Talk:Solar System/Archive 2

message: I have created an article on the formation of the solar system.  This article makes reference to some farily recent but also very exciting research that is changing the view of how the solar system formed. --EMS | Talk 04:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a thought; your article and the origin section on the Solar system section are not that different. Perhaps it would be more efficient to simply rewrite the origins section to include Theia? Serendipodous 08:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  At the moment they are not too different.  (However, six weeks ago when I started to draft it the 2:1 Jupiter-Saturn resonance was not mentioned here.)  But do note that I very much intend for the article to grow.  There is a lot of stuff that an individual artice can cover that a simple section cannot.  I will create a to-do list for it ASAP. --EMS | Talk 02:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Formation of the solar system]] 

message: While I do not think this article is anywhere near worthy of Featured status, I believe it may still qualify for Good status. I would also appreciate as much help as possible in improving its quality. Serendipodous 22:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article nomination

message: Can anyone find a free-to-use image of a Vulcanoid, Nemesis, or Planet X? I can't seem to find anything in the public domain. Thanks.Serendipodous 21:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a few "Planet X" images in NASA's site.  NASA is a U.S. government agency and does not claim copyright over its works, so they can be used (with proper attribution, of course). Include "site:nasa.gov" in your Google image search. --69.109.225.223 20:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! That Google advice was really really useful! Unfortunately, the only NASA image that even remotely resembles Planet X is a picture of a KBO with the words "Planet X" stamped on it. :) Not much to work with. Serendipodous 09:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image for "Hypothetical planets"

message: From lead section: "a main sequence G2 star that contains 99.86% of the system's known mass and dominates it gravitationally." Is there a reference for this figure?  -- Run!  00:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: reference added Serendipodous 10:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference wanted 

message: Space.com solar system page added as new external link.  Includes recent stories, but also collective galleries on aspects of the solar system and some original video clips derived from their Starry Night software and dvds. Also includes a virtual space tour.Starexplorer 13:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link Added 

message: This article does a good job of explaining technical material. Maurreen 07:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose I can say thank you to that, even though I didn't write all of this article :-). I have been working flat out to improve it, and it's nice to know that it seems to be working. Serendipodous 08:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. Maurreen 16:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good work

message: Poll: Should extrasolar planets be mentioned in this article?
This article is very long, and extrasolar planets and planetary systems are only tangentally related to the topic. However, they do have some relevance to it. Is that relevance strong enough to warrant an additional few paragraphs when simply providing a link to extrasolar planet would arguably suffice? Serendipodous 20:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was tempted to remove that myself at one point. I think a link to extrasolar planets in the see also section would suffice. — RJH (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I need to settle this

message: Any thoughts?Serendipodous 20:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might look at FA criteria. At the moment if doesn't meet the stability criteria due to the large number of edits, so it might need to lie fallow for some period of time. You might also look at the Manual of Style to see if this article is fully compliant. After that, I'd just go for it. FA can be a humbling experience, but you'll probably get good feedback and have a chance to fix the problems. Plus you can always take it back again after it's fixed up. — RJH (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What would it take to get this article up to feature quality?

message: I'm in the middle of reviewing this article for Good Article status, but won't be able to finish until probably sometime tomorrow.  One comment can make at this point is that the footnote positioning is frequently incorrect.  The ref tag should come directly after the punctuation which terminates the associated clause (or, in English: the footnote should be right after the comma or period with no space in between).  I'll give you some more specific and detailed comments with my promotion decision tomorrow. --jwandersTalk 21:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A question just of interest, is there really such rule? Because I've been told to use space before ref tag (not like this[1] but like this [1]); in real life, not in Wikipedia.--JyriL talk 22:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, see Wikipedia:Footnotes#Place_ref_tag_after_punctuation. Apparently that's what the Chicago MoS recommends and what WP decided to emmulate, but it might well not be universal. --jwandersTalk 22:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article Review 

message: I have no idea which of the external links are "approved" sites and which aren't. Obviously the NASA sites are kosher, but while I do like SolStation and Celestia, but I have no idea if they have any more "right" to be here than the other solar system sites that get linked to this page. What is linkspam and what isn't? Serendipodous 21:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not familiar with SolStation (will have to check it out), but I'd say Celestia is a good choice as it is an excellent tool for learning about the solar system. --Ckatzchatspy 18:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Linkspam issue

message: The number of planets may need to be expanded to twelve following the news that the International Astronomical Union has recommended to its members that Charon, Xena and Ceres be ratified as new planets.  The new definition states that a planet is any star-orbiting object so large that its own gravity pulls in its rough edges, producing a near-perfect sphere.
210.185.71.34 06:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno. I wanna wait until the final vote; this proposal seems completely arbitrary and doesn't make any sense at all. Serendipodous 06:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, the proposal makes perfect sense. For millenia we haven't had a clear definition of what exacly defines a planet. This new proposal, agreed upon unanimously by a special committee of the IAU, will set clear standards for what is and is not a planet. See the articles planet and definition of planet for more information on that. And if you can get ahold of the August 16th Chicago Tribune article on the subject, I highly recommend it; it's an excellent piece that clearly lays the facts and reasonings behind what's going on. That said, I think we must hold off saying that the Solar System is 12 planets until the official vote scheduled for August 24th. After that, this article will need some serious updating. --TiroAethra 15:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposal itself makes sense, even if it is a bit messy, but there's no reason to link this proposal with this random number "12 planets." If this proposal is accepted, there would be about 30 planets, not 12. Why everyone's jumping on 12, I have no idea. Serendipodous 17:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that the proposal was accompanied with the formal suggestion that Ceres, Charon and Xena be immediately prompted to planets while decision on any other objects be delayed for additional discussion.  Hence accepting the proposal could immediately create a 12 planet system with more to come.  Dragons flight 17:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twelve Planets 

message: The solar system has currently nine known planets. Anything else is speculation until August 24th, and should be treated as such. So no more may become planets, please.--JyriL talk 17:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, it is not a crystal ball. However, that doesn't prevent factual statements like "The IAU are currently considering whether to classify additional objects as planets" or such like. AndrewRT - Talk 19:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct.  However, "has twelve planets" is not factual.  It is guessing.Eh Nonymous 19:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball|Wikipedia is not a crystal ball]]

message: What do you think about having a template on the Solar System? I'll make a start on what I mean: :Template:Objects of the Solar system AndrewRT - Talk 20:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: The template at top suggests it's failed its current FA application, but the FA page doesn't look like the nomination's closed? 4 days seems to be an awfully short FA nomination period, although I guess it was pretty clear which way it was leaning. Anchoress 05:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never really intended this article for feature consideration. I simply wanted some advice on what needed to be done to make it feature quality. I've answered most of their issues but it'll be a long time before I resubmit it. Serendipodous 06:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I gathered that from the FA nomination page. But it still leaves dangling a) whether or not the article should have a 'failed FA' template, and b) whether or not the FA nomination is officially closed. Anchoress 06:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA Status? 

