This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Hi, I have put this article under the scope of the WikiProject Systems because of the formal relation, but more because of the inspiring and motivating example this article can give our project and it's participants (to come). We are still a small and beginning group, and working to get our own toko going. In due time I hope we can also deliver a valuable contributions here from our point of view. In the mean time I wish all of you all te best. Best regards - Mdd 21:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
We should explain how north and south are defined for other objects than earth. I assume it is defined as the same direction as earths north pole. Are the rotational axes of all planets parallel? -- Apoc2400 01:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
There are varying definitions of "north"; see North_Pole#Defining_North_Poles_in_astronomy. -- Doradus 13:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
to upload this video onto Wikipedia? I think it's better than the sequence of still images we now have. Serendipodous 15:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
This was added a short while ago:
The sun will stay in main sequence for about another 3 billion years. Eventually when it reach giant star it is expect to almost reach Earth's orbit. However the current research shows, the loss of the sun's gravity, mass, and probably atmosphere will cause all the planets to move further from the sun. Although Mercury is likely to escape to higher orbit, but it can definitely not escape from being engulfed by the sun because it can still expand large enough, the remaining gravity can still drag the planet down and still swallow it up in 5 billion year's time. In about 7 billion years from now the sun is expected to reach 110 times its current diameter. The Earth and even Venus will be able to escape to higher orbit to escape from being enveloped by sun. Venus is expected to reach 1.1 AU which will travel slightly beyond the current orbitof the Earth, while the Earth will escape to 1.4 AU which is almost as big as the current orbit of Mars. However all the oceans on Earth will boil up and its atmosphere will be stripped away.
... Anyone want to take a crack at reworking it, or is it too specific for this article? Thoughts? -- Ckatz chat spy 23:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Here's some food for thought... According to the definition of a planet in this article, six of the existing planets should not be considered planets. Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune have not cleared their path! There are still objects orbiting around them and, inadvertedly, block the way for such a body to clear through. Am I right? Shouldn't they be as Mercury and Venus with nothing in their way?
Of all the wacky things I have heard about the Solar Sytem, I have never heard such a thing that would disclude our own home as a planet. Until now, that is.
If anyone agrees with me, please note so.—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Son of the right hand (
talk •
contribs) 21:13, 22 June 2007
I don't agree with this revert. Who says that section is only about the planets? I think we should reinstate the text. -- Doradus 20:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The change added notes about Vesta, Saturn's moons, and the invention of the telescope - all interesting, but it bulks up what was a clear and succinct paragraph. -- Ckatz chat spy 20:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)"The five closest planets to Earth – Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn – are amongst the brightest objects in the night sky and were called "πλανήτης" (planētēs, meaning "wanderer") by the Ancient Greeks. They were known to move across the fixed stars; this is the origin of the word "planet". Uranus is also visible without optical aid at its brightest, but it is at the very limit of naked-eye detectability and therefore evaded discovery until 1781."
I'm not sure if this is a valid measure of vandal attraction, but once the first fifty edits in the history section consist entirely of reverted vandalism, I think it's time to put a lock on it. Serendipodous 07:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I find it irritating that the Solar System is defined in the opening sentence by its contents. It is given no context of location or significance; there are billions of other star systems in existance, why is this one special? If you look at the articles of the planets, they say 'this is a planet in the Solar System', and when you look at this article, it says 'the Solar System contains these planets'. It's like saying 'black is the opposite of white' and 'white is the opposite of black', it's a comparitive definition that makes no sense to people unfamiliar with the concepts referred to. -- 84.64.77.228 02:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It gives the impression that Pluto is a major planet. Perhaps someone could photoshop the Kuiper belt into the last orbit? Serendipod ous 18:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The picture of the Solar system on the bottom includes Eris, Pluto, and ceres, even though it shouldn't. They were designated as not planets, but dwarf plnaets and what happens to Wikipedia when later we find much more dwarf planets? Keep adding them? I mean, dwarf plnaets, I suppose, are much samller and thus easier to be made and thus there would be an abundance of them. The picture should take the dwarf plnaets out.—Preceding unsigned comment added by PRhyu ( talk • contribs)
I'm seeking consensus at MOSNUM talk for a change in the wording to allow contributors, by consensus only, to use unconverted metrics in scientific articles. Your opinions are invited. Tony 15:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that this article should be renamed from Solar System to Solar system. It seems common in all direct related articles like for example:
It seems that you only keep use capitals in a article title if it really an own name. But I'm not expert in Wikipedia rules & conventions. What do you think? - Mdd 22:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't think of that. - Mdd 22:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
It should be mentioned that solar system can also refer to all other star systems, and generally does, at least in American English. In American English, our solar system is almost always refered to as our solar system or the solar system. Notice the our and the.
Webster's definition of sun: "1. a) the self-luminous, gaseous sphere about which the earth and other planets revolve and which furnishes light, heat, and energy for the solar system: it is the star nearest the earth, whose mean distance from it is nearly 93,000,000 miles: its diameter is about 864,000 miles; its mass is about 333,400 times, and its volume more than 1,300,000 times, that of the earth b) the heat or light of the sun to lie in the sun] 2. any star that is the center of a planetary system 3. something like the sun, as in warmth, brilliance, splendor, etc. 4. [Poet.] a) a day b) a year 5. [Poet.] a clime; climate 6. [Archaic] sunrise or sunset."
Notice especially the definition of the sun under 2. The definition of sun is ambiguous, like a lot of the English language, and should be mentioned in the sun and solar system articles. Excluding that information is an example of Wikipedia's bias.
Also look at the Merriam-Webster Online definition for solar system: "the sun together with the group of celestial bodies that are held by its attraction and revolve around it; also : a similar system centered on another star." These sources are much more reliable than Wikipedia, an encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to.
Pluto should still be a planet!! It is a dwarf planet and orbits around the sun! Why is it classified as an asteroid?! (and please please please dont delete this article!) -- 70.110.4.132 22:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Plutsave
Could someone explain something to me that I have not been able to immediately figure out on my own after quick review of several articles. Is our solar system a galaxy? or are there several solar systems in a galaxy? Does the word "solar system" refer only to OUR solar system? If not, what is the name of our solar system? and what is the name of our galaxy? and what is the milky way? a series of galaxies that we can see from Earth?
Thanks. dearly 02:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The solar system is not a galaxy. A galaxy is a gravitational union of a hundred billion stars. The Solar System is one star and the planets around it. Our Solar System is one star in the Milky Way galaxy, which probably contains a hundred billion other similar systems. The Solar System (with capital letters) is the name of the star system we live in. Some people use the term "solar system" (no capital letters) to describe other such systems, but that isn't official. Serendipod ous 06:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
This new Image might be useful.-- Nemissimo 16:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I was looking for an article or image that explains planet orbits. Preferably approximate scale image for inner planets, showing ellipses and sun position? is there one in wikipedia, or should there be one? -- 16:32, 11 November 2007
...would be nice if someone could add the link to the excellent Hindi version of the article - thanks? Watasenia ( talk) 15:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
As an earlier attempt at commenting was reverted (probably mistook as vandalism even though the comments were hidden from normal view), here's another go:
Is the shot (probably taken by a compact digital camera) in current form truly encyclopedical? Consider Image:The sun1.jpg (which is currently used) and the previous Image:The Sun.jpg. What do they show? A burnt out highlight, some blue sky and lens flare. In comparison, perhaps these do not quite fit in? As the article history only goes back to April 20 2007 I can't determine if they were included in the version that underwent the FA process. Cheers, 88.148.207.23 12:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that like the name most people use in fiction when we found other star systems i can try to find references but i doubt it -- 24.107.202.65 ( talk) 22:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Either referring to the Greco-Roman mythological origins of various planetary designations is inappropriate in the header, or including the Greco-Roman mythological names for Earth alongside the other planetary designations is necessary to fairly present information on the subject. I've tried both options to no avail. Discuss. Adraeus ( talk) 22:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
From the Oxford English Dictionary:
10. a. Considered as a sphere, orb, or planet.
