Venus. Each of the terrestrial planets has a central core made mostly of iron. The layer above the core is called the “mantle” and is usually made of silicate rocks. These are rocks rich in silicon and oxygen. The terrestrial planets are also sometimes referred to as the “rocky” planets. The surfaces of terrestrial planets have mountains, craters, canyons, and volcanoes. About 75% of Earth’s surface is covered in water. Both Mars and Earth have permanent polar ice caps. None of the terrestrial planets in our solar system have ring systems. Planetary scientists suspect that they may once have had rings that have since disappeared. There is one dwarf planet considered to be terrestrial-type world: Ceres. It has a rocky core and an outer mantle, with surface features such as craters and mountains. Terrestrial planets exist around other stars. Data from the Kepler mission suggest Earth-sized and so-called “super-Earth” worlds exist throughout the galaxy. There could be up to 40 billion such exoplanets in the Milky Way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.50.31.211 (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Asteroid belt

The asteroid belt is a region of space between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter where most of the asteroids in our Solar System are found orbiting the Sun. The asteroid belt probably contains millions of asteroids.

Asteroid belt facts

.The asteroid belt is a disc shape, located between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. .The asteroids are made of rock and metal and are all irregularly shaped. .Most of the asteroids in the Main Belt are made of rock and stone, but a small portion of them contain iron and nickel metals. The remaining asteroids are made up of a mix of these, along with carbon-rich materials. .Because the asteroid belt is between the Mars and Jupiter orbits, it is around 2.2 to 3.2 Astronomical Units (AU) from the Sun – which is approximately 329,115,316 to 478,713,186 km. The average distance between objects is a massive 600,000 miles.

Asteroid belt size

The Asteroid Belt is located in an area of space between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. That places it between 2.2 and 3.2 astronomical units (AU) from the Sun. The belt is about 1 AU thick. The average distance between objects in the Asteroid Belt is quite large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.50.31.211 (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

added geological schematic of MU69

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I assume my adding this to the formation of the SS section was appropriate. It's the most important discovery relating to the formation of the SS since the demonstration of exoplanets. — kwami (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Solar System for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Solar System is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Solar System until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 19:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Recent expansions

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

While these are certainly done in good faith, I'm not really convinced the additional objects are WP:DUE weight. Vesta and Pallas? 2007 OR10? Random KBOs? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of any of these considerations, I removed the section for being blank. El_C 01:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Insert this image of the solar system

Latest comment: 5 years ago12 comments9 people in discussion
 

I think this image shows a great overview of the entire solar system, with all the planets and most of their moons, as well as some asteroids and trojans. In the picture all the bodies are in log-scale measured in earth radius. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|Dawierha (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)]] comment added by Dawierha (talk • contribs) 09:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Map_sol_v2.png — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|Dawierha (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)]] comment added by Dawierha (talk • contribs) 09:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC) --Dawierha (talk) 09:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

It's hard for the eye to scan. Whoever made it needs to learn how to make colours pop and some basic layout. Serendipodous 10:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
No thanks, it looks super messy. — JFG talk 13:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate on what you think is wrong with it?

I think t shows very clearly a lot of the interesting objects of the solar system in one image and it can quickly give you a nic overview of the entire solar system. It also shows a great deal of details which can spark a curiosity for new people to get more interested in the solar system and astronomy. Dawierha (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think it's an absolutely excellent diagram, giving a full view of the Solar System out to the Kuiper belt. As for it's being hard to scan or messy, it contains the entire Solar System out to the Kuiper belt, so of course it shows a lot, but it shows it in the most concise way possible. The layout is fine, as it puts things where they actually are (although the distances to the giant planets are not to scale, and sizes of objects are not to scale, so the caption should mention this). Loraof (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
It's a nice image. A vectorized version would be much better however. Or better yet upload the source materials to github. ➧datumizer  ☎  01:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm with Serendipodous and JFG above. A diagram should either illustrate a point that is difficult to do with words, or it should organise info in an easy-to-follow way. This image does neither. It's too crammed with names and broken arcs to follow. It's also incorrect, with Eris interior to Haumea, Orcus, etc, and the Kuiper Belt beyond them all. The diagram currently at Structure and Composition is a better map. Tbayboy (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
It's got some good ideas, but I agree it has drawbacks, too. I'm not sure about the inconsistencies that Tbayboy points out, but I'll assume he's right. In any case, the description with "Every celestial body is in log-scale. The orbits are not to scale..." leaves too much ambiguity; uploading the code would be great, then people could play with color, scaling, etc., and see if a better version could be made. Dicklyon (talk) 03:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I have already uploaded the svg file which anyone are free to modify, it can be found here, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_solar_system.svg. As a response to Tbayboy about the inconsistencies, the orbit of Eris pass closer to the sun than huamea during its perihelion, the same is true for Orcus. A nice overview of the orbits can be found here https://in-the-sky.org/solarsystem.php?. As for the description I have updated the description to make it more specific. Dawierha (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