message: The section on Pluto and Charon states: "Like the Earth/Moon, Pluto and Charon are often considered a double planet, since both orbit a common barycenter between the two bodies.".
But the article Double planet states that Earth and moon are not a double planet since the barycenter lies within the more massive planet; Earth in this case.(2006 redefinition of planet and Double_planet#Debate)
I don't think this a subject of debate because of the literally defined criterion of the barycenter.
--Alif 11:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current proposal by the IAU for a definition of 'planet' suggests that we call a system a 'double planet' if its barycentre is outside both bodies. However, this is only a proposal. The term 'double planet' has been used casually for years to simply mean 'a planet with a big moon', or to refer to objects orbiting a barycentre regardless of whether it is outside the main body. There needs to be a distinction made between the casual use of the term, and this new, more specific proposal. The Singing Badger 11:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I use the term "double planet" to describe Earth/Moon because the Moon's orbit around the Sun is concave; it effectively orbits the Sun directly. Serendipodous 17:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earth and Moon: A double planet? 

message: Are there any extrasolar systems with as many or more planets than our system? From I've seen, most systems consist of 2-3 gas giants and maybe a small rocky one.
--Nog64 17:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There very well could be, but we can't find them yet. Our sensors are currently detecting the mid-to-large range. To get to see the smaller rocky ones we'd need the TPF or Darwin or some other humongous next generation telescope. We might start finding those mega-systems in the future. Serendipodous 17:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of curiosity 

message: Formerly included in the list of planets was Pluto (♇). Numerous articles also state that Ceres was classified as a planet (see comment in preceeding discussion). If Pluto is going to be specially referenced, why not Ceres which spent years on the planet list? Just curious. Zurel Darrillian 15:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former Planet Comment 

message: Come on! This is Wikipedia! Are you telling me that we can't even get a scale picture of the Solar System? I, for one, am disgusted...
:I guess you don't realize what a scale picture of the solar system would look like. Picture a yellow circle about a centimeter in diameter (for the Sun) and then a black expanse extending about 100 feet past the edge of your monitor. The gas giants would each be about 1 pixel. Earth would not be visible. Kaldari 23:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For those having trouble visualising the scale of things in space, these images may help . It doesn't show the size of the solar system however... These images incidently have been shrunk. I received them by e-mail a while back and they're larger so somewhere along the line someone shrunk them. I don't know the source of the images but you could probably find better versions if you search harder Nil Einne 15:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not to scale? 

message: This article defines the solar system as "eight planets and their 162 known moons, as well as dwarf planets, asteroids, meteoroids, planetoids, comets, and interplanetary dust". This omits the 80(?) moons orbiting dwarf planets and small solar system bodies. Please see the natural satellite article which states that there are "240 known moons within the Solar system". Kaldari 23:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence is, "eight planets and their 162 currently known moons."   KBOs and asteroids aren't planets. Ergo their moons wouldn't be listed.  Serendipodous 19:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not arguing about that. I'm saying that according to the sentence, the moons of asteriods and KBOs are not included in the definition of the solar system! Kaldari 22:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't follow the IAU. Numerous astrologers don't follow the IAU. In all likelihood, hundreds of thousands of people all over the world don't follow the IAU. Therefore, I see nothing wrong in considering asteroids and KBOs to be planets.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 21:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of solar system not complete 

message: I've shifted this short section over to the talk page, because it's somewhat unclear as to where it belongs.
===Definition===
As of August 2006 the following rules must be passed for a celestial body to count as a planet in our solar system:
A planet is a celestial body that 
(a) is in orbit around the Sun
(b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape
(c) has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit.
----
First of all, the title is misleading; this article is about the solar system, not about planets, so "definition" would refer to the Solar system in this context, not to planets. 
That aside, the section was oddly placed and didn't really fit into the overall structure of the article. There are enough mentions of the IAU's decision in the article already without having to go into so much detail. Serendipodous 22:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Definition"

message: As of August 2006 the following rules must be passed for a celestial body to count as a planet in our solar system:
A planet is a celestial body that 
(a) is in orbit around the Sun
(b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape
(c) has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit.
----
First of all, the title is misleading; this article is about the solar system, not about planets, so "definition" would refer to the Solar system in this context, not to planets. 
That aside, the section was oddly placed and didn't really fit into the overall structure of the article. There are enough mentions of the IAU's decision in the article already without having to go into so much detail. Serendipodous 22:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: Why isn't "solar system" capitalized since it refers to the name of our stellar system, named for our star "Sol"?
:There was a long discussion about this years ago, and it was decided not to capitalise it. For further info, check the earlier discussion archive. Serendipodous 08:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can capitalize it. I see no reason why someone else's decision from years ago should apply to current Wikipedia.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 21:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In official nomenclature, as put out by the IAU, the words `Solar System' are, in fact, capitalised. Shouldn't we at wikipedia be adhering to the definition provided by the IAU - as for instance is done with defining other celestial objects. See this IAU Link http://www.iau.org/SPELLING_OF_NAMES.240.0.html jkm 09:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalize Solar System? 