Nevermind the Online Etymology Dictionary. [1]
I also never said that the origins of the names of the planets are irrelevant to the article. I said that they were irrelevant to the header of the article unless their reference was made complete with a reference to Earth's Greco-Roman mythological names. Adraeus ( talk) 23:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how you can't possibly comprehend that identifying the Greco-Roman names for what is now called Earth alongside planetary designations, whose historical names were retained, does not complement the information and presentation of the information in the header. Adraeus ( talk) 23:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
(resetting indent)Adraeus, I think you're overlooking the fact that this article is intended to be an overview of the Solar System as a whole. The information you're adding is, in that context, not relevant here. Moreover, it is already mentioned in Earth (in the lead sentence), which is the more appropriate place for details. There are many, many, many details that have had to be trimmed simply to keep the article to a manageable length. -- Ckatz chat spy 00:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The anonymously added table was a variant of one that existed as part of this article years ago, but was ultimately removed. It and its sister tables can now be found at the page Attributes of the largest solar system bodies. If the table is to be reinstated, I think it should be discussed first. Serendi pod ous 15:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
A comment was added to the article stating that the definition of a planet is hotly debated. Is this really the case? I know that some people didn't like the re-classification of Pluto - but it seems that the definition of a planet given in the article is pretty standard and accepted. Comments? PhySusie ( talk) 05:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Overall, I like the new lead image (it's certainly more scientifically accurate than the last one) but it makes Mercury's orbital inclination out to be about 45 degrees, when in fact it's about 7 degrees. This exaggeration is misleading. Serendi pod ous 12:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Is the earth theorized to be in a declining orbit? Why is there no detected decline in orbit? What's the theory behind why the planets weren't aborbed into the sun a long time ago? Could we add something to this article the gravitational balance of the solar system, and a calculation as to how much mass would need to be vaporized before we would expect an upset in that balance? 68.75.88.171 ( talk) 02:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that while there's a lot of nice images here, the article lacks an image of the solar system showing the relative distances to the sun and the relative sizes of the planets at the same time. That would obviously be a bonus. -- Strappado ( talk) 17:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Could we include the vast number of man-made objects which currently orbit the sun in the opening paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oddzag ( talk • contribs) 22:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a very odd image to use for the "Sun" subsection. The title makes no explanation of the fact that the image is of the Sun, with one of the blurred dots being Mercury, so the uninformed reader (which is who the article is for - someone who is looking up "Solar System" can't be expected to know what a "transit of Mercury" is) might assume that the image was of Mercury. Also as previously mentioned the transit of Mercury is not discussed in the article. Rachel Pearce ( talk) 09:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This article isn't about sunspots, limb darkening, or transits of Mercury. It's about the Solar System. Such material is better covered in the Sun article itself. We can't assume that any reader, staring at this picture, would have a clue what sunspots, transits, or limb darkening are. If that picture were to be included, it would have to have some relevance to the article, which means that this already-gargantuan article would have to be expanded to discuss sunspots, limb-darkening, and transits of Mercury. I have no interest in doing so, and I doubt you do either. This article's section on the Sun is little more than a brief explanation of what the Sun is, which is all it needs to be, so a simple picture of the Sun is really all that's required. Serendi pod ous 16:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
No other picture could be as encyclopedic. All other pictures of the Sun are taken with filters, so you can't see the Sun doing it's most important job: shining. An image of the Sun that looks like a star is better than an image of the Sun that looks like a beach ball. Serendi pod ous 17:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I would love to see the directions of spin of each planet listed in a table somewhere, ideally along with as much other information as possible, including year length, day length, obliquity, eccentricity, and direction of spin of moons (if applicable). This information is currently scattered and I am not quite knowledgeable enough to consolidate it.
Directions of spin could be given as "North" or "Up" for Earth's rotation around itself each day, and "North" or "Up" for Earth's rotation around the sun. North/up is a nice way to use the right-hand rule, and I find it less ambiguous that clock/counterclockwise. North/up could also be called "counterclockwise when viewed from above/looking down at the Northern hemisphere."
Specific questions: What direction does Earth's rotational axis precess in? I assume from the difference in sidereal and tropical years that it must precess "down/South." And what direction does the anomalistic precession (the precession of the apsides) go? I also assume that is "up/North" from available, albeit indirect data. I could answer these questions myself, but not as fast as most of you. Plus, I want the table for the good of the world, not just the answers in a talk page for me. Thanks. Fluoborate ( talk) 07:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it that Uranus and Neptune are no longer called Gas Giants (Jovian Planets), but now called Ice Giants? From what I know, it's because they were found to be made of frozen gases like the KBOs rather than gaseous gases like the Jovians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.219.236 ( talk) 13:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This page says that our solar system has exactly three dwarf planets. It is missing entries such as Xena [2]. National Geographic says that there are 44 dwarf planets [3].
MassimoH ( talk) 17:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
MassimoH ( talk) 02:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
There are a lot of unsourced sections in this article, particularly towards the end. Are any specific editors maintaining it?- Wafulz ( talk) 19:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
EDIT: Could you, to make my job easier, tag each uncited fact with citation needed ( {{cn}} ), so I can get an idea of how many are needed? Serendi pod ous 05:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The map does not show Makemake, this should be fixed. Zazaban ( talk) 19:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
i propose to eliminate the tags from the list of dwarf planets at the beginning of the article that say "the largest..." to make it similar to the above list of planets -- SquallLeonhart_ITA ( talk) 16:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
This site say by 6 to 7 billion years from now sun's expansion can be between 200 and 700 times the size of now (between 1.0 and 3.5 AU). This means sun's expansion have a possiblity to encompass Mars orbit and it may give it a chance to swallow the planet up. When the sun evolve into a white dwarf star and if Mars still exists; then Mars is likely to be the innermost planet.-- Freewayguy Call? Fish 21:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Novices reading this article may very well think that all the dwarf planets are beyond Neptune, because the first list is the three-categories lists (terrestrial, gas-giant & dwarf) which is described as "In order of their distance from the Sun".
I think the primary list must be the order from the Sun of all the planets, dwarf planets and gas giants.
The list of three categories of objects I don't think can be thought of as the primary one.
Removing this list has helped stop novices becoming confused that ALL dwarf planets orbit beyond Neptune, and it looks a lot "cleaner". HarryAlffa ( talk) 14:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
In order of their distance from the Sun, those named celestial objects bound to it by gravity (excluding moons) are:
I thought it a reasonable (if not a good idea) to list the order of these objects in distance from the Sun, it is quite a major feature of the Solar System after all!
Then could come the paragraph: "In broad terms, the charted regions of the Solar System consist ...", then the lists of the categories.
HarryAlffa ( talk) 21:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC) and HarryAlffa ( talk) 23:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The proposed list just makes clear and complete the hard to read list of objects in the image. HarryAlffa ( talk) 23:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that including a list of the dwarf planets at all in the lead is cumbersome, particularly since the number of known dwarf planets will likely continue to rise over the next few years. The lead should describe the major orbits: all the planets (by definition), as well as the asteroid belt, scattered disk, etc.; that is, essentially as it was.