PLUTO IS A PLANET. #NOPLANETLEFTBEHIND #ALLPLANETSMATTER — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:185:C100:9540:9C38:492E:45D7:9FDE (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Pluto is no longer a planet (since 2006) as it is in a non-circular orbit with many other small rocks within similar distances. Therefore the neighbourhood of that has not been cleared away. It is classed as a dwarf planet instead and came from the Kuiper Belt which are not planets. Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 14:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Solar system should not be capitalized

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

A simple enough fix, I just couldn't do it because the page appears to be protected at the moment.

This is according to NASA's style guide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeiffert (talk • contribs) 03:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed often, Wikipedia upper-cases Solar System. Please also notice it is a feature article, so has been well vetted. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not governed by others' guidelines. - FlightTime (open channel) 04:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Objects names

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

All of the planets in the solar system (and a ton of other smaller objects) are named after gods in Greco-Roman mythology. Maybe this should be noted briefly somewhere?★Trekker (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

It's discussed in Planet. Serendipodous 23:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I see that it's covered in detail there, but I still think a small note on it here would be nice.★Trekker (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Vedas (Hinduism) the first mention of some planets of the solar system

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As per wikipedia articles --

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_astrology#History_and_core_principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navagraha

Hindiusm mentions some of the solar system planets much before modern science discovered it. Someone may like this insertion into this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.36.134.103 (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

See: Planet. Serendipodous 15:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Distances and scales paragraph

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There are one too many zeros in this sentence referring to the radius of the Sun. "For comparison, the radius of the Sun is 0.0047 AU (700,000 km)." I divided 700,000 by 150,000,000 and came up with 0.047

131.52.121.129 (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Trans-Neptunian dwarf planet candidates

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Other than Sedna, which is included for being the type specimin of an entire population of objects, to date non-DP TNOs have been excluded from this page for one simple reason: there could be hundreds of them and they can't all be included. Yes, the IAU is dragging its feet in officially declaring many objects dwarf planets, but Gonggong is hardly the only one. Gonggong is one of the least notable of the dwarf planet candidates; all it is is a smaller version of Eris, and we have one of those already. Orcus, which is just a smaller version of Pluto, Quaoar, the first DP candidate TNO found by Brown and his team, and Salacia, to say nothing of as-yet unnamed candidates, could eventually make the list too. What should be the dividing line? Serendipodous 17:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

You are right, but in astronomy size does matters (taking example of of Pluto) and Gonggong is the largest of non DP- TNOs and thus it is notable for its size and mass, both having values bigger than ceres and even charon. Also it is now known that its surface has methane which smaller TNOs had lost during these 4.5 billion years , this makes it even more noteworthy . Ayush pushpkar (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Why not just include the ones that most people think are (and making it clear that this is not limited to the IAU-recognised ones), and then mention that other smaller objects might or might not be DPs? Double sharp (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Citations needed