message: CKatz and I have been engaged in a rather spririted discussion concerning his removal of the statement that the orbits of the planets are roughly double. I said that this was by and large true, as six of the solar system's ten known orbits are double; however he claims it is misleading. It is important to clarify that, at the very least, the distances between the planets are not linear; that they are not, as the picture at the top of the article suggests, the same distance apart. So how should it be phrased? Serendipodous 12:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, CKatz, it looks as if the only people who care about this are you and me. Guess we have something in common after all. Beer? Serendipodous 14:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey there... sorry I've been absent from this discussion for a bit. Thanks for getting a start on the revamp. As you'll see, I've built upon what you wrote. I've changed the Venus-Earth orbital distance example to Mercury-Venus, because Earth is one of the exceptions to the layout we're attempting to describe. The Mercury-Venus spacing is comparable in AU, so it still makes a good contrast to the other two examples. --Ckatzchatspy 06:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: layout of the solar system

message: Near the top, this article claims that Other units in common use include the gigametre (abbreviated as "Gm," one billion metres) and the terametre ("Tm", one trillion metres).  This sounds like science-fiction cruft.  Can someone provide references that demonstrate the usage is, as claimed, "common"?  None of the references I use mention them.  They all stop at kilometres, but prefer the AU.  mdf 15:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at the Wikipedia pages for some of the more distant planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune etc.) Their infoboxes all list their orbital circumfrences in Tm. And since when are standard scientific units "science fiction"? Serendipodous 17:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if we are allowed to cite Wikipedia for usage, then SI prefixes says that "At large scales, megametre, gigametre, and larger are rarely used. Often used are astronomical units, light years, and parsecs; the astronomical unit is mentioned in the SI standards as an accepted non-SI unit."  This reflects my experience, as I can't recall ever having seen "Gm" or "Tm" being used, let alone "commonly".  Megametre agrees re: usage, also commenting on the science-fiction connection (I've seen it in various works).  The actual standard is ISO 1000.  I don't want to pony up the $$$ to buy a copy, but those in the know state that it says that units larger than the kilometre are not in common use, contrary to the claim made in this artcile.  Maybe things have developed since 1992, hence my request for some references.  mdf 17:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok; I only put the information there in the first place because other Wiki articles used them and I felt they needed explaining. Serendipodous 07:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: units

message: I'd like to replace the current image (seen on the left here) with a new one (seen on the right).  I can tweak the color scheme, resize, etc, on request.   mdf 16:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your image looks nicer and is more informative but doesn't show up well at lo-res. You might want to change the colours of the trojans so that they appear on the same scale, because they're invisible now. Serendipodous 17:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tweaked to use larger dots for the asteroids, but the result is still less than ideal -- I've increased the size of the image to compensate a bit.  More details added to the text as well.  mdf 14:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Added the blue, and uploaded a label-less version (click on image).  mdf 20:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I did upload it and it was there.  But now it appears to have been deleted by entites and reasons unknown.  If anyone needs a copy, leave a note on my talk page.  mdf 20:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asteroids 

message: Pluto should not become a dwarf planet. its been descovered as a planet, so it should stay a planet.1;07 pm september 2 2006
:By that logic, we should call America India. Serendipodous 18:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ceres was also "discovered as a planet", but after additonal discoveries it became clear that a new designation of "asteroid" was required.  Similarly, for a long time Pluto was the only object in our solar system that was out there of its size, but with recent discoveries it has become apparent that if Pluto were a standard for defining a planet, we could end up with dozens of planets.  The IAU addressed this by demoting Pluto as a planet because it has more in common with all of the other "junk" floating out there than it does with the other eight planets. Science does not rest on tradition - we identify our observations until new observations either confirm our theories or disprove them. Scott Osborne 19:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The definition doesn't exclude Pluto because it's small; it excludes Pluto because it doesn't dominate its region by mass. If Pluto were circling out by itself, it would certainly be a planet, but it isn't. Serendipodous 18:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur - Mercury is very small (there are moons of Saturn that are larger than Mercury), but there really isn't anything else orbiting close to it - there aren't asteroids or other chunks of rock that are similar in size, making it a planet.  Pluto on the other hand, is apparently one of many similarly sized objects in the Kuiper Belt, at least one of which is larger, and so it is a dwarf planet. Scott Osborne 19:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mercury is more than twice as massive as any satellite of any planet, and larger in radius than all but Ganymede (Jupiter), and Titan (Saturn). I think it's probably worth pointing out that, when first discovered, Pluto was believed to be a lot larger, and much more massive than the current size and mass determinations. Originally, size estimates were comparable to the Earth. Telescopes were not good enough to resolve the disc of Pluto to directly measure its size, and the satellite Charon was not discovered until 1978 - so no mass estimates could be done accurately. Determination of the size could only be done by measuring its brightness and its distance from Earth and the Sun, and estimating based on how reflective the surface is. As it turns out, Pluto's surface is very reflective - similar to that of Venus, and many times more reflective than our Moon, and most asteroids. If you make an assumption of a low reflectivity, then you reach a conclusion of a larger radius. The discovery of Charon allowed the mass of Pluto to be measured, based on the distance, and orbital period, and then in the 1980s, Pluto and the Earth were aligned so that Charon was being occulted every orbit. This allowed direct measurements of the true radius of both objects. Anyway, enough rambling - but the point is that you make measurements and determinations of what you discover based on the available evidence, but if new evidence (smaller size and mass - other, perhaps larger objects discovered) comes to light, then you must be prepared to revise your understanding of the discovered object. Richard B 16:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pluto 

message: Somone tell me did the matter in the earth come from the same place as the matter in jupiter?
that would be a yes Eevo 18:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  matter 

message: Maybe its just me, but if you decide to edit the article, please, please make sure that when you are done there aren't any big ugly spaces between headings and the start of the text or pictures pushing the words into the center of the page - make sure it looks tidy, like an encyclopedia should.  It looks like this article is a candidate for good or featured status, and if the arrangement of the article looks sloppy, that idea is going to get shot down. Scott Osborne 02:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's difficult to plan for that sort of thing, because different computers will show the layout differently. I haven't noticed any big gaps on my computer screen. Ironically, your alterations have actually made the article harder to read for me. Serendipodous 07:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just tried a different formulation; how does that look? Serendipodous 20:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Layout of Photos & text in article