Both the lead image and the image in the "Terminology" section make the order of the bodies in the Solar System amply clear. I agree that the long list intermixing dwarf planets with planets is not an improvement. —Alex ( ASHill | talk | contribs) 00:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Can we combine both a category list & a named object list? I would propose to replace the current list with this;
{===============
In broad terms, the charted regions of the Solar System and their constituents, in order of their distance from the Sun are:
===============} - HarryAlffa ( talk) 20:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Makemake Pluto and Eris are KBOs. Your list {list now edited} implies they're not. And the image doesn't use the same reasoning. It separates the planets and the dwarf planets. Serendi pod ous 20:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the most important fact about the solar system is the eight planets, and they should be clearly listed by themselves in the intro, with no breakdown by type. Many readers will come to this article looking for just that list and they should get it up front in its most simple form. The types of planets and the wide variety of other objects should then be introduced. Minor planets should come next simply because of the interest in Pluto. We should then begin to present the whole picture, perhaps beginning with a better diagram.-- agr ( talk) 14:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- HarryAlffa ( talk) 16:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the current version tries to do too much in the intro. We have the rest of the article to explain these concepts. I also think we should avoid editorializing comments like "Dwarf planets are unlike other categories of named celestial objects in that they populate more than one region of the solar system..." which is also just plain wrong (e.g. comets and asteroids). All we have to say is the the dwarf planets are in several regions. As for terrestrial vs gas giants, the scientific community calls them all planets and that should be our starting point. -- agr ( talk) 22:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with agr that saying "the dwarf planets populate several regions" is far more consise! Although in my own defence I would say that my description became somewhat inflated to accommodate criticism!
For clarity; I meant individually named objects like Makemake or Ceres; perturbed objects, like comets, can't be said to populate the other regions they are passing through; asteroids only populate the Asteroid belt. - HarryAlffa ( talk) 18:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Since there are likely hundreds or even thousands of dwarf planets waiting to be discovered and then waiting some more to be classified, I think the template should be:
In broad terms, the charted regions of the Solar System and their constituents, in order of their distance from the Sun are:
Delaszk ( talk) 15:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The second paragraph should be clear about the heliopause being "a named ovoid region of space where the solar wind meets the interstellar medium and not known to contain objects". All the other regions named are known to contain objects. The Oort Cloud is still theoretical, but the theory includes objects. HarryAlffa ( talk) 22:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Like the various collections of objects, the heliopause is an important part of the Solar System, so it's worth mentioning in the lead, but we shouldn't explain it beyond a mention. All these terms are both wikilinked and discussed in detail in the body of the article. —Alex ( ASHill | talk | contribs) 15:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
On further thought, I think using the word "heliopause" in the introduction at all may be causing us to talk past one another. It's not so much the heliopause that's interesting; it's the heliosphere/interplanetary medium. Perhaps this wording of the second paragraph is better:
Thoughts? —Alex ( ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
A lead is supposed "... to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points."; from Wikipedia:LEAD
The lead has problems with to deep a level of detail for a lead and with consistency of level of detail.
(any contradictions of one point with another emphasises the inconsistency of the lead) - HarryAlffa ( talk) 20:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
For the most part I think that the introduction to the article (lead) reads fairly well right now. I think that dwarf planets should still be mentioned; everyone has heard of Pluto. However,
Feyrauth ( talk) 07:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Remember; a lead is supposed "... to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points."; from Wikipedia:LEAD
The lead has problems with to deep a level of detail for a lead and with consistency of level of detail.
(any contradictions of one point with another emphasises the inconsistency of the lead)
I had resolved all of these problems by my previous (see my talk page) bold edit, which is what wikipedia encourages, but my changes were reverted. - HarryAlffa ( talk) 13:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
...and so the next step is to discuss them. It's not a problem. SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 17:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
1. & 3. are essentially the same problem. 2. the second paragraph relates to regions of the solar system. Dwarf Planets is not a region; the asteroid belt, the kuiper belt and the scattered disc are. This also affects your new point #8. 5. perhaps there should be qualifiers, but simpler than before. Eg. Ceres (located in the asteroid belt)
Feyrauth ( talk) 07:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
You are mis-understanding the text, and possibly not reading all of it! 1. & 3. are different aspects of the same problem. Which is why a catch-all (any contradictions of one point with another emphasises the inconsistency of the lead) ended the list to try to prevent people from making that kind of point. 2. Again - read & analyse! It in no way says or implies that dwarf planets are a region! 5. Yes. You could add that qualifier to the dwarf planet list.
The changes made so far solve little of the problems, and they cumulatively make the lead an ever more better fit for the description May Contain Nuts.
Again, my version of the lead solves all the problems I've raised, it is consise (due to using nested, bulleted lists) and adds some interesting factoids at the end for the novice or casual reader.
It seems to me that no one else is empathising with the novice astronomer. Who else is likely to be seeking knowledge from the lead of this article? - HarryAlffa ( talk) 15:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
(any contradictions of one point with another emphasises the inconsistency of the lead) - HarryAlffa ( talk) 10:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
SOLVED 5. Replaced dwarf planet bullet list with; "Four smaller objects are classified as dwarf planets. Ceres in the Asteroid Belt, the other three (as of mid-2008, though the list is expected to grow) are all beyond Neptune - Pluto; Makemake; Eris." - HarryAlffa ( talk) 12:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Is it worth explaining more about a year and a day being individual to the planet you're on, and contrast that with Earth-years?
What about the same for a day? Mars rover guys use Sol as the name of a Mars-day. Will other terms evolve with other planets? - HarryAlffa ( talk) 12:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you agree that the terminology section acts as a reference section for the rest of the article?
I think it does.
I did NOT say that Wikipedia was a dictionary, this is a fundamentally dishonest tactic, implying in your reply that I asserted something by nay-saying something I did not actually say, or imply.
I was suggesting that the Terminology section should be closer to a dictionary than a normal, complete article. A good idea in terms of conciseness. Straight to the point. Full prose can be saved for the main articles of which the Terminology section is a useful précis.
I did not suggest that we explain the lengths of the days and years for each planet.
I was suggesting exactly what you said "the length of the day on the planets depends on their individual rotation rates". I might edit what you said to "ALL the planets". If something about ALL the planets doesn't fit in the Solar System, where else do ALL the planets fit? - HarryAlffa ( talk) 20:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Two further disputes regarding the lead:
I believe the first option reads better. I have refrained from reverting pending the thoughts of others. —Alex ( ASHill | talk | contribs) 13:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Ashill, it sounds like, from your use of the word Saga, that you are levelling some criticism at me for raising any questions?
1. The solar wind fluctuates, therefore "steady flow" is simply incorrect. Ashil, get a dictionary, if your not sure about the application of a word, don't try to use the fact of your ignorance as an argument. Incessant can be applied this way. You have said both that "the solar wind is NOT constant in intensity/velocity", AND that it is "steady! Do you actually read what you write? Arterial blood flows "essentially continuously", but it is NOT steady (it is pulsatile). The solar wind is continuous, incessant you might say, but it cannot be described as steady.
As I said on my edit note, I was trying to capture the dynamism (look it up) and the high speed of the solar wind, "steady flow" might describe pus seeping from a wound, but it is far to tame to describe a 400 km/s - 750 km/s storm of protons and electrons at temperatures of thousands of Kelvin. Incessant hail is much more dynamic.
2. Sod, you're territorial. Your "first" sentence is actually a rewrite of my "original" sentence - solving the problem of the bullet list misleading novices - which I pointed out and was met with resistance from you, but no logic.
Sod, on the dwarf planet sentence you've gone from insisting on a bullet list, to embedding the names in parenthesis in the middle of a sentence, plus you've introduced a higher level of maintainance by enumerating the dwarfs in two places.