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I have put multiple CN-tags to this article, which is a featured one. The article being viewed a quarter of a million times a month on average adds more salt to the wound. I will try to find references, but it would be appreciated to have a joint effort. Wretchskull (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I’ve taken a glance through the newly-tagged statements. None of the ones I saw are even slightly controversial, so I don’t think there’s actually a WP:V issue unless someone is challenging the statements (specifically, most fit the subject-specific common knowledge standard in WP:WTC). Therefore, I pretty strongly disagree that the state of referencing in this article is salt-in-a-wound level. That said, because they’re all verifiable, references can be found easily enough. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 01:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ashill: I understand, but the reason I tagged them is because citation density for verifiability is important, especially in featured articles. There are entirely unsourced paragraphs. Whether they are controversial or not, they must contain citations. I'm currently trying to fill the gaps, and it would be very kind of you if you could help us since you are an astronomer, which is extremely helpful. Wretchskull (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems like citation spam. I don't know about your editing habits in particular, but have seen editors rush into an article and in one or two minutes pepper it with cite tags and then move on to the next. This is a feature page, well vetted, and although I haven't checked them would guess that most of these tags aren't necessary. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, it is not true that statements must contain citations. I pointed to the policy and essay which explicitly say that ‘’not’’ everything needs a citation, including in featured articles. Using my expertise as an astronomer, I looked through the new tags and found and fixed one or two that are possibly slightly arguable and added references. If you want to add more references to common knowledge statements, you’re of course welcome to, but it is not required by policy or featured article criteria unless you or someone else is actually doubting the verifiability of the claims. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 15:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ashill: Very well then. I have added sources to some statements that are important but will remove all the trivial ones. Wretchskull (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Several CN-tagged sentences are of minor relevance to the article and are kind of decoration to "See also"-level wiki links. Maybe citations are missing in the linked articles. Removing tags here. --Rainald62 (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The Solar System is a collection of extremely old and evolving/dead stars and stellar remains

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
WP:FRINGE viewpoint which is not even worthy of it's own talk page section. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.



The Solar System is a collection of extremely old and evolving/dead stars and stellar remains. The "planet" terminology is outdated. vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v5.pdf Airpeka (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

That view is not supported by reliable sources; vixra.org is not a reliable source. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 16:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

AU vs. au

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

According to IAU, there should be "au" (or "ua") as astronomical unit. Not "AU"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.112.194.114 (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Conflicting use at and as Planetary system

Latest comment: 3 years ago19 comments4 people in discussion

Can someone clarify why the article planetary system states in its lead, with astronomical dictionary citations, that the Solar System is a planetary system, if here the lead rejects that? Nsae Comp (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't. It says, quoting, "The Sun together with the planets revolving around it, including Earth, is known as the Solar System." That is correct. The sun, plus its planetary system equals the Solar System. Solar System minus sun equals planetary system. Serendipodous 19:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
NASA states that the solar system is the planetary system of Sol (similar to how solar wind is the stellar wind of Sol); see https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/solar-system/our-solar-system/overview/. Is there a better authority on the definition of the Solar System above NASA? LordOfPens (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely. NASA is a space exploration organization; it is not a scientific authority. Also, years of experience on Wikipedia have taught me and others that NASA is frequently wrong. Serendipodous 08:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Could you provide some references to scientific authorities on the definition of "solar system"? LordOfPens (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
There are two linked in the planetary system article: The Universal Book of Astronomy and the Collins Dictionary of Astronomy. Serendipodous 15:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Just a note: while NASA's definition of "Solar System" doesn't agree with the ones cited in The Universal Book of Astronomy and the Collins Dictionary of Astronomy, NASA does seem consistent with itself as seen here: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/vexag/road_map_final.pdf LordOfPens (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Referring to "We now know that our Solar System is one of many planetary systems in the galaxy." in the PDF. LordOfPens (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@Serendipodous: thank you. If I understand you correctly than the planetary system article merely states that >the sun and the planetary system is called solar system< not that it is a planetary system? If that is the case than the sentance in planetary system neads some rewording to be clearer. Nsae Comp (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes. That is what it is saying. Serendipodous 08:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Also the redirect can be misunderstood "For the planetary system of the Sun, see Solar System" Nsae Comp (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
@Serendipodous: is there a term/category for the Solar System if it is not a star system and more than a planetary system? Nsae Comp (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
No, there isn't. Not yet anyway. If NASA is trying to make "planetary system" a generic term for "solar system" then that's like calling a human being a fingernail. Serendipodous 10:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
The Solar System is a planetary system with the Sun at the center. -- Kheider (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
By that wording, does that mean that the Sun is part of a planetary system? Serendipodous 16:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I guess I struggle most with having no category for Solar System and others alike. If there would be, the meaning of planetary system would be easier. Its like having a word for "fingernail" (planetary system) and "heart" (star) but nothing more than "body" (system) for animal/...human. ... But once again itsup for our sources to come up with that. Thanks for the answers! Nsae Comp (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Without the Sun our planetary system would fall apart so the Sun is essential to its own planetary system. Not sure I understand the lamenting. -- Kheider (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
It's not a question of whether the definition makes sense; it's not Wikipedia's job to invent its own definitions. Right now the issue is that the sources are starting to conflict, which means that Wikipedians will once again be left to deal with an irresolvable conflict that no one else cares about (see also: Kuiper belt, dwarf planet). Serendipodous 08:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