message: Chantelle2004 rewrote the last sentence of the "Layout" section as follows:
OLD TEXT: "Attempts have been made to determine a correlation between these distances (see Bode's Law, Rafie’s Law), but to date there is no accepted theory that explains the respective orbital distances."
NEW TEXT: "Unsucessful attempts have been made in the past to determine a correlation between these distances (see Bode's Law).  However a recent paper published in the Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions Journal (see Rafie’s Law), calculates the orbital distance as a function of the orbital number, the eccentricity and the inclination of the orbits."
I'm concerned about this reference to "Rafie's Law", and whether or not it is an appropriate addition to the article. I've done a bit of Googling this evening and I can't find any references to the term "Rafie's Law". Frank Rafie seems to trace back to Lake Washington Technical College in the state of Washington, USA. The reference source listed in the Rafie's Law article is listed for sale here, with the following description:
"...The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that the specific angular momentum (angular momentum per unit mass) of any planet in the Solar System can be expressed in terms of the specific angular momentum of the planet Mercury and, consequently, to prove that the semi-major axis of any planet, asteroid or comet can be expressed as a multiple of the semi-major axis of Mercury."
The paper is categorized as a research paper, and it was published in Astronomical & Astrophysical Transactions, described as "the Journal of the Eurasian Astronomical Society". The journal is described as "...a forum for the rapid publication of material from all modern and classical fields of astronomy and astrophysics, as well as material concerned with astronomical instrumentation and related fundamental sciences. It includes both theoretical and experimental original research papers, short communications, review papers and conference reports."
No slight intended against Chantelle2004, and my sincere apologies if there are any errors on my part. However, the editor's only edits to date are to write the article about the "law" and then insert statements in this article that (in my opinion) presents it as the "solution" to an old problem. Given PlanetCeres's recent attempts to spam information about the "New Bode Adjustment" (a revision of Bode's Law), I'd like to open this up for discussion before the text is returned to the article. (This may also be affected by discussion of Iamunknown's points above.) Thanks. --Ckatzchatspy 08:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rafie's Law" 

message: It's official. It's been officially listed by the Minor Planet Center. That's its name. What's the problem? 
EDIT: Hmm. I'm confused. Anyway. Seems like you changed it back. OK. No hard feelings. Serendipodous 03:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voortle, can you please explain why you are reverting Eris's name?

message: The text of the disambiguation header was changed to read "the solar system around the star Sol". I have changed this back, as I believe that this is incorrect, there being only one "solar" system - ours. As well, the text introduces a less common name for the Sun, without explanation. The original text is simple, concise, and easy to undertand. I think that a change akin to what Lord Patrick wants should be discussed first. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 02:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Badly written and tautological. There is no officially agreed generic term for "solar system", and until there is it's best ot avoid confusion. Serendipodous 02:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The disambiguation link at the top of the page 

message: why are we going around using "stellar system" as if we were some kind of authority? If Wikipedia doesn't set standards, why are we claiming that the solar system is a stellar system, when the dictionary definition for stellar system specifically excludes single stars? Serendipodous 07:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Talk:Star system, the case hasn't really been proven that usage of the term to refer to single(-)star systems like the Solar System is incorrect.  Until it is, IMO it is just as fallacious to indicate that there is no 'agreeable' term. Cogito ergo sumo 12:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not "agreeable." Agreed. There are plenty of agreeable generic terms for "solar system." I personally find the word "cerulean" very agreeable. Does that mean that I should insist that all solar systems be called "cerulean systems"? The terminology in this case has not been settled officially, and until it is we should not jump to conclusions regarding the choice astronomers will ultimately settle on. Serendipodous 14:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True (though use of 'cerulean' in this instance is a red herring and will be treated as such); I don't think we're jumping to conclusions, though, since usage by non-experts (particularly in science fiction) apparently differs.  In the interim, perhaps we merely need to edit the lead to replace 'stellar system' with either 'star system' or just 'system' (which then elaborates) -- if this is acceptable, I will edit to reflect the latter. Cogito ergo sumo 14:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: If there is no agreed generic term for "solar system"...

message: What is the age of the solar system?  I couldn't find it in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.63.248.235 (talk) 
It'd depend how you measured it... but using the age of the Sun would be good enough -- Nbound 10:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age of the Solar System 

message: This article doesn't need two solar system footers, surely? RandomCritic 15:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say pick whichever one you like best and go with it. Serendipodous 15:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As nobody presented any counter-arguments for five weeks, I decided to be bold; however, my boldness got instantly reverted. To be sure, I do understand the reverter's concerns. The table is not bad in itself, and it could probably be integrated into this article in some way to increase its overall informativity. What I (and certainly User:RandomCritic as well) oppose is its current location within the article, which screams "I am a navigation template!" That shouldn't be its role unless it's the one used in the planet articles as well. Two navigation templates for the same class of articles is just silly. -- Jao 13:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops... apologies, didn't see the discussion thread here. I thought it was just someone removing a template that has some interesting and useful information. (I like the expanded detail.) Feel free to revert me if you wish. --Ckatzchatspy 22:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footers 

message: I noticed that there are very few full scale models of the solar system that show the Sun in its entirety. I thought the following might prove useful:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar-system-attributed.png
Thangalin 13:56, 22 October 2006 (PST)
:would be difficult to work into the article. Serendipodous 10:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full Scale Model 

message: Before I resubmit this article for Good Article consideration, I think the formation section needs to be revised, expanded and referenced. Unfortunately I don't know enough about that topic to do it. Can anyone help? Serendipodous 10:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Formation