My original solution to a problem only I spotted is easier to maintain as it enumerates the dwarfs once, and I think wiki convention allows my version precedence when it comes to matters of taste. My version is easier for the novice to absorb, it is closer to a bullet list than your re-write of my solution. Even going down to "in order from the Sun", yours mixes them all up, mine doesn't. - HarryAlffa ( talk) 18:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- HarryAlffa ( talk) 19:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The description of the definitions of the terms planet, dwarf planet, and small Solar System body was deleted from Solar System#Terminology. I restored it because that terminology is used extensively in the rest of the article and really ought to be explained in some detail on the Solar System page itself, rather than consigned exclusively to sub-pages. —Alex ( ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The description of the definitions of the term ice was deleted from Solar System#Terminology. I restored it because that terminology is used extensively in the rest of the article and really ought to be explained in some detail on the Solar System page itself, rather than consigned exclusively to sub-pages. - HarryAlffa ( talk) 19:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you see that the reasons you have given for restoring the description of the definitions of the terms planet, dwarf planet, and small Solar System body, must also result in restoring the "ice" section. Even Sod edited this section to improve it.
There are numerous references to "ice" & "icy" throughout the article (I searched), such a common word (intrinsically bound to water on Earth) MUST be explicitly explained for it's astronomical use. There is just no escaping this logic no matter what your emotional response is.
If the Terminology section is to focus exclusively on planet-related terms, then it must be renamed. But this is why I suggested earlier (where I answered your points there) that some sub-sectioning is required. And are you saying that ice is not a planet related term, but light-year is? That is the implication of what you are saying. - HarryAlffa ( talk) 20:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Having not been contradicted, in the wikialerts, in my count of active editors of the Ice paragraph - I'm restoring it. I make it two active talkers to one in favour of having some sort of version on Ice. - HarryAlffa ( talk) 12:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Have started a new Rock, ice and gas section below. - HarryAlffa ( talk) 17:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I think this combined heading, rather than separate headings, is fine. To help the readers eye maybe some bold 'pick-outs' of the three terms, and start each of their respective paragraphs with those terms?
- HarryAlffa ( talk) 18:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The lead reads pretty well right now, and most of HarryAlffa's initial points seem to have been addressed. Two brief comments:
My objection to the word "bubble" is overruled; it seems that it is official terminology. I will put in a link to stellar wind bubble. But it's the solar wind, not the bubble, that permeates the solar system. How about: "A flow of charged particles from the Sun (the solar wind) permeates the Solar System. This creates a bubble in the interstellar medium known as the heliosphere, which terminates at the heliopause, near the scattered disc." Feyrauth ( talk) 06:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I think there has to be a certain subtlety to describing the interaction between the stellar wind and the interstellar medium, while "using" the heliosphere and heliopause. I think what should be kept in mind is;
This is why I changed "...the heliosphere, which is separated from the interstellar medium by the heliopause located around the outer edge of the scattered disc"
Of course there is a separation between the heliosphere and the interstellar medium, or else they wouldn't have separate names! But we have to be careful to leave no room for doubt that the heliopause is not actually separate from the heliosphere. It is an integral part of it. The 'helio' part of the names will indicate they are related, but care has to be taken so it reads like they are parts of the same thing, if possible - I haven't come up with a way of making this explicit AND short enough for the opening paragraphs. But I hope I've done enough to rule out the reader mis-reading the intended meaning.
The "bubble" is dynamic. It depends on the interaction of the solar wind on the interstellar medium. The heliopause does not have a "location" like a planet. The heliopause's current location MUST be continually changing (even if not by much) with the fluctuation of the solar wind.
The location therefore must be described in "vague" terms, or at least non-precise terms, unless we want to try to include the information I've put in the parqagraph above. - HarryAlffa ( talk) 17:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
"used regardless of the state the substance" is a little inaccurate I think. It's really the three 'classical' states of solid, liquid or gas we are talking about here. Can you think of a pithy way of putting this? - HarryAlffa ( talk) 17:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
"Planetary scientist & astronomers use ...", I wonder if we are tripping over ourselves needlessly trying to say who uses the terms (both obviously). Is the context of the solar system enough, without listing professions? "Planetary scientists, astronomers etc use ...", would be accurate, but ... - HarryAlffa ( talk) 18:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Gas Giants & Ice Giants. I think we should avoid trying to explain what these are here, the Mid Solar System section of the article does that. - HarryAlffa ( talk) 18:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Of ices, "... although they are still usually extremely cold", 'usually' is not perhaps very accurate. Maybe in the mid solar system on the surface of rocky bodies, but what about deep inside Uranus or Neptune? Ok, that's only two places, so maybe 'usually' is Ok? - HarryAlffa ( talk) 18:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Ckatz did not have any evidence of concensus when he made this edit
The version he obliterated was a merging of what I had done on Ice plus what Serendipodus had done on Rock and Gas.
At that time the talk page had only my four questioning points about the resulting merge. So any talk about consensus is blatantly false. It was one on one, and the other one wanted to delete the entry entirely.
Ckatz and Ashill's rv was emotionally motivated, not logically.
I revised what Sorendipodus said;
It is now obvious that "depending on boiling points" is very far from false! Quite the contrary!
I said;
Common sense and general knowledge is enough to understand industrial processes are required to make dry ice, or liquefy methane!
I can only shake my head in pity at Ashill 'not liking the wording' of "intrinsically bound". That was a sentence with beauty and truth. Only a philistine would fail to appreciate it. - HarryAlffa ( talk) 13:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
From a purely semantic standpoint, your addition, aside from being unsourced, was vague and unnecessarily absolutist. "Intrinsically bound" in what sense? Linguistically? Psychologically? Physically? Also, there is nothing "intrinsic" about linking the word "ice" only to water. Just because the wider usage of ice is not common, doesn't mean that it is only used by planetary scientists. To prove that the term ice is "intrinsically bound" to frozen water by the general public would require showing that absolutely no one outside the scientific community employs the term in its broader sense, which is impossible. "Beauty" and "truth" are irrelevant; we are writing an encyclopedia here, not poetry. Accuracy is required over metaphor. The "industrial processes" comment is also irrelevant. Suffice to say that these substances only freeze at very cold temperatures. Serendi pod ous 14:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
A recent edit removed the word "known" from the statement that "the Sun ... contains 99.86 percent of the system's known mass". Can anyone explain how it is known that there's no extra mass lying undiscovered out there orbiting the Sun? I don't see how we can possibly rule out, say, an enormously massive Oort Cloud, spherically symmetric about the sun, composed of massive black holes. The referenced paper is a dead link, so if we can't find some explanation for this, I think we should put the word "known" back in there. -- Doradus ( talk) 14:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that image works well in heliosphere, because it shows the various components of the heliopause in detail, but I don't think it works well in a general article about the Solar System because, for some odd reason, Mercury and Venus aren't in it. Serendi pod ous 06:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Right now, I think "Heliopause" is the correct title for that section, since it is the boundary between the Solar wind and the interstellar medium. I don't like the idea of merging the interplanetary medium into heliopause, because that would mean dismantling the "farthest regions" section, and I think the section's lead paragraph, with its discussion of what constitutes the boundary of the Solar System, is rather important. Serendi pod ous 19:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi all — having had my attention brought here by a post on wp:ani, I've looked over the back and forth here, and it seems to me that there is a possibility of smoothing things out by informal mediation. I would be willing to give it a shot, if all parties agree — in particular, HaffyAlffa would need to agree. Here are some relevant factors:
What do you think? Looie496 ( talk) 20:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
8. See No 5. - HarryAlffa ( talk) 11:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Hi, I have put this article under the scope of the WikiProject Systems because of the formal relation, but more because of the inspiring and motivating example this article can give our project and it's participants (to come). We are still a small and beginning group, and working to get our own toko going. In due time I hope we can also deliver a valuable contributions here from our point of view. In the mean time I wish all of you all te best. Best regards - Mdd 21:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
We should explain how north and south are defined for other objects than earth. I assume it is defined as the same direction as earths north pole. Are the rotational axes of all planets parallel? -- Apoc2400 01:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
There are varying definitions of "north"; see North_Pole#Defining_North_Poles_in_astronomy. -- Doradus 13:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
to upload this video onto Wikipedia? I think it's better than the sequence of still images we now have. Serendipodous 15:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
This was added a short while ago:
The sun will stay in main sequence for about another 3 billion years. Eventually when it reach giant star it is expect to almost reach Earth's orbit. However the current research shows, the loss of the sun's gravity, mass, and probably atmosphere will cause all the planets to move further from the sun. Although Mercury is likely to escape to higher orbit, but it can definitely not escape from being engulfed by the sun because it can still expand large enough, the remaining gravity can still drag the planet down and still swallow it up in 5 billion year's time. In about 7 billion years from now the sun is expected to reach 110 times its current diameter. The Earth and even Venus will be able to escape to higher orbit to escape from being enveloped by sun. Venus is expected to reach 1.1 AU which will travel slightly beyond the current orbitof the Earth, while the Earth will escape to 1.4 AU which is almost as big as the current orbit of Mars. However all the oceans on Earth will boil up and its atmosphere will be stripped away.