On a final note of interest: other astronomic terms are maybe examples how the language about space is evolving. For example galaxy is just the Greek word for Milkyway, but it might sound odd to say the Galaxy instead of the Milkyway. For moons the term natural satellite has been quite well introduced, but natural satellites are still often called moons and sometimes its still not clear to people that our natural satellite should be capitalized because Moon is a name and not a technical term. In both cases a different word got established (even if in the case of galaxy it has the same root meaning). For the case of "Solar System" Merriam Dictionary follows the colloquial logic like in the case of moon/the Moon, having the Solar System VS a solar system.[1]Nsae Comp (talk) 02:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC) ... Thinking of it "planetary system" is compareable to the use of "satellite system", both are not complemented with a term for the star-/planet-satellite system, only vaguely by calling them systems and adding the name of the host body to be more specific, e.g. Jovian system, or participants like Earth-Moon system. So maybe there should be an article for the term "System", System (astronomy)... ?Nsae Comp (talk) 02:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Celestial Neighbourhood and Oort Cloud

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

1- In the Celestial Neighbourhood section: "The next closest known fusors and rogue planets to the Sun are the red dwarf Barnard's Star (at 5.9 ly), the nearest brown dwarfs of the binary Luhman 16 system (6.6 ly),..." The term "fusor" is not an accepted term according to its Wikipedia page but rather a proposed term. So why is it used in the body of the article as if it is an accepted term? Should not an encyclopedia use only accepted terminology?

2- In the Oort Cloud section: "The Oort cloud is a hypothetical spherical cloud of up to a trillion icy objects that is thought to be the source for all long-period comets and to surround the Solar System at roughly 50,000 AU (around 1 light-year (ly)), and possibly to as far as 100,000 AU (1.87 ly). " This is an extremely awkward wording that implies that the Oort Cloud is a narrow band at 50,000 au although it could be 50-100k au. Someone who has familiarity with the O.C. should re-word this. 2601:41:200:5260:25CE:2BC6:6B3A:B84 (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Definition of SOLAR SYSTEM". Definition of Solar System by Merriam-Webster. 2021-07-19. Retrieved 2021-07-31.

Termination Shock or Oort Cloud?

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Which marks the end of the solar system? The termination shock or the Oort Cloud?

The termination shock is the end of interplanetary space; the Oort cloud is the end of the Solar System. Serendipodous 16:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Color of the sun

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The color of the Sun is white. Yet, in nearly every diagram of the solar system on this page (and every other diagram on the internet, for that matter), it is given a yellow/orange color.

I understand that many people picture the sun as yellow/red. Likely because that's how it looks during the time of day one is likely to look directly at it (sunrise and sunset).

What I don't understand is why a yellow sun is used in diagrams which are otherwise striving to be scientifically accurate, with properly scaled sizes and distances. Furthermore, some of the diagrams use infrared images of the Sun. While the Sun admittedly looks a lot more interesting at this wavelength compared to the visible, it is misleading to present it in this format alongside the true-color images of all the other solar system bodies.