message: I've been considering ways to make this article smaller, and the best I can come up with is to either completely remove or radically shorten the "Discovery and Exploration" section, perhaps incorporating its information into Timeline of solar system astronomy and space exploration. A reviewing peer also suggested compressing the inner and outer planets sections into single paragraphs, mentioning but not explaining the planets, and allowing the links to do the work. What do you think? Serendipodous 20:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Trim "Discovery", yes, radically shorten/remove - not a good idea. Same with the "Planets" sections - they're pretty short as it is. The article should provide a broad overview of the Solar System, and there is a lot of stuff out there to cover. Nice work on cleanup, by the way. --Ckatzchatspy 20:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. :) It seems like I've been working on this article for ever (It's been a year; I checked). I still hope to get it a Good Article gong. I think a Feature may be out of reach; the topic is simply too broad. Anyhoo, thanks for all your help; I really do appreciate it. Serendipodous 00:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: When I was reviewing this article, I felt like I needed to ask myself at every sentence "how does this relate to the Solar System as a whole?"  As I did that, many of the descriptions of planets an their indidual features felt kinda extraneous.  I realize that a short description of every planet illustrates the diversity of surfaces found in our solar system, but what do sentences like "[Mercury] has no natural satellite, and its only known geological features besides impact craters are "wrinkle ridges" probably produced by a period of contraction early in its history." relate to the Solar System?  If it had volcanic constructs would it tell us something different about the main topic?  Many of the planetary sections came across as a miniature review of the solar system's components rather than about the Solar System itself.--Will.i.am 03:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As for "Discovery", I like that section and agree with Ckatz about trimming, but not deleting.  "How we know about the Solar System" is important to "What we know". Although, I might remove the Phoenix image, because it's a point-source instrument package designed to study just one spot on Mars, which again doesn't seem relevant to the solar system as a whole.  How about a image of Voyager instead?--Will.i.am 03:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to relate the inner planets to each other as the inner planets: Mercury's lack of internal geological activity makes it the freak of the set, while Earth, which is the only inner planet to have multi-plate tectonics, is the most "archetypal". My original drafting contained some value-judgement language, but that was rightly criticised as personal opinion, rather than fact. I'm not all that certain how to relate the terrestrials to the Solar System as a whole, other than to mention that many of the moons of the outer planets also possess terrestrial features. Serendipodous 05:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trimming

message: the section on galactic content talks about animal life as if 'animal life' is generic across the galixy as opposed to 'animal life' meaning belonging to the animal kingdom specific to Earth.  I think the term 'animal life' should be changed to something like 'life' or 'biological life' or 'astrobiological life'... well something more generic anyway (outside of earth). -- anonymous coward —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.206.36 (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point; that is a rather cumbersome phrase. Switched it to something simpler. Serendipodous 16:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  animal life? 

message: This article has a problem, and one that I've been trying different ways to address, in that the Formation section mentions the Solar wind, but that term isn't explained until the Sun section. The problem is that in order to shift it to its proper place it would have to go after "Farthest regions" or "galactic context" and I think it really belongs near the beginning. What do you think? Serendipodous 00:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if it is really a problem, given that the term is linked to the "solar wind" article. However, you could try putting "Formation" ahead of "Layout". That should still flow well. --Ckatzchatspy 00:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tried that out, but I don't think formation works there; I think the article works better explaining what the Solar System is before explaining how it formed. Serendipodous 00:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Formation

message: This article is almost complete (or at least as complete as I can make it); the only major hole is the lack of two citations in the Formation section. The uncited information is too important to delete; however, I have not been able to locate any citations, scholarly or otherwise, which either support or refute the information presented, and believe me, I have looked. I would appreciate it if someone with better knowledge of the research tools in this field could fill that hole. Thank you. Serendipodous 17:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this was harder than I was expecting.  I think the first citation needed (100 AU for the size of the uncollapsed solar nebula, if I'm reading that right) is incorrect.  Pluto is already at ~40 AU and some comets apparantly have orbits greater than 50,000 AU , so I had a hard time imagining that the primordial solar nebula would be that small. Then I found a reference here that puts the diameter  between 1 and 3 x 1017 cm (depending on if you believe this article or its predecessors).  Doing the math ends us up at a number between 10,000 and 20,000 AU. Hope this helps with that first one!--Will.i.am 12:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! That did indeed help, though it's a shame it didn't mention mass. Weird factoid; all the pages I can find Googling "mass of the solar nebula" give a figure less than the mass of the Sun, which would seem to be impossible. Perhaps they mean additional mass? Since we're unlikely to find an estimation of mass that uses the exact same diameter listed in that article, we might have to work out the mass ourselves. (Knowing the mass of the various elements, the average density of the solar nebula, and assuming the nebula to be essentially spherical). On the plus side, I did manage to find a citation for the other fact, which included a citation for a necessary fact that wasn't in the article before! Serendipodous 13:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations for the Formation section

message: I read this passage several times to make sure that I understood what it was saying.  The page reports that "Pluto lies in the resonant belt, having a 3:2 resonance with Neptune (ie, it orbits three times round the Sun for every two Neptune orbits."  This is backwards.  All the resonance figures that are here are backwards.  If I am reading this incorrectly, forgive me, as I am dyslexic, but that is how I read it. Cosumel 01:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Youch. Thanks for spotting that; I'm a bit dyslexic myself, actually :-) Serendipodous 18:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, if I was right, then the other referrences need to be changed too.  The resonanace for the Hildas are correct because they orbit closer to the sun than Jupiter, but the other Keiper belt objects are all further than Neptune.  I am going to change them, but please check that I did it right. Cosumel 12:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Resonance

message: In this article, it says: "Jupiter and Saturn account for more than 90% of the system's remaining mass"
Yet in List of solar system objects by mass a little math shows that Jupiter and Saturn account for less then 10% of the solar system's mass (not counting the Sun).
LEitK 03:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you compare mass to the Sun, Jupiter and Saturn are not very large. If you exclude the Sun, Jupiter and Saturn seem large compared to everything else such as the Earth. --JWSchmidt 03:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but that list suggests that the total mass of the solar system is something like sun + 20 Jupiters, which seems too large to me.  Dragons flight 03:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: My suggestion: do not trust the numbers in that list for the mass of the Sun and the mass of the Solar System. I do not see any reliable sources cited. --JWSchmidt 04:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say I'm surprised that the mass article makes that claim. Together, Jupiter and Saturn account for 413 Earth masses. The combined mass of the two remaining gas giants is 31 Earth masses; the combined mass of the entire inner solar system including the moons and the asteroid belt is barely two Earth masses (1.989792 Earth masses, according to Wikipedia's own figures). Even if you include all the remaining mass, from moons, comets KBO's and the like, the total could never equal more than at most two to three Earth masses. The Kuiper belt's estimated mass is barely that of the Earth (and most likely lower than that), a negligable difference. According to that list, the total mass of all the moons in the Solar System excluding our own is less than 565 Yg, or one tenth of an Earth mass. (I used a calculator, if anyone's wondering). That makes a rough total combined mass of 34.1 Earth masses, which is less than ten percent the combined masses of Jupiter and Saturn. This is likely an overestimation, but it would account at least for all of the dust and other particles which usually get ignored. I just added a reference explaining this. Serendipodous 10:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass of Solar System 

