Template talk:Solar System/Archive 1

message: Hi, Timwi. We had a discussion over in Talk:Solar system about the footer for the solar system articles. I've put the consensus footer into this msg page. I'm happy to discuss further what the footer should be. Can we talk about it before updating? Thanks! -- hike395 05:56, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, what he said. :) And I don't think it's a good idea to have two separate MediaWiki pages to do the exact same thing, so I'm going to delete MediaWiki:Solar system for now since this is the one that's linked everywhere. Bryan 07:55, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: I find the font "smaller" to be annoyingly small. I've attempted a compromise, which is 90%. --- hike395 14:46, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Font Size 

message: I've changed Asteroid to Asteroid belt cuz from where it is in the template, it implies that asteroid is only between Mars & Jupiter. Also, the list being in order from Sun out, one would assume it should be about the belt, like the Kuiper belt & Oort cloud listed beyond Pluto. -- KTC 03:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asteroid => Asteroid belt 

message: Template:Solar System/test hasn't been edited since April 2004. Is it still needed, or can it be deleted. BlankVerse ∅ 12:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Solar System/test 

message: I have no expertise in this area, but I have noticed that Jupiter is missing from this template. Is there a reason for that? HJKeats 19:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jupiter 

message: My motivation is that I feel having two templates on each of the outer planets (one of the planet's moons, one for the entire solar system) looks messy. So, I devised an expanded version which combines them all.
Having seen the talk on this page, I was reluctant to dive in and make such a significant change, even though I always urge people to be bold. Feel free to edit the suggested layout below. Tompw 13:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Any other comments? Tompw 13:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The template is rather big, however, I think that it could be used on the main Solar System page, and the other smaller template on the rest.  --myselfalso 18:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Even though the template's big, it's very well organized. Maybe have it collapsable by section or by planet, and then show the moons on click? And you'd have to edit it with the upcoming vote and announcement. Tom Temprotran 01:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the template - but it would definitely need to be expandable. If you need help with that let me know and i will learn how to do it. I found this because I am considering how to do a template for the layers of the sun's influence, or the component parts of a stellar system. Meaning a good, simple table for Termination Shock, Heliosphere, Heliopause, Bow Shock, etc. I think a listing like that would be helpful, but i don't really know where to put it. Are these things something that might go well on the Solar System template, or should it more specifically be under Sun related articles? --Exodio 23:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed expansion of template... 

message: Next to Earth, the whole Moon thingy, should be removed--IAMTHETalkman 18:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Moon

message: I have a second idea for a less major expansion of the template.
[ edit ] The Solar System
Planets: Mercury - Venus - Earth - Mars -  Jupiter - Saturn - Uranus - Neptune - Pluto
Major subplanets: Moon - Ceres - Vesta - Ganymede - Europa - Titan - Quaoar - 2003 UB313 - Sedna
Other: Sun - Asteroid belt - Main-belt comets - Comet Halley - Kuiper belt - Scattered disc - Oort cloud
See also astronomical objects and the solar system's list of objects, sorted by radius or mass.*The moon is not a planet but a natural satellite in Astronomy rather than in the Ptolemaic system.
:Subplanet is a neologism, no? The Tom 05:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lesser expansion proposal

message: Should  really be in the list of planets? I don't recall that it has officially been accepted as one. Chaos syndrome 20:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right, I've removed it. 2003 UB313 says its status is currently undecided. Bryan 06:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should have a proposed template if 2003 UB313 were designated as a planet.  Also we should have one if Pluto is determined NOT to be a planet.  --myselfalso 18:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To clear things up- 2003UB313, Charon, and Ceres are still not as of yet considered planets. However, if the motion is passed,then we will have the aforementioned as Planets. I'm protecting the template from being edited until this 12 planet system debate is over. If you disagree, feel free to put comments here.The pointer outer 21:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If and when the proposal does pass, I'd suggest putting a Major Planets section (naturally excluding Pluto and its new compatriots), and another list for Minor Planets which would list the four decided on and allow room for more as they're approved. Thoughts? Radagast 22:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now, I've got a section for the three new planets under consideration, with a link to 2006 redefinition of planet. This seems to make both sides happy. - Kookykman|(t)e 23:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2003 UB313 