... Anyone want to take a crack at reworking it, or is it too specific for this article? Thoughts? -- Ckatz chat spy 23:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Here's some food for thought... According to the definition of a planet in this article, six of the existing planets should not be considered planets. Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune have not cleared their path! There are still objects orbiting around them and, inadvertedly, block the way for such a body to clear through. Am I right? Shouldn't they be as Mercury and Venus with nothing in their way?
Of all the wacky things I have heard about the Solar Sytem, I have never heard such a thing that would disclude our own home as a planet. Until now, that is.
If anyone agrees with me, please note so.—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Son of the right hand (
talk •
contribs) 21:13, 22 June 2007
I don't agree with this revert. Who says that section is only about the planets? I think we should reinstate the text. -- Doradus 20:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The change added notes about Vesta, Saturn's moons, and the invention of the telescope - all interesting, but it bulks up what was a clear and succinct paragraph. -- Ckatz chat spy 20:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)"The five closest planets to Earth – Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn – are amongst the brightest objects in the night sky and were called "πλανήτης" (planētēs, meaning "wanderer") by the Ancient Greeks. They were known to move across the fixed stars; this is the origin of the word "planet". Uranus is also visible without optical aid at its brightest, but it is at the very limit of naked-eye detectability and therefore evaded discovery until 1781."
I'm not sure if this is a valid measure of vandal attraction, but once the first fifty edits in the history section consist entirely of reverted vandalism, I think it's time to put a lock on it. Serendipodous 07:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I find it irritating that the Solar System is defined in the opening sentence by its contents. It is given no context of location or significance; there are billions of other star systems in existance, why is this one special? If you look at the articles of the planets, they say 'this is a planet in the Solar System', and when you look at this article, it says 'the Solar System contains these planets'. It's like saying 'black is the opposite of white' and 'white is the opposite of black', it's a comparitive definition that makes no sense to people unfamiliar with the concepts referred to. -- 84.64.77.228 02:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It gives the impression that Pluto is a major planet. Perhaps someone could photoshop the Kuiper belt into the last orbit? Serendipod ous 18:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The picture of the Solar system on the bottom includes Eris, Pluto, and ceres, even though it shouldn't. They were designated as not planets, but dwarf plnaets and what happens to Wikipedia when later we find much more dwarf planets? Keep adding them? I mean, dwarf plnaets, I suppose, are much samller and thus easier to be made and thus there would be an abundance of them. The picture should take the dwarf plnaets out.—Preceding unsigned comment added by PRhyu ( talk • contribs)
I'm seeking consensus at MOSNUM talk for a change in the wording to allow contributors, by consensus only, to use unconverted metrics in scientific articles. Your opinions are invited. Tony 15:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that this article should be renamed from Solar System to Solar system. It seems common in all direct related articles like for example:
It seems that you only keep use capitals in a article title if it really an own name. But I'm not expert in Wikipedia rules & conventions. What do you think? - Mdd 22:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't think of that. - Mdd 22:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
It should be mentioned that solar system can also refer to all other star systems, and generally does, at least in American English. In American English, our solar system is almost always refered to as our solar system or the solar system. Notice the our and the.
Webster's definition of sun: "1. a) the self-luminous, gaseous sphere about which the earth and other planets revolve and which furnishes light, heat, and energy for the solar system: it is the star nearest the earth, whose mean distance from it is nearly 93,000,000 miles: its diameter is about 864,000 miles; its mass is about 333,400 times, and its volume more than 1,300,000 times, that of the earth b) the heat or light of the sun to lie in the sun] 2. any star that is the center of a planetary system 3. something like the sun, as in warmth, brilliance, splendor, etc. 4. [Poet.] a) a day b) a year 5. [Poet.] a clime; climate 6. [Archaic] sunrise or sunset."
Notice especially the definition of the sun under 2. The definition of sun is ambiguous, like a lot of the English language, and should be mentioned in the sun and solar system articles. Excluding that information is an example of Wikipedia's bias.
Also look at the Merriam-Webster Online definition for solar system: "the sun together with the group of celestial bodies that are held by its attraction and revolve around it; also : a similar system centered on another star." These sources are much more reliable than Wikipedia, an encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to.
Pluto should still be a planet!! It is a dwarf planet and orbits around the sun! Why is it classified as an asteroid?! (and please please please dont delete this article!) -- 70.110.4.132 22:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Plutsave
Could someone explain something to me that I have not been able to immediately figure out on my own after quick review of several articles. Is our solar system a galaxy? or are there several solar systems in a galaxy? Does the word "solar system" refer only to OUR solar system? If not, what is the name of our solar system? and what is the name of our galaxy? and what is the milky way? a series of galaxies that we can see from Earth?
Thanks. dearly 02:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The solar system is not a galaxy. A galaxy is a gravitational union of a hundred billion stars. The Solar System is one star and the planets around it. Our Solar System is one star in the Milky Way galaxy, which probably contains a hundred billion other similar systems. The Solar System (with capital letters) is the name of the star system we live in. Some people use the term "solar system" (no capital letters) to describe other such systems, but that isn't official. Serendipod ous 06:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
This new Image might be useful.-- Nemissimo 16:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I was looking for an article or image that explains planet orbits. Preferably approximate scale image for inner planets, showing ellipses and sun position? is there one in wikipedia, or should there be one? -- 16:32, 11 November 2007
...would be nice if someone could add the link to the excellent Hindi version of the article - thanks? Watasenia ( talk) 15:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
As an earlier attempt at commenting was reverted (probably mistook as vandalism even though the comments were hidden from normal view), here's another go:
Is the shot (probably taken by a compact digital camera) in current form truly encyclopedical? Consider Image:The sun1.jpg (which is currently used) and the previous Image:The Sun.jpg. What do they show? A burnt out highlight, some blue sky and lens flare. In comparison, perhaps these do not quite fit in? As the article history only goes back to April 20 2007 I can't determine if they were included in the version that underwent the FA process. Cheers, 88.148.207.23 12:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that like the name most people use in fiction when we found other star systems i can try to find references but i doubt it -- 24.107.202.65 ( talk) 22:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Either referring to the Greco-Roman mythological origins of various planetary designations is inappropriate in the header, or including the Greco-Roman mythological names for Earth alongside the other planetary designations is necessary to fairly present information on the subject. I've tried both options to no avail. Discuss. Adraeus ( talk) 22:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
From the Oxford English Dictionary:
10. a. Considered as a sphere, orb, or planet.