message: pluto should still be a planet.
--151.199.15.116 17:56, 7 January 2007 ngiendola
*Ooookaaayy... Serendipodous 13:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PLUTO 

message: I do not think there is much more to be done. I am assuming that the pictures are all from NASA and are thus public domain so somebody may want to check the tags, but that is about it. This article should probably be nominated for Featured Article status.--Jorfer 16:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Pass

message: Hmmm... I'm not convinced that removing the sub-section headings for the planets (etc.) helps. It's now a lot harder to locate specific topics. Given the vast range of information in this article, it would be better to restore the headings. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 20:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel the same way, personally, but a lot of people, not just those on the FAC review, have complained that there are too many section headings, or that the TOC is too big. The problem is where to draw the line. Removing the section headings for Jupiter, Mars et al may seem like a good idea, but it ultimately necessitates removing all the other section headings too. After all, why should Ceres have its own section if Jupiter doesn't? I'll put the section headings back for now until we can come up with a compromise. Serendipodous 21:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see both sides of the argument... there's a lot of info there, but the divisions are entirely natural. Perhaps it would be sufficient to remove the headings for the 8 planets? People pretty much know what to expect in those sections, and the five short paragraphs, with boldened wikilinks, split up each of those two sections quite nicely without needing additional descriptors. In contrast, people are less likely to be familiar with the asteroid belt, galactic context, etc., so having subdivisions there brings out the important features that readers might not otherwise be aware of. Spiral Wave 01:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tested a slightly different presentation, using bold/big text to duplicate the "look" of the sub-sections, while keeping the titles out of the TOC. (From what I could discern, the concern at the FA discussion was in regards to the size of the TOC as opposed to the subsections themselves.) It also balances things a bit, since it seems odd to "call out" the dwarf planets and Sedna when the planets aren't that way. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 09:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me; my browser settings don't seem to have a problem with it. Serendipodous 11:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem arises as to whether the individual considers it 'calling out' something absolutely above all others - eg Ceres is mentioned but Jupiter isn't! - or whether each section is taken on its own merits - eg you expect to see the four giants listed, but someone looking at 'asteroid belt' may not expect to see Ceres, in which case it needs highlighting. I don't think there's going to be a perfect solution whatever you do, and what is/isn't given a subsection is always going to be arbitrary, but the current setup looks okay to me. Spiral Wave 12:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "definition list format", but if you mean removing the headers for the planet paragraphs, that's an OK idea in principle, but it leaves the article in the somewhat absurd position of Jupiter being listed together with the gas giants, while Ceres has its own subsection. As for creating an alternate TOC, I don't know how to do that. Serendipodous 09:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've tested the "definition" layout on the inner planets section - see what you think. It does seem to work better than the "faked" look (my idea, btw) with one drawback - the text doesn't wrap under the images. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 09:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me. From the start, my only concern about the layout has been that it must be consistent. As long as it is applied similarly throughout the article, I don't really care what format is used. Serendipodous 09:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the other sections. We might have to play around with the images a bit - they don't position quite as easily with the definition format. --Ckatzchatspy 10:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've tried a different format for the images. On my screen at least, they're not crowding out the text too much. Serendipodous 10:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great to me, and I use the classic skin and a widescreen monitor so that hopefully shows the layout is robust in "nonstandard" situations too. Bryan Derksen 10:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section headings 

message: ... on reaching FA.  Good work.  --Ideogram 01:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and thank you and everyone else who helped. Serendipodous 08:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations 

message: Greatly enjoyed the graphics and pictures included in this article. Very informative by themselves. Well done, editors! AppleJuggler 04:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you :) Serendipodous 18:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superbly illustrated article 

message: :"Evidence suggests that the Solar System has remained between spiral arms for most of the existence of life on Earth, avoiding radiation from supernovae in spiral arms that could theoretically sterilize planetary surfaces and prevent the formation of complex life. "
Citation on not, this is still not right.  The crossing time is somewhere between ~140 Myr (e.g. Shaviv 2002) and ~400 Myr (e.g. Amaral and Lepine 1997).  Either case is much less than the ~3.5 Gyr that life has existed on Earth, so encounters are something that life had to deal with, including complex life during the last encounter.  The astrobiology reference doesn't suggest that spiral arms would either sterilize the surface or prevent complex life, only that they would cause "disruptions".  Most of the stuff about preventing complex life in the reference is associated instead with the intense radiation of the galactic core, not the arms.  I am again going to remove this sentence which is just wrong science.  Dragons flight 07:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reinserted the line about spiral arms, but revised it so that it more accurately reflects the information provided in the citation. Serendipodous 09:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galactic Context 

message: Once again, the Space Trek geeks at Wikipedia embarrass themselves by making something no actual scholar gives two ****s about into one of their "best of". First it was All your base, then Torchic, then Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and now this. Apparently for Wikipedes, fancruft = featured. Look, this isn't Memory Alpha, people. Leave your stupid sci-fi garbage at the door. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.154.65.1 (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure whether this is a troll or a joke. Either way, it's silly :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 11:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The Solar System is sci-fi garbage?  Perhaps the next featured article should be NASCAR, to keep the plebs happy. 91.109.133.21 16:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No, according to this guy's history it should be something like this: Dick Clark Productions ;o) --dllu 16:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, to be fair, it's the IP of all the computers at the same school, so you can't necessarily conflate the two. Anyway, you do have to admit the Solar System is, at best, very high-class science fiction. ;=o (emoticontest! apparently…) 66.195.210.117 01:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean we are all fiction? That the world as we know it does not exist? Do I exist, do you exist, does anyone reading this exist? I guess all of the fictional characters categories should be filled to their virtual bursting points, with all of the so-called "real" people. (Note: In case anyone takes this the wrong way, this is not meant to be insulting) --LuigiManiac 01:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  And this got past notability... how? 