I suggest changing the diagrams to depict a white Sun. This might confuse some people at first, but Wikipedia should be working to correct common misconceptions rather than nurture them.

If others agree, I can assist in making modifications to some of the diagrams. Seastan (talk) 05:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, FWIW! Double sharp (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I have edited the primary diagram here, but I do not have sufficient permissions to edit this page.Seastan (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Pretty bad misspelling in the opening section, 2nd paragraph

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The sentence reads, "All eight have nearly circular orbits that lie close to the plain of the Earth's orbit, called the ecliptic."

"Plain" should be "plane."

2601:14C:8200:81C0:3445:1542:976E:C8BD (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for raising this issue. HiLo48 (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The Solar System[b] is the gravitationally bound system of the Sun and the objects that orbit it. Of the bodies that orbit the Sun directly, the largest are the four gas and ice giants and the four terrestrial planets, followed by an unknown number of dwarf planets and innumerable small Solar System bodies. Of the bodies that orbit the Sun indirectly—the natural satellites—two are larger than Mercury, the smallest terrestrial planet, and one is nearly as large.[c] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prathammadhu (talk • contribs) 04:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Featured article review needed

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

This article was listed at WP:FAR without notification of WP:FARGIVEN; subhead added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Section "Discovery and exploration"

Hi all, I 've been reading this section and I get the feeling it inform the reader rather inadequately. Firstly, I am not sure if the "discovery" is the proper word. May "conceptualization". Secondly, and much more important, the section fail to inform on the transition of the geocentric to the heliocentric system. I suppose that is the vital point. I have had a look at one of the sources, the Copernicus, Darwin, & Freud: Revolutions in the History and Philosophy of Science (2009) by Friedel Weinert A John. There he describes the "clash of two worldviews" btw pg 5-17 and further. I believe we should focus to describe how the heliocentrism became the dominant way to describe the solar system. Instead we list dates and names of (crucial) discoveries but that is not the important issue here. Also, the first sentence (For most of history, humanity did not recognize or understand the concept of the Solar System) is unsourced and prob fallacious. Lastly, and related to the aforementioned problem, many sources are not secontary sources that zoom to the discovery and exploration of the universe, they describe a small part of it (leading to cherry picking of facts) And since I am here, I 'd like to say I enjoyed the article. Cinadon36 09:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Section "Structure and composition"

My comments on the section.

  • The first part of the section has 8 paragraphs that makes it hard to read. There is no guideline at MOS on this issue but I feel it is not nice.
  • The last two sentences of the second paragraph are without source. "There are exceptions, such as Halley's Comet. Most of the larger moons orbit their planets in this prograde direction (with Triton being the largest retrograde exception) and most larger objects rotate themselves in the same direction (with Venus being a notable retrograde exception)."
  • The fifth paragraph is without source. (The one starting with "Kepler's laws of planetary motion describe..."
  • Maybe we should be briefly describing what "Kepler's laws of planetary motion" are, so reader shouldnt have to click the blue link.
  • Last paragraph of the first part: the first sentence, ("The objects of the inner Solar System are composed mostly of rock" should be introductory instead of mentioning details ( I know that this is a common problem in WP articles...)
  • First paragraph of the subsection (starting with "The distance from Earth..." is without source.
  • Second paragraph: "but no such theory has been accepted.", unsourced (and seemingly, the whole paragraph is undue)
  • The "The Solar System. Distances are to scale, objects are not." picture, could we scale up the four first planets, since Mercury is really hard to observe( I am using a laptop).

The quality of the sources are really thrilling! Thanks everybody!Cinadon36 08:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Section "Formation and evolution"

Excellent section. Here are my comments:

  • Ref 51 (Bennett, Jeffrey O. (2020). "Chapter 8.2". The cosmic perspective (Ninth ed.). Hoboken, NJ. ISBN 978-0-134-87436-4.) needs more details.
  • Last sentence needs a source.
  • The second picture depicting the geology of Arrokoth does not provide any substantial knowledge to the formation or evolution of the universe. It is rather trivia info. I would suggest removing it.

Cheers! Cinadon36 07:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Section "Sun"

Nice little section.