Nevermind the Online Etymology Dictionary. [1]
I also never said that the origins of the names of the planets are irrelevant to the article. I said that they were irrelevant to the header of the article unless their reference was made complete with a reference to Earth's Greco-Roman mythological names. Adraeus ( talk) 23:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how you can't possibly comprehend that identifying the Greco-Roman names for what is now called Earth alongside planetary designations, whose historical names were retained, does not complement the information and presentation of the information in the header. Adraeus ( talk) 23:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
(resetting indent)Adraeus, I think you're overlooking the fact that this article is intended to be an overview of the Solar System as a whole. The information you're adding is, in that context, not relevant here. Moreover, it is already mentioned in Earth (in the lead sentence), which is the more appropriate place for details. There are many, many, many details that have had to be trimmed simply to keep the article to a manageable length. -- Ckatz chat spy 00:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The anonymously added table was a variant of one that existed as part of this article years ago, but was ultimately removed. It and its sister tables can now be found at the page Attributes of the largest solar system bodies. If the table is to be reinstated, I think it should be discussed first. Serendi pod ous 15:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
A comment was added to the article stating that the definition of a planet is hotly debated. Is this really the case? I know that some people didn't like the re-classification of Pluto - but it seems that the definition of a planet given in the article is pretty standard and accepted. Comments? PhySusie ( talk) 05:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Overall, I like the new lead image (it's certainly more scientifically accurate than the last one) but it makes Mercury's orbital inclination out to be about 45 degrees, when in fact it's about 7 degrees. This exaggeration is misleading. Serendi pod ous 12:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Is the earth theorized to be in a declining orbit? Why is there no detected decline in orbit? What's the theory behind why the planets weren't aborbed into the sun a long time ago? Could we add something to this article the gravitational balance of the solar system, and a calculation as to how much mass would need to be vaporized before we would expect an upset in that balance? 68.75.88.171 ( talk) 02:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that while there's a lot of nice images here, the article lacks an image of the solar system showing the relative distances to the sun and the relative sizes of the planets at the same time. That would obviously be a bonus. -- Strappado ( talk) 17:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Could we include the vast number of man-made objects which currently orbit the sun in the opening paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oddzag ( talk • contribs) 22:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a very odd image to use for the "Sun" subsection. The title makes no explanation of the fact that the image is of the Sun, with one of the blurred dots being Mercury, so the uninformed reader (which is who the article is for - someone who is looking up "Solar System" can't be expected to know what a "transit of Mercury" is) might assume that the image was of Mercury. Also as previously mentioned the transit of Mercury is not discussed in the article. Rachel Pearce ( talk) 09:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This article isn't about sunspots, limb darkening, or transits of Mercury. It's about the Solar System. Such material is better covered in the Sun article itself. We can't assume that any reader, staring at this picture, would have a clue what sunspots, transits, or limb darkening are. If that picture were to be included, it would have to have some relevance to the article, which means that this already-gargantuan article would have to be expanded to discuss sunspots, limb-darkening, and transits of Mercury. I have no interest in doing so, and I doubt you do either. This article's section on the Sun is little more than a brief explanation of what the Sun is, which is all it needs to be, so a simple picture of the Sun is really all that's required. Serendi pod ous 16:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
No other picture could be as encyclopedic. All other pictures of the Sun are taken with filters, so you can't see the Sun doing it's most important job: shining. An image of the Sun that looks like a star is better than an image of the Sun that looks like a beach ball. Serendi pod ous 17:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I would love to see the directions of spin of each planet listed in a table somewhere, ideally along with as much other information as possible, including year length, day length, obliquity, eccentricity, and direction of spin of moons (if applicable). This information is currently scattered and I am not quite knowledgeable enough to consolidate it.
Directions of spin could be given as "North" or "Up" for Earth's rotation around itself each day, and "North" or "Up" for Earth's rotation around the sun. North/up is a nice way to use the right-hand rule, and I find it less ambiguous that clock/counterclockwise. North/up could also be called "counterclockwise when viewed from above/looking down at the Northern hemisphere."
Specific questions: What direction does Earth's rotational axis precess in? I assume from the difference in sidereal and tropical years that it must precess "down/South." And what direction does the anomalistic precession (the precession of the apsides) go? I also assume that is "up/North" from available, albeit indirect data. I could answer these questions myself, but not as fast as most of you. Plus, I want the table for the good of the world, not just the answers in a talk page for me. Thanks. Fluoborate ( talk) 07:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it that Uranus and Neptune are no longer called Gas Giants (Jovian Planets), but now called Ice Giants? From what I know, it's because they were found to be made of frozen gases like the KBOs rather than gaseous gases like the Jovians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.219.236 ( talk) 13:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This page says that our solar system has exactly three dwarf planets. It is missing entries such as Xena [2]. National Geographic says that there are 44 dwarf planets [3].
MassimoH ( talk) 17:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
MassimoH ( talk) 02:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
There are a lot of unsourced sections in this article, particularly towards the end. Are any specific editors maintaining it?- Wafulz ( talk) 19:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
EDIT: Could you, to make my job easier, tag each uncited fact with citation needed ( {{cn}} ), so I can get an idea of how many are needed? Serendi pod ous 05:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The map does not show Makemake, this should be fixed. Zazaban ( talk) 19:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
i propose to eliminate the tags from the list of dwarf planets at the beginning of the article that say "the largest..." to make it similar to the above list of planets -- SquallLeonhart_ITA ( talk) 16:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
This site say by 6 to 7 billion years from now sun's expansion can be between 200 and 700 times the size of now (between 1.0 and 3.5 AU). This means sun's expansion have a possiblity to encompass Mars orbit and it may give it a chance to swallow the planet up. When the sun evolve into a white dwarf star and if Mars still exists; then Mars is likely to be the innermost planet.-- Freewayguy Call? Fish 21:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Novices reading this article may very well think that all the dwarf planets are beyond Neptune, because the first list is the three-categories lists (terrestrial, gas-giant & dwarf) which is described as "In order of their distance from the Sun".
I think the primary list must be the order from the Sun of all the planets, dwarf planets and gas giants.
The list of three categories of objects I don't think can be thought of as the primary one.
Removing this list has helped stop novices becoming confused that ALL dwarf planets orbit beyond Neptune, and it looks a lot "cleaner". HarryAlffa ( talk) 14:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
In order of their distance from the Sun, those named celestial objects bound to it by gravity (excluding moons) are:
I thought it a reasonable (if not a good idea) to list the order of these objects in distance from the Sun, it is quite a major feature of the Solar System after all!
Then could come the paragraph: "In broad terms, the charted regions of the Solar System consist ...", then the lists of the categories.
HarryAlffa ( talk) 21:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC) and HarryAlffa ( talk) 23:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The proposed list just makes clear and complete the hard to read list of objects in the image. HarryAlffa ( talk) 23:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that including a list of the dwarf planets at all in the lead is cumbersome, particularly since the number of known dwarf planets will likely continue to rise over the next few years. The lead should describe the major orbits: all the planets (by definition), as well as the asteroid belt, scattered disk, etc.; that is, essentially as it was.