message: I really feel that, if I were to split off the "Discovery and Exploration" section, and merge it with a properly sourced, upgraded Timeline of solar system astronomy, I could create a very informative and interesting article that tackled the history of our understanding of the heavens. This new article would be directly linked under this article's title, to ensure that its importance would not be missed.Serendipodous 16:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bear in mind there are already several timeline articles for space exploration; in particular, the timeline of solar system exploration is fearsomely comprehensive. While something that gives a bit more at-a-glance detail could be a good idea - the topic is bewilderingly large - I really can't see what to do other than expand the existing list you named. The problem is that there are already different (sets of) lists for astronomy and space exploration. Do you mean to somehow splice the best of these together?  Spiral Wave 18:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: ...Plus, would such an endeavour need to be a merge, or a new article? Exactly which 'space exploration' missions count as 'astronomy' according to that article is worryingly random. It looks like it could use a firm hand either way. Spiral Wave 18:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking of creating a new article called "Discovery and exploration of the solar system" and converting it from a timeline into more of a narrative. My focus would be on discovery, rather than missions. New moons, new features, new concepts, so that not every space mission would be mentioned, only those which rewrote the maps. Serendipodous 19:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that seems sensible, as long as it remains a history rather than a story. It would work as a companion piece to the article you pointed out, but with plenty more detail on the 20th century, I suppose. Before you go any farther, perhaps you should ask for suggestions/opinions over at the Astronomical Objects project (as that seems to be the largest astronomy group)? Spiral Wave 21:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that article sounds like a great idea.  Gnixon 01:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Making the case for splitting off "Discovery and Exploration"

message: It's just that most of the last 30-odd revisions have been either vandals or people reverting vandals. I have noticed that this page does seem to attract them; must be the fact that it's a fairly well-known topic. I'm not sure what the threshold is for semi-protection though. Serendipodous 19:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad we've been able to avoid any protection.  Gnixon 01:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too, but I think we need to do it now. This is just ridiculous. --dllu 16:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: yes - over about 15 to 20 IP vandals a day is certainly past the threshold := sbandrews (t) 16:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Request filed. Flyguy649talkcontribs 16:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and declined, apparently because it's today's featured article. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that's right. Once it is not anymore, reapply for protection again. --Deskana (ya rly) 17:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully it'll all die down by then. It usually does. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do you think we should get this page semi-protected?

message: I notice there is a discussion above about the sections, but I think they could still use some work.  My main problem is the length of the TOC and the fact that it's lacking a hierarchy.  I find it very hard to use the TOC when it's just a long list of topics covered.  Also, I think it suggests the article is not organized optimally.  I'd recommend incorporating the various components under "Layout and structure."  Obviously that section would then dominate the article, but I think it's okay.  I also think keeping individual objects as "fake" headings was a good idea.  So I'm thinking the TOC might look like:
*Terminology
*Layout and structure
:*Sun
::*Interplanetary medium (dominated by solar stuff)
::*Comets (just for lack of a better place)
:*Inner solar system
::*Terrestrial planets
::*Asteroid belt
:*Outer solar system
::*Gas giants
::*Kuiper belt
:*Boundaries (? or another title for unexplored regions)
::*Scattered disk
::*Heliopause
::*Oort cloud (including inner)
::*Galactic context (absorbs old "Boundaries" section)
*Formation (could be lengthened, probably acquire sub-headings)
*Discovery and exploration (suggest using real sub-headings)
*Notes
*See also
*References
*External links
I'm not tied to the details here, but I think hierarchy is the way to go.  I'd do it now except that the article is so nice already and I fear messing it up.  By the way, thanks, S., for improving my tweaks of the lead.  Gnixon 02:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm gonna have to sit [this] one out :) Not that I have no opinion on the matter, but I have already debated this issue into the ground and made so many concessions that I'm simpy tired of fighting. My basic feeling is this: the Solar System is a very large place. However you slice it, there is going to be a big table of contents, because there are lots of regions within the Solar System and this article should cover them all. Your "heirarchcal" organisation looks nice but ultimately entails creating introductory paragraphs for all the new sections, which will make this article even longer than it already is. Plus, where does one define the "outer solar system"? It has many different meanings depending on who uses it. Serendipodous 17:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't looked through the old debates yet; I'll do that soon.  I agree the table's going to be long, but I hope we can at least guide the eye to the right place.  (Wikipedia should introduce collapsible TOCs.)  It's true "outer" is vague, but for this purpose I just want something for gas giants and Kuiper belt.  Maybe it practically means "Outer regions that have been explored" (not a title proposal), but mentions the rest, and the next section could just be "Unexplored regions".  Hmm, that sounds good, actually.  I don't know that there's much introduction needed for those sections.  Inner/Outer could just be one or two sentences each, defining the terms.  I think material for "Unexplored regions" already exists.  Gnixon 00:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here's a rough draft. It's a bit repetitive, so will need a cleanup. Serendipodous 14:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: It seems a little strange to me the way bold text is (over)used in this article.  My understanding from Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout is that bold text is only used for the name of the article in the intro, or for alternate meanings, as in water and H20 in a "Water" article.  Why bold-ify "inner planets," "outer planets," and "AU"?  Gnixon 14:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Inner planets", "inner solar system", "outer planets" and "outer solar system" are boldened because this is the article you reach when you type them into Wikipedia's search engine. I suppose they don't have to be boldened, but if someone comes onto this article looking for a definition for those terms, it helps if he or she can see them. AU doesn't really have to be boldened either, but since it is used frequently in the article and is easily overlooked, it seemed like a good idea. Maybe a link would do. Serendipodous 15:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like using a link for AU instead of bold.  As for the others, is it really necessary to have redirects pointing here?  Maybe someone could just clean up any dead links in other articles.  Gnixon 15:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean. Do you want to create new separate articles for those terms? Serendipodous 15:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite the opposite.  I don't think those topics are notable enough to have separate articles.  If they once did, and therefor some other article has a link to them, I'd recommend just fixing those links to direct to a subsection of this article.  I'd recommend just removing the redirections.  No need to make sure every possible search finds an article or a redirect.  Gnixon 15:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just about links though; someone might log onto Wikipedia to find out what the terms inner planet or inner solar system actually mean. Since this article has the responsibility of defining those terms, it makes sense to point them out. Serendipodous 16:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh.  It's not a huge deal to me; just doesn't seem to be standard.  I see your point.  (I'm much more interested in your thoughts on organization and the TOC.)  Gnixon 17:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold text 