  • The phrase "making it a main-sequence star" followed by sentence "The Sun is a G2-type main-sequence star.", are a little weird. Maybe keep one phrase/sentence, and include an ultra brief explanation what a main sequence star is, so reader wont need to click the blue link to find out what it means.

Cheers! Cinadon36 04:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Section "Interplanetary medium"

  • Sentences "Coronal mass ejections and similar events blow a magnetic field and huge quantities of material from the surface of the Sun. The interaction of this magnetic field and material with Earth's magnetic field funnels charged particles into Earth's upper atmosphere, where its interactions create aurorae seen near the magnetic poles." are without source. Cinadon36 08:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Section "Inner Solar System"

  • A paragraph is without a source (the first paragraph of Inner planets section) and a couple of other sentences (ie last sentences of section Earth and Ceres)
  • Most important issue, in my opinion is that the section is fragmented into many subsections. Merging some of them wont hurt, imo.
  • VisionLearning.com is ref 86 of current version, but a better source is needed- a peer reviewed journal or a textbook would be great. Also, ref 101 (planetary.org) and 102 (SpaceDaily), we can do better. Cinadon36 08:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Two units of angle (seconds) are missing from the footnote [g] in the section "Galactic context". Please, change
"where   = 27° 07′ 42.01″ and   = 12h 51m 26.282 are the declination and right ascension of the north galactic pole, whereas   = 66° 33′ 38.6″ and   = 18h 0m 00 are those for the north pole of the ecliptic."
to
"where   = 27° 07′ 42.01″ and   = 12h 51m 26.282s are the declination and right ascension of the north galactic pole, whereas   = 66° 33′ 38.6″ and   = 18h 0m 00s are those for the north pole of the ecliptic."
The nested reference has been ignored in both texts for brevity of the request. 109.241.162.167 (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Done Makes sense; done. XOR'easter (talk) 03:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Solar System name

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In researching this, "Solar System" is a planetary system and is the name of our planetary system. I find this article confusing because its opening sentence implies that Solar System is the gravitationally bound system of planets around its star - but it's not, that's what a planetary system is. We happen to name ours "Solar System". The oxford dictionary commonly renders the name in lower case, again causing confusion that "Solar System" is a type of something rather than a name. I know I always thought "Solar System" was a thing where planets orbit their star and there were millions inside our galaxy. But there is only one! Thoughts? Darrenaustralia (talk) 06:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The hatnote at the top reads "This article is about the Sun and its planetary system," with a link to the DAB page where planetary system can be found.  – UpdateNerd (talk) 07:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The planet Pluto is not visible.

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The temperature at equator surface of planet Earth is 59°C to 67°C . The light intensity at equator surface of planet Earth is bright for human eyes to recognise objects. The temperature at equator of planet Mars is expected to be -150°C to -250°C. The light intensity at equator surface of planet Mars is dim or darkness during day of planet Mars. So planet Pluto is not visible by sunlight then planet Pluto is a black planet or planet Pluto does not exist. The concept of centripetal force and centrifugal force suggest that planet Earth and planet Mars revolve around the star Sun. So four planetary system is possible instead of not possible nine planetary system. The planets Jupiter, planet Saturn, planet uranus, planet Neptune and planet Pluto do not exist is possible. Virapaligautam (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

We see the planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter & Saturn because the sun's light is strong enough to be visible as well as the fact that distance and how large the latter two planets are, coupled with the bright cloudy surfaces. In the case of Pluto: it is too far away, too small and it is not black. The temperature of each planet does not affect the visibility from where we are: 51 Pegasi b has a greater temperature than Venus but we can't see it as it is far away from us. And Pluto is no longer a planet when it was announced back in the 2000's. Either way, it does exist. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Iggy the Swan, great response to a troll. Kudos to you, CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Probably did not realise about that user being a troll per your response CactiStaccingCrane. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Split Request

Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments8 people in discussion
NO ACTION
Unanimous and vocal opposition over multiple weeks; no reason to drag this out further. XOR'easter (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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

This page is too long, I think we need to split the page by following

Thanks: --2600:1700:6180:6290:7D89:F761:BBA0:74D1 (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

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

"المجموعة الشمسية" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect المجموعة الشمسية and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 11#المجموعة الشمسية until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

polish language

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

i can translate 37.248.127.71 (talk) 10:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Can we add again this image into the article?