Both the lead image and the image in the "Terminology" section make the order of the bodies in the Solar System amply clear. I agree that the long list intermixing dwarf planets with planets is not an improvement. —Alex ( ASHill | talk | contribs) 00:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Can we combine both a category list & a named object list? I would propose to replace the current list with this;
{===============
In broad terms, the charted regions of the Solar System and their constituents, in order of their distance from the Sun are:
===============} - HarryAlffa ( talk) 20:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Makemake Pluto and Eris are KBOs. Your list {list now edited} implies they're not. And the image doesn't use the same reasoning. It separates the planets and the dwarf planets. Serendi pod ous 20:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the most important fact about the solar system is the eight planets, and they should be clearly listed by themselves in the intro, with no breakdown by type. Many readers will come to this article looking for just that list and they should get it up front in its most simple form. The types of planets and the wide variety of other objects should then be introduced. Minor planets should come next simply because of the interest in Pluto. We should then begin to present the whole picture, perhaps beginning with a better diagram.-- agr ( talk) 14:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- HarryAlffa ( talk) 16:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the current version tries to do too much in the intro. We have the rest of the article to explain these concepts. I also think we should avoid editorializing comments like "Dwarf planets are unlike other categories of named celestial objects in that they populate more than one region of the solar system..." which is also just plain wrong (e.g. comets and asteroids). All we have to say is the the dwarf planets are in several regions. As for terrestrial vs gas giants, the scientific community calls them all planets and that should be our starting point. -- agr ( talk) 22:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with agr that saying "the dwarf planets populate several regions" is far more consise! Although in my own defence I would say that my description became somewhat inflated to accommodate criticism!
For clarity; I meant individually named objects like Makemake or Ceres; perturbed objects, like comets, can't be said to populate the other regions they are passing through; asteroids only populate the Asteroid belt. - HarryAlffa ( talk) 18:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Since there are likely hundreds or even thousands of dwarf planets waiting to be discovered and then waiting some more to be classified, I think the template should be:
In broad terms, the charted regions of the Solar System and their constituents, in order of their distance from the Sun are:
Delaszk ( talk) 15:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The second paragraph should be clear about the heliopause being "a named ovoid region of space where the solar wind meets the interstellar medium and not known to contain objects". All the other regions named are known to contain objects. The Oort Cloud is still theoretical, but the theory includes objects. HarryAlffa ( talk) 22:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Like the various collections of objects, the heliopause is an important part of the Solar System, so it's worth mentioning in the lead, but we shouldn't explain it beyond a mention. All these terms are both wikilinked and discussed in detail in the body of the article. —Alex ( ASHill | talk | contribs) 15:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
On further thought, I think using the word "heliopause" in the introduction at all may be causing us to talk past one another. It's not so much the heliopause that's interesting; it's the heliosphere/interplanetary medium. Perhaps this wording of the second paragraph is better:
Thoughts? —Alex ( ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
A lead is supposed "... to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points."; from Wikipedia:LEAD
The lead has problems with to deep a level of detail for a lead and with consistency of level of detail.
(any contradictions of one point with another emphasises the inconsistency of the lead) - HarryAlffa ( talk) 20:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
For the most part I think that the introduction to the article (lead) reads fairly well right now. I think that dwarf planets should still be mentioned; everyone has heard of Pluto. However,
Feyrauth ( talk) 07:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Remember; a lead is supposed "... to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points."; from Wikipedia:LEAD
The lead has problems with to deep a level of detail for a lead and with consistency of level of detail.
(any contradictions of one point with another emphasises the inconsistency of the lead)
I had resolved all of these problems by my previous (see my talk page) bold edit, which is what wikipedia encourages, but my changes were reverted. - HarryAlffa ( talk) 13:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
...and so the next step is to discuss them. It's not a problem. SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 17:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
1. & 3. are essentially the same problem. 2. the second paragraph relates to regions of the solar system. Dwarf Planets is not a region; the asteroid belt, the kuiper belt and the scattered disc are. This also affects your new point #8. 5. perhaps there should be qualifiers, but simpler than before. Eg. Ceres (located in the asteroid belt)
Feyrauth ( talk) 07:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
You are mis-understanding the text, and possibly not reading all of it! 1. & 3. are different aspects of the same problem. Which is why a catch-all (any contradictions of one point with another emphasises the inconsistency of the lead) ended the list to try to prevent people from making that kind of point. 2. Again - read & analyse! It in no way says or implies that dwarf planets are a region! 5. Yes. You could add that qualifier to the dwarf planet list.
The changes made so far solve little of the problems, and they cumulatively make the lead an ever more better fit for the description May Contain Nuts.
Again, my version of the lead solves all the problems I've raised, it is consise (due to using nested, bulleted lists) and adds some interesting factoids at the end for the novice or casual reader.
It seems to me that no one else is empathising with the novice astronomer. Who else is likely to be seeking knowledge from the lead of this article? - HarryAlffa ( talk) 15:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
(any contradictions of one point with another emphasises the inconsistency of the lead) - HarryAlffa ( talk) 10:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
SOLVED 5. Replaced dwarf planet bullet list with; "Four smaller objects are classified as dwarf planets. Ceres in the Asteroid Belt, the other three (as of mid-2008, though the list is expected to grow) are all beyond Neptune - Pluto; Makemake; Eris." - HarryAlffa ( talk) 12:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Is it worth explaining more about a year and a day being individual to the planet you're on, and contrast that with Earth-years?
What about the same for a day? Mars rover guys use Sol as the name of a Mars-day. Will other terms evolve with other planets? - HarryAlffa ( talk) 12:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you agree that the terminology section acts as a reference section for the rest of the article?
I think it does.
I did NOT say that Wikipedia was a dictionary, this is a fundamentally dishonest tactic, implying in your reply that I asserted something by nay-saying something I did not actually say, or imply.
I was suggesting that the Terminology section should be closer to a dictionary than a normal, complete article. A good idea in terms of conciseness. Straight to the point. Full prose can be saved for the main articles of which the Terminology section is a useful précis.
I did not suggest that we explain the lengths of the days and years for each planet.
I was suggesting exactly what you said "the length of the day on the planets depends on their individual rotation rates". I might edit what you said to "ALL the planets". If something about ALL the planets doesn't fit in the Solar System, where else do ALL the planets fit? - HarryAlffa ( talk) 20:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Two further disputes regarding the lead:
I believe the first option reads better. I have refrained from reverting pending the thoughts of others. —Alex ( ASHill | talk | contribs) 13:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Ashill, it sounds like, from your use of the word Saga, that you are levelling some criticism at me for raising any questions?
1. The solar wind fluctuates, therefore "steady flow" is simply incorrect. Ashil, get a dictionary, if your not sure about the application of a word, don't try to use the fact of your ignorance as an argument. Incessant can be applied this way. You have said both that "the solar wind is NOT constant in intensity/velocity", AND that it is "steady! Do you actually read what you write? Arterial blood flows "essentially continuously", but it is NOT steady (it is pulsatile). The solar wind is continuous, incessant you might say, but it cannot be described as steady.
As I said on my edit note, I was trying to capture the dynamism (look it up) and the high speed of the solar wind, "steady flow" might describe pus seeping from a wound, but it is far to tame to describe a 400 km/s - 750 km/s storm of protons and electrons at temperatures of thousands of Kelvin. Incessant hail is much more dynamic.
2. Sod, you're territorial. Your "first" sentence is actually a rewrite of my "original" sentence - solving the problem of the bullet list misleading novices - which I pointed out and was met with resistance from you, but no logic.
Sod, on the dwarf planet sentence you've gone from insisting on a bullet list, to embedding the names in parenthesis in the middle of a sentence, plus you've introduced a higher level of maintainance by enumerating the dwarfs in two places.