message: The Xena nickname is largely avoided whenever possible on the article itself, will never be applied to the object, and hasn't been uttered by Brown in recent interviews at all.  It does not belong on this template. The Tom 21:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The nickname should not be used. It is completely unofficial, and every article I have seen recently regarding the dwarf planet call it UB313. I feel we should not propagate a common use name that every official source says is in fact an unofficial name. --Exodio 22:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also should not be used for the reason that nicknames are not unique - another article cites the nickname "Rupert" (in tribute to Douglas Adams). Philip Legge @ 01:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Xena" nickname 

message: Surely the Sun should get a more noticeable place given that it is the centre of the solar system, and gives us life and all? --Midnighttonight Procrastinating on uni work... 22:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and think there should be something like this. --Exodio 23:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the last version very much (the one with three images). —Nightstallion (?) 13:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the version with the sun bar, but I think I prefer only one planetary bar. --Exodio 13:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Three tiers looks cool, but may be too much. The triple dash in between is silly (IMHO), but a full horizontal line might work. Mdotley 15:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the second version.  --myselfalso 20:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am in favor of it, except for one part- the dwarf planet part. Since Dwarf Planets are under the classification of TNOs (Trans-Neptunian Objects) They should be excluded from the template. Either that, or list all of the TNOs (Which is a very large list) I would think the more practical way is to entierly exclude Pluto from this. Don't get me wrong, I like Pluto too, but you have to be fair to all...The pointer outer 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dwarf planet isn't a subset of TNO, but an intersecting set; at least one DP isn't a TNO (1 Ceres) and most TNOs, of course, aren't DPs. RandomCritic 20:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ceres isn't a TNO. And I think the extra planet bar makes it too busy overall. Maybe just a "---"? --Exodio 21:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: as stated above im quite happy with Exidio's :) Nbound 00:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: So what's the process for actually trying out the new one? Do we just do it, and see if anyone screams, or do we put it to a vote somewhere and let other people make their opinions known? --Exodio 01:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah we just test and see if anyone screams AFAIK :).. ill put yours up now Nbound 01:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Apparently Cyde has a problem with the inclusion of the Sun line. His edit says "A template on the entire solar system shouldn't have a whole row of stuff just about the Sun.". While I agree with the statement, I disagree with the idea that the Solar Wind, Heliosphere, etc are part of the Sun. They are part of the Solar System as a bubble within the Insterstellar Medium. They are not objects in orbit around the Sun, however. So perhaps some further discussion is needed regarding what the exact purpose of the Solar System Footer is to be used for, and what exact types of articles the footer will be used on. If it is to be used only on articles that have to do with Astronomical Objects, that is fine by me, we can create another box for use on the non-object components of the Solar System. But if the aim is to use the least number of boxes on the most articles, then I think we should include the discrete parts of the Solar System including non-objects. Thoughts? --Exodio 17:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Think of it as an exercise in frugality, then. By incorporating the different zones of the Solar System, that adds a whole class of articles that the footer can be used on. Each portion of the Sun's line is a discrete part of the solar system. And your composer analogy is not valid - Beethoven is not the Sun. The template name is "Solar System", which the center of, the whole reason it exists, is the Sun. I don't think its bad form to give the Sun its own line, since that is the reason for the template in the first place. Maybe this should be put to a vote to encourage further debate? --Exodio 00:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with a vote if the issue cant be resolved. Cyde, using ur beethoven analogy, imagine beethoven as a planet... classical music would be the sun :) Nbound 01:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sun (and other image inclusions) 

