Talk:Kuiper belt/Archive 2

message: In the introduction's second paragraph, the first line reads a bit weird: "Since the belt was discovered in 1992,[6] the number of known Kuiper belt objects (KBOs) has increased to over a thousand, and more than 100,000 KBOs over 100 km (62 mi) in diameter are believed to exist.[7]" If the number of large objects are over 100,000, then of course the total number of objects are over 1,000: that seems uninformative. I have no idea what the correct numbers are though, just wanted to point it out.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CBoeckle (talk • contribs) 15:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Known objects in the Kuiper belt beyond the orbit of Neptune (data from the Minor Planet Center).
{| style="width: 100%; font-size: 1.1em; margin: -4px 0 -10px 0;"	
	
	
Known objects in the Kuiper belt beyond the orbit of Neptune
{| style="width: 100%; font-size: 1.05em; margin: -4px 0;"	
	
There has been a lot of talk about the lead image recently.
; Comparison
Here are two alternative versions (left) compared to the current version (right).
; Suggestion
With all due respect to the effort previously invested, but the current lead image seems not very instructive to the general reader. I'd rather see it replaced by one of the alternatives. Since I don't want to complicate things too much I post them here and leave the article unchanged. Cheers, -- Rfassbind -talk  18:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If I read this right, this is just the same plot but with the outermost objects cropped off.  WilyD 11:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

text: The image on the top left is only slightly better Tetra quark (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

text: In any event "this is better" without any indication of why one thinks it's better is not very helpful. WilyD 12:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi WilyD, what's your opinion? As you surely have noticed the differences are not just limited to cropping your image. BR, -- Rfassbind -talk  15:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I see, they're just crops.  Are the brightnesses fiddled with or something?  Since there are no KBOs beyond 60 au, I suppose plotting all the scattered disk objects ain't necessary, since we treated SDOs as not KBOs for weird historical reasons that I won't rant much about.  Normally I wouldn't be caught dead making a plot without axes.  WilyD 15:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My first suggestion uses the same image currently used in the article, i.e. the version you uploaded on Dec 23, 2014 to wikipedia. Yes, scales and units are understandably a must-have for a professional, but since it is a WP:LEADIMAGE that accompanies the lead and also features a text in the caption, the lack of any plotted axis might be generously overlooked, I hope. BR, -- Rfassbind -talk  15:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I see that it's the same image (and the other one is a crop o' the image I made a'for).  I mean, I'll make whatever image, but if it's just a crop that's wanted, or a brightness complaint, or that making it big enough to include the Scattered Disk is unnecessary (but keep the axes), or ? is necessary to understand to do it.  I try not to care, because I get irritated with all the errors that come out of the literature into the article, so I'm happy enough to do whatever.  WilyD 16:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

text: It's because it is more zoomed in, showing only what interests. The legend is not a plus because it could be on the current image as well Tetra quark (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, exactly (if I may reply without being addressed) the image is not only cropped, it is also enlarged as if the original were 500px wide. As for the legend, there are certainly many other possible alternatives. However, the current version doesn't have a legend, my suggestion does, so I consider that an improvement. Don't you? Cheers, -- Rfassbind -talk  16:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Well, I have a script, so if it's just re-plotting the same data in a slightly different fashion, it ain't hard.  Note that the orbital elements are from MPC for multi-opposition objects, but CFEPS for single opposition objects, plus CFEPS & a bunch of other sources (listed in the desc.) are used to identify resonant objects. WilyD 17:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, very well Wily. I'll post this provisional version on the article's lead and hope to get some feedback to the open questions. Would it be correct to use a date in the caption, for example, "Known objects in the Kuiper belt [...] as of 2015"? -- Rfassbind -talk  02:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, something like "Known Kuiper belt objects (or object positions?) as of 1st January 2015" would be correct, and gloss over unnecessary details, I think (which're on the image desc. page, for the truly curious). WilyD 09:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I just uploaded the most recent image to wikimedia commons under your authorship and given license. See: . Did I get most of it right? Cheers, Rfassbind -talk  13:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Caption there should probably include colours for resonance objects, Uranian Trojan, Centaurs, even if it's not necessarily necessary here. WilyD 14:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the lead image - suggestions 

message: You'll notice that in the graph of KBOs, in the lead section of the article, that the objects in it are not uniformly spread out. about 90 degrees ahead of(above) Neptune is a clump of bodies, and a smaller clump at neptune's location, followed by a sparsity of asteroids, and then another radial clump. At the approximate opposite side of the Sun from Neptune, there is also a slight decline in the amount of asteroids there. What is the cause of these observed values? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  clumps in KBO graph?