My original solution to a problem only I spotted is easier to maintain as it enumerates the dwarfs once, and I think wiki convention allows my version precedence when it comes to matters of taste. My version is easier for the novice to absorb, it is closer to a bullet list than your re-write of my solution. Even going down to "in order from the Sun", yours mixes them all up, mine doesn't. - HarryAlffa ( talk) 18:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- HarryAlffa ( talk) 19:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The description of the definitions of the terms planet, dwarf planet, and small Solar System body was deleted from Solar System#Terminology. I restored it because that terminology is used extensively in the rest of the article and really ought to be explained in some detail on the Solar System page itself, rather than consigned exclusively to sub-pages. —Alex ( ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The description of the definitions of the term ice was deleted from Solar System#Terminology. I restored it because that terminology is used extensively in the rest of the article and really ought to be explained in some detail on the Solar System page itself, rather than consigned exclusively to sub-pages. - HarryAlffa ( talk) 19:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you see that the reasons you have given for restoring the description of the definitions of the terms planet, dwarf planet, and small Solar System body, must also result in restoring the "ice" section. Even Sod edited this section to improve it.
There are numerous references to "ice" & "icy" throughout the article (I searched), such a common word (intrinsically bound to water on Earth) MUST be explicitly explained for it's astronomical use. There is just no escaping this logic no matter what your emotional response is.
If the Terminology section is to focus exclusively on planet-related terms, then it must be renamed. But this is why I suggested earlier (where I answered your points there) that some sub-sectioning is required. And are you saying that ice is not a planet related term, but light-year is? That is the implication of what you are saying. - HarryAlffa ( talk) 20:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Having not been contradicted, in the wikialerts, in my count of active editors of the Ice paragraph - I'm restoring it. I make it two active talkers to one in favour of having some sort of version on Ice. - HarryAlffa ( talk) 12:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Have started a new Rock, ice and gas section below. - HarryAlffa ( talk) 17:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I think this combined heading, rather than separate headings, is fine. To help the readers eye maybe some bold 'pick-outs' of the three terms, and start each of their respective paragraphs with those terms?
- HarryAlffa ( talk) 18:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The lead reads pretty well right now, and most of HarryAlffa's initial points seem to have been addressed. Two brief comments:
My objection to the word "bubble" is overruled; it seems that it is official terminology. I will put in a link to stellar wind bubble. But it's the solar wind, not the bubble, that permeates the solar system. How about: "A flow of charged particles from the Sun (the solar wind) permeates the Solar System. This creates a bubble in the interstellar medium known as the heliosphere, which terminates at the heliopause, near the scattered disc." Feyrauth ( talk) 06:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I think there has to be a certain subtlety to describing the interaction between the stellar wind and the interstellar medium, while "using" the heliosphere and heliopause. I think what should be kept in mind is;
This is why I changed "...the heliosphere, which is separated from the interstellar medium by the heliopause located around the outer edge of the scattered disc"
Of course there is a separation between the heliosphere and the interstellar medium, or else they wouldn't have separate names! But we have to be careful to leave no room for doubt that the heliopause is not actually separate from the heliosphere. It is an integral part of it. The 'helio' part of the names will indicate they are related, but care has to be taken so it reads like they are parts of the same thing, if possible - I haven't come up with a way of making this explicit AND short enough for the opening paragraphs. But I hope I've done enough to rule out the reader mis-reading the intended meaning.
The "bubble" is dynamic. It depends on the interaction of the solar wind on the interstellar medium. The heliopause does not have a "location" like a planet. The heliopause's current location MUST be continually changing (even if not by much) with the fluctuation of the solar wind.
The location therefore must be described in "vague" terms, or at least non-precise terms, unless we want to try to include the information I've put in the parqagraph above. - HarryAlffa ( talk) 17:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
"used regardless of the state the substance" is a little inaccurate I think. It's really the three 'classical' states of solid, liquid or gas we are talking about here. Can you think of a pithy way of putting this? - HarryAlffa ( talk) 17:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
"Planetary scientist & astronomers use ...", I wonder if we are tripping over ourselves needlessly trying to say who uses the terms (both obviously). Is the context of the solar system enough, without listing professions? "Planetary scientists, astronomers etc use ...", would be accurate, but ... - HarryAlffa ( talk) 18:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Gas Giants & Ice Giants. I think we should avoid trying to explain what these are here, the Mid Solar System section of the article does that. - HarryAlffa ( talk) 18:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Of ices, "... although they are still usually extremely cold", 'usually' is not perhaps very accurate. Maybe in the mid solar system on the surface of rocky bodies, but what about deep inside Uranus or Neptune? Ok, that's only two places, so maybe 'usually' is Ok? - HarryAlffa ( talk) 18:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Ckatz did not have any evidence of concensus when he made this edit
The version he obliterated was a merging of what I had done on Ice plus what Serendipodus had done on Rock and Gas.
At that time the talk page had only my four questioning points about the resulting merge. So any talk about consensus is blatantly false. It was one on one, and the other one wanted to delete the entry entirely.
Ckatz and Ashill's rv was emotionally motivated, not logically.
I revised what Sorendipodus said;
It is now obvious that "depending on boiling points" is very far from false! Quite the contrary!
I said;
Common sense and general knowledge is enough to understand industrial processes are required to make dry ice, or liquefy methane!
I can only shake my head in pity at Ashill 'not liking the wording' of "intrinsically bound". That was a sentence with beauty and truth. Only a philistine would fail to appreciate it. - HarryAlffa ( talk) 13:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
From a purely semantic standpoint, your addition, aside from being unsourced, was vague and unnecessarily absolutist. "Intrinsically bound" in what sense? Linguistically? Psychologically? Physically? Also, there is nothing "intrinsic" about linking the word "ice" only to water. Just because the wider usage of ice is not common, doesn't mean that it is only used by planetary scientists. To prove that the term ice is "intrinsically bound" to frozen water by the general public would require showing that absolutely no one outside the scientific community employs the term in its broader sense, which is impossible. "Beauty" and "truth" are irrelevant; we are writing an encyclopedia here, not poetry. Accuracy is required over metaphor. The "industrial processes" comment is also irrelevant. Suffice to say that these substances only freeze at very cold temperatures. Serendi pod ous 14:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
A recent edit removed the word "known" from the statement that "the Sun ... contains 99.86 percent of the system's known mass". Can anyone explain how it is known that there's no extra mass lying undiscovered out there orbiting the Sun? I don't see how we can possibly rule out, say, an enormously massive Oort Cloud, spherically symmetric about the sun, composed of massive black holes. The referenced paper is a dead link, so if we can't find some explanation for this, I think we should put the word "known" back in there. -- Doradus ( talk) 14:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that image works well in heliosphere, because it shows the various components of the heliopause in detail, but I don't think it works well in a general article about the Solar System because, for some odd reason, Mercury and Venus aren't in it. Serendi pod ous 06:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Right now, I think "Heliopause" is the correct title for that section, since it is the boundary between the Solar wind and the interstellar medium. I don't like the idea of merging the interplanetary medium into heliopause, because that would mean dismantling the "farthest regions" section, and I think the section's lead paragraph, with its discussion of what constitutes the boundary of the Solar System, is rather important. Serendi pod ous 19:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi all — having had my attention brought here by a post on wp:ani, I've looked over the back and forth here, and it seems to me that there is a possibility of smoothing things out by informal mediation. I would be willing to give it a shot, if all parties agree — in particular, HaffyAlffa would need to agree. Here are some relevant factors:
What do you think? Looie496 ( talk) 20:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
8. See No 5. - HarryAlffa ( talk) 11:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)