Template talk:Solar System/Archive 3

message: User:70.225.171.73 changed the footer to the three line proposal.  I think this is the way it should stay.  Can we agree to not change it any more?  --myselfalso 18:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally prefer the three-line. If we separate planets and dwarf planets then logically the Sun has to be on a different line also, making a much thicker box. We can always add another dwarf planet line when more are added to the list and space becomes an issue.The Enlightened 19:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do believe the box should be as small as we can get it.  I have seen the revert of the last edit, and I almost did that myself.  Instead, I made the comment above.  I see the logic in having it one way or the other.  I just think the smaller, the better.  Perhaps if the list of dwarf planets expand, perhaps it could get its own box.  I also believe that a line for different moons are unnecessary.  It can be condensed down to the way it was as Natural Satalites.  --myselfalso 20:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Factual accuracy is more important than a slim box. That version implies there is no difference between dwarf planets and planets. 72.139.119.165 14:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footer changes 

message: Does anyone have any idea why the footer is coming up with the first line in small print on the planet page? The Enlightened 03:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it - the "Reference" section was coded for small print, but the command to stop using small print wasn't there. Glad you spotted it, as it was also affecting the text above the footer. --Ckatzchatspy 08:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planet page 

message: I have no idea how to do it but could someone else space out the planets on the image more evenly? Jupiter and Saturn look very close together compared to the rest. Mercury and Venus look very distant (and they are the closest two planets to each other!) We should have the same distance between the edges of the planets, not the centres. Also, how about including the dwarf planets with small white dots, a similar size to the Moon dot perhaps? The Enlightened 14:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If its not to scale it should at least have even distances between each planet and/or belt in the image. The image is great looking but it looks silly because of the varied distances. The Enlightened 17:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: The "natural satellites of:" is just clumsy. What was wrong with the adjective forms? I also think the adjectives are better as you don't have two links with the same name for each planet (even if one is listed with "natural satellites" at the beginning of the line). The Enlightened 02:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing moon's as nouns or adjectives 

message: Support.  I am in favor of the current image being used.  I support this over the use of the interactive image.  --myselfalso 20:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a problem that a block of images often means one fails to load which looks worse than links would help. I think its nice for it to load up as one though. Although, on the other hand I like the idea that people can click on a planet they like the look of. I've yet to make up my mind.The Enlightened 06:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I oppose any use of an interactive image.  Loading problems will make it look bad.  Also, it is much more simple if we just stick with the text.  --myselfalso 12:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the input!  --myselfalso 14:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: I believe a colorful image would make more sense than a Blue & White one. I however feel the planets should have a greater amount of distance between them so that the images can be properly labeled. Oh and btw Nbound earns a round of applouse. :) --Cat out 13:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Is it time to start archiving this talk page? It's getting really long. Alba 17:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Archived up through August 2006. RandomCritic 19:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive?

message: Image:Solar System X.PNG
:(1) More solar flares, solar wind etc.
:(2) Several moons brightened as requested. The galileans are now the most prominent, along with Triton. Plus within each planetary system the largest bodies should be the brightest.
:(3) Pluto even more on edge of main Kuiper belt, as in reality. The Enlightened 20:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Version X

message: Image:Solar System XII.PNG
*Inner planets to scale.
*Space more black.
*Outer planets made more to scale (particularly Uranus & Neptune compared with Jupiter & Saturn).
*Spacing corrected for better text lineup.
*Jupiter image flipped to correspond with side facing the sun.
*Galilean and other moons' color restored.
*Artifacting around Venus removed.
I believe I've addressed all of the problems with v. XI and am adding v. XII to the template.--BlytheG 07:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this is good. Artifacting round the Sun, Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto, Charon & Eris remains. My original Jupiter was probably two vivid but I think this one is a little too washed out. I still think the Moon should be restored - We should either have all the moons the same size or maintain scale. A compromise between the two views achieves neither. The Enlightened 13:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Version XII

message: Image:Solar System XIII.PNG
*Artifacting around the Sun, Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto, Charon, and Eris fixed.
*Terran moon restored.
*Mars made rounder.
*On a side note, Saturn is actually not as colorful as the Voyager 2 picture suggests.  If you look at any of the pictures sent back by the Cassini probe, you will see that Saturn's clouds are composed of more subtle, subdued colors.  The same applies to Jupiter.  Also, the picture of Saturn in v. X seems to be stretched horizontally.
Someone reverted it back to v. X, but for the time being I'm adding v. XIII.--BlytheG 01:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say that I liked the old (bigger) Moon better. RandomCritic 03:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. It's now my only complaint with the image. Alba 03:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It gives the impresson that its bigger than the moons of jupiter/saturn though... which is my only concern -- Nbound 04:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Version XIII

message: Image:Solar System XIV.PNG
*Terran moon has been enlarged as requested.
*Artifacting around the Sun further cleaned up.
**Feel free to add this image to the template; I'm leaving v. XIII there for now