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Solar-System.pdf

 
Comprehensive overview of the Solar System. The Sun, planets, dwarf planets and moons are at scale for their relative sizes, not for distances. A separate distance scale is at the bottom. Moons are listed near their planets by proximity of their orbits; only the largest moons are shown.

190.201.83.156 (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merger

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Solar systems, planetary rings, and accretion disks.. refer to the same thing.. material which collects in the gravitational field around massive, rotating objects. if we said that solar systems and planetary rings, were sub-categories of an accretion disk, that could be true. An accretion disk is all of the material, and the rings form within it... but that needs to be clearly stated. Cygniusv (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Cygniusv: It's not clear what you are proposing. Please describe your proposal in terms of articles you are suggesting be merged, or sections within an article which should be merged. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the third paragraph of "Distances and scales" there is a reference to the Ericsson Globe in Stockholm, Sweden. As of May 2021, the Ericsson Globe has been renamed as the Avicii Arena. A more accurate version of the sentence might read like this; "The largest such scale model, the Sweden Solar System, uses the 110-metre (361 ft) Avicii Arena in Stockholm as its substitute Sun..."

Here is a news article regarding the name change: Sweden's Ericsson Globe gets a new name: AVICII ARENA 2A02:1210:16DD:300:ACE3:9C49:39D:353D (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Serendipodous 17:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Juno

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Juno is one of the principal asteroids in the solar system, with was the third one discovered in the asteroid belt of huge size, I think we should include a mention about this in the article. 83.32.184.128 (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Lowercase "System"

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

"System" is not a proper noun IHateYouAndEverybodyElse (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

No idea why "System" is captialized here. Should be moved to sentence case. Lina211Follow your dreams 04:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
"Solar System" is the proper noun, This was decided years ago. Serendipodous 12:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Venus Distance: In the section "Venus" we find the first sentence: "Venus (0.7 AU (100 million km; 65 million mi) from the Sun)..." This is not accurate, and compares poorly to the accuracy of the entries for distance to the other inner planets. Please change this sentence to a value consistent with the numbers for the range of variation of its orbit noted in the main article on Venus (107.48 to 108.94 Mkm). I propose it read "Venus (0.7 AU (108 million km; 67 million mi) from the Sun)..." Thanks! 2001:56A:F0E9:9B00:C9CB:1555:DB11:74F3 (talk)JustSomeWikiReader

  Done Good idea; thanks IP. I'm unsure when the figures for the orbits were added, but you're right that given Venus's orbit's comparatively low eccentricity, that figure should be updated. It's also not properly sourced. I've given orbit distance ranges, to an accuracy of 3–4 decimal places, for all the planets (not the smaller bodies, yet); however, it appears the mass figures are also not properly sourced. This is worrying for a featured article, and I will have to go through those as well. Ovinus (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Split into articles "The solar system" and "Solar system"

Latest comment: 1 year ago19 comments5 people in discussion

This article specifically talks about our solar system. However, "Solar system" can refer to any system with planets and a star. Lina211Follow your dreams 04:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

A good question. This is already done though, see the article Planetary system. Solar System is a proper name, and uppercased on Wikipedia (see MOS:CELESTIALBODIES). As for "our Solar System" see MOS:OUR. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The alternative meaning of "Solar system" is already listed at Solar System (disambiguation). Is it fine there, or should it be in a more prominent hatnote? Cambalachero (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Re: more prominent hatnote?.... WP:HATNOTERULES #3 "Mention other topics and articles only if there is a reasonable possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind.". Per [1][2][3][4] that is a reasonable possibility pointing to Planetary system being needed in the hatnote. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Have linked the term in the hatnote per this discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Per "'removed incorrect addition ('Sol' refers to one star, the Sun"), even if this piece of spoof etymology was true (it has never been supported by a source), and even if the usage was "incorrect", it is not the purpose of a hatnote to correct a readers word usage. "The purpose of a hatnote is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for." With well verified secondary usage "a similar system centered on another star ", "any group of planets that all move around the same star", a hatnote directing the reader to another article is recommended at WP:HATNOTERULES re:"reasonable possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