message: Im putting the Sun issue to a vote (if thats ok with everyone), basically whether the sun deserves its own picture and line rather than its current location (the other line), reasons for and against are in the above discussion (any more reasons should also be added there)Nbound 23:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nbound beat me to adding the options. --Exodio 02:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote FOR or AGAINST inclusion of expanded Sun line

message: The reinsertion of "(classical)" to "planet" makes better etymological and linguistic sense than the IAU redefinition of the term "planet" and creation of the term "dwarf planet" did.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 01:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also took the liberty of qualifying the term "dwarf planets" as "Famous" dwarf planets, because those are now more widely known than the others.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 01:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no others "Famous" should be removed, also Classical planet was specifically voted against by the IAU it should also be removed Nbound 01:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If the dwarf planet list ever becomes too long... then perhaps "notable dwarf planets" would be a better option as well Nbound 01:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't like it.  First of all, the IAU explicitly rejected the label "classical", and while I don't assign the IAU an absolute right to govern what categories Wikipedia uses, the fact is that the current design is (mostly) based on the IAU's recent vote.  Second, the DPs in question aren't "famous" -- very few people have heard of 2003 UB313, I'm sure.  They are, however, the only objects at this point that have been labeled DPs.  Others may be added but that is in the future.  At present, these are all of the DPs.  I strongly recommend returning to the earlier format.RandomCritic 01:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ive removed the insertions :) Nbound 01:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are all of the officially recognized DPs; however, the entire reason for coining the term DP was the existence of numerous similar worlds out in the Kuiper Belt. (Note: I do not agree with the vote against making a qualifier to the word "planet" because, linguistically, it's a bad idea. "Dwarf", in my understanding, does not mean vice or semi-, it means small. Therefore, a "dwarf planet" is a small planet. And here comes the IAU, saying that small planets aren't planets! What are those scientists smoking? —  Rickyrab | Talk 21:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreover, the footer (or the article) does not have to follow the IAU definition or the IAU classification. It is not necessary to adhere to how experts define things in order to present knowledge.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 21:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They arent bad insertions, but "classical" was specifically voted against by the IAU, anyone who has been following the news knows this, the 8 planets listed are defined as "planets" not big planets, large planets, classical planets, etc. The insertion of "Famous" to the dwarf planets was kinda pointless because as u state they are the only currently recognized dwarf planets. It seems you have qualms with the IAU's new definitions (or im reading ur posts wrong), but in a public encyclopedia, information presented should be whats recognized by the major bodies in the field, in this case the IAU. on the articles involving the redefinition, it goes into detail about any disagreements, but that is where they should stay, at most id agree with a link to the planet redefinition article, but unless youve been living under a rock, the public is aware of the IAU decision Nbound 22:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reinsertion of "Classical"

message: eu:Txantiloi:Eguzki sistema aurkibidea
mk:Шаблон:Сончев систем
nn:Mal:Solsystem
:Done.--HereToHelp 02:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No include

message: No offense, but that green with yellow look s really bad. Any ideas on changing it? Either the old sun yellow, or maybe a bluish-purplish-black to match space itself?--HereToHelp 02:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Weird: in Firefox it looks fine but in Safari it's green with a yellow border.--HereToHelp 14:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Crazy, perhaps it goes that colour in Safari as a visited link? Nbound 20:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The green thing was because the background colour for Template:Tnavbar-header wasn't given it should... the last bit needs to be "bgcolor=#ffff11" (note six-digit hexadecimal) rather than "background:#FF1". This is the second time I've fixed this error. Tompw 17:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I've also corrected all the various proposed revisions, to make sure the error doesn't get copied across again. 17:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Header color

message: I noticed that in the image, the rings of Jupiter are highly inclined like those of Saturn.  This is inaccurate as Jupiter's axial eccentricity is quite low.  I think the rings should be shown more horizontal in the image (Image:Eight Planets.png ).  Most iconic images of Jupiter (that show its rings), show them nearly horizontal.   --Britcom 08:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither does yours. ;) --Britcom 16:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Header image (Jupiter's rings)