message: Do we really need a picture of what the sun looks like as seen from earth?  This seems a little absurd.  As if there are people still wandering around wondering what the big bright thing in the sky is. (Mythos721 17:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha.  Keep in mind that we don't have too many pictures of the Sun from other places.  I kind of like that since most of the stuff in this article takes an "outsider" point of view, that picture kind of reminds us where we are.  Maybe it would work better to have some image of the Sun from space with the Earth in the foreground. Gnixon 18:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: the sun

message: For what it's worth, I saw a couple of reverts on the caption and made a comment to the image talk page.  Cheers.  --EarthPerson 21:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scale of the top image 

message: Twice now, I've had to remove the phrase "According to the IAU definition" from the first sentence. The editor who added it says that "Some astronomers refuse the new "dwarf planet" scheme, therefore it needs to be noted that our definition is the one provided by the IAU." However, I think he/she is mixing up the definition of "planet" with that of the "Solar System". As I read it, the definition of the Solar System is "the Sun and the other celestial objects gravitationally bound to it". The text which follows merely details some of those objects. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 19:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's how I wrote it, and that's what I meant. If someone feels I phrased it incorrectly, please say why. Serendipodous 19:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the objection is that it's confusing to mention the IAU immediately before "Solar System" when the only possibly contentious definition is that of "planet."  Granted, I'm not sure how to solve the problem without making an awkward sentence.  (We could make some tries in this space.)  I'm for not mentioning the IAU here, since I think everyone agrees on what the Solar System is (but of course mention the IAU in the Planet intro).  A footnote on "planet" in that sentence might be a good idea.  Gnixon 19:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, I think Serendipodous means he wrote the previous version, not the one with the IAU added at the start. (Correct?) The "IAU" text was added by Hexagon1. --Ckatzchatspy 19:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's what I meant. Serendipodous 20:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead 

message: I've reversed the image layout changes for now... while some of them work, others do not. It's not necessary to have every image alternate; how about we reference Sheffield Steel's last edit and pick the ones that work best? --Ckatzchatspy 00:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As per the Manual of Style, I adjusted the images so that they alternate between left & right. Lo and behold, it looked better (to my eyes). Certainly there was no longer the number of areas of whitespace that there had been between sections, as the images formed a solid wall down the right hand side of the page. My edit was almost immediately reverted. But I'm not bitter. I just ask that a couple of editors try reverting that revert, and preview the version with alternating images. See if it isn't more pleasing to your eyes - don't save your changes - and then post here and tell me that I'm wrong. Or whatever. SheffieldSteel 00:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: hahaha... we must have made posts at the same time. Carry on! :-) SheffieldSteel 00:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with alternating every image is that we end up with a lot of sections (and section headings) kicked over to the right. It might be better to pick and choose, moving images to the left where they don't disrupt the layout of the content. Thoughts? (Thank you for doing this, by the way - even though we don't entirely agree, it is better to try it out and see what happens! I certainly like some of them - specifically, "Terminology", "Formation", "Sun" and "Galactic context". I can even move them back if you like, although it will have to be in a few hours as I must dash.) --Ckatzchatspy 01:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point. I think another problem is that the effect of such changes varies greatly depending on the user's screen resolution and font size. Or putting it another way, it depends on the relative amount of screen taken up by images vs text, which will unfortunately vary from one user to another. There may not be a good solution for everyone. I'll try tweaking a few, and see what I can do. SheffieldSteel 02:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed the whitespace problem for awhile.  I'm sad to say this, but maybe the only general solution is to cut a couple images that pertain to short sections (or lengthen those sections).  One of the best things about this article is all the great images, but whitespace is really unappealing.  Gnixon 02:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might also be possible to shrink the images - if that can be done without loss of clarity. Obviously there's a minimum size below which it just isn't worth showing an image. SheffieldSteel 02:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I have done my worst, sir, and await the judgment of those who normally edit this article :-). That image could be added to the last section; it seems appropriate. SheffieldSteel 03:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image layout 

message: The article on hypothetical planets deals largely with the unexplored regions of the solar system, and any link to it belongs in "Boundaries". The exploration article deals only with discoveries that have already been made. Serendipodous 14:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I see your point, but I'd prefer just cutting it altogether.  Hypothetical planets may be of historical interest for the solar system (that's why I put it in exploration), but I'd favor just cutting the link.  I don't really think it deserves a "see also" tag.  Just my two cents.  Gnixon 16:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move of seealso template

message: WolfmanSF has made a couple of edits with the comments to the effect that "Trojans beyond Jupiter are not considered asteroids."
Is this right? It sounds backwards to me.
Surely an asteroid is an asteroid wherever it is, and it's only the asteroids at Jupiter's L5 Lagrange point that are referred to as Trojans (and Greeks for the L4 point).
Can anyone else shed light on this? SheffieldSteel 03:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. Trojans are the specific group of asteroids "attached" to Jupiter, and asteroids outside the Belt are still asteroids. --dllu 11:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trojans v asteroids 

message: "Most objects in orbit around the Sun lie near the ecliptic, a shallow plane parallel to that of Earth's orbit." (Layout and structure section). This grates on me: all (mathematical) planes have zero thickness! Wouldn't it be better to say something like: "... the ecliptic, the plane in which Earth's mean orbit lies" or some such? --Kiwi137 12:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. For future reference, that's a fairly minor edit; you could probably get away with just doing it, and explaining your change in the edit history. I doubt anyone would raise any serious objections. Serendipodous 14:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shallow plane...?