"Planetary system" already exists and is linked in the hatnote, no further explanation seems needed and just adds extra words. Readers are smart enough to realize that Solar System means Solar System and that the planetary system in the hatnote will get them to other star's systems. Just remembered this second, ha, I actually attended the press conference announcing the first planetary system discovered outside of the Solar System. Probably in 1995, Madison, Wisconsin, at the annual national astronomical conference. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Removed "mistakenly", HATNOTES (and anything else in Wikipedia) should be written in neutral language. Definitely not a place to insert unverified opinion. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

On a closer check, all the references provided here are definitions in dictionaries. Those only reference that the meaning exists, not how spread it is. See for example NASA's page on exoplanets here, it talks about planetary systems from the let go, and their Solar system page here does not seem to need to make any clarifications on the front page. The Solar System overview here makes it quite clear: ours is the Solar system, others are planetary systems. Granted, the NASA is just one reference, even if it is a big one, but it would seem to point out that using "solar system" to talk about planetary systems is not a big use of the term. I would just leave it at the DAB, make the hatnote shorter and go on with our lives. Cambalachero (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thing about NASA is, they don't name things, they fly rockets. We really can't OR our way out or use divination via looking at lots of NASA, ESA, or academic papers [5][6][7][8], they tend to flipflop usage all over the place. WP:HATNOTERULES / reasonable possibility is pretty clear and we should follow the sources that actual track this, not our own observations or opinions. The wording created by Cessaune and Some1 seems pretty strait forward. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
It reads out now as long and incorrect. It worked fine with just 'planetary system' (linked) and then the disambiguation link. Fountains of Bryn Mawr, I would think that since your good faith change was reverted that it should go back as it was until you get consensus for the change. As it stands now the words "solar system" seem to add and encourage incorrectness in the hatnote of a major page. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
What about this? This article is about the Sun and the objects orbiting it. For objects in or out of orbit around a star or star system in general, see planetary system. For other uses, see Solar System (disambiguation). (similar to the Moon's hatnote) Some1 (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
"The Sun and its planetary system" covers it all, and is less wordy. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Have changed the hatnote back, please get consensus for such a major disputed change (maybe in a new section or RfC, the section head doesn't fit the current discussion, thanks). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Consensus was already reached at WP:HATNOTERULES #3 and there is absolutely no verification that there is any "incorrectness" going on (and, by consensus, adding an incorrect usage would also go into a hatnote re:by mistake). So a variation of Some1 and Moon - This article is about the Sun and the objects orbiting it. For such systems in general, see planetary system. For other uses, see Solar System (disambiguation). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
"Consensus was already reached"? When? The discussion has barely started some days ago, and the exchange a month ago can barely even count as a discussion. Wikipedia:You are probably not a lexicologist or a lexicographer is not appropriate for this, as I'm not contrasting dictionaries with my own opinion, but a major source on astronomy topics. And now that we are at it, ESA also uses "Planetary System". Cambalachero (talk) 13:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
? Doing your own original research (again) via citing word usage (whether the source is major or not) is lexicology. Again, people who fly rockets are not the people who name things or define terms (you may be looking for the IAU). The consensus that was already reached is at the consensus guideline WP:HATNOTERULES where we mention other topics in hatnotes when reasonable possibility that the reader has another topic in mind - even if we think they got there by mistake. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
The linked "Planetary system" seems enough for anyone thinking that other planetary systems are 'solar', and they will quickly understand that there is only one. There is nothing broken here, the hatnote seems fine, concise, and educational, and may civility among readers and editors exist and prosper in this planetary system. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
The generally accepted standard in Wikipedia is terminology in the lead section should not depend on a link to another article. And again, you are making the unverified statement "there is only one", care to provide a reliable source? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Solar_System/Archive_9&oldid=1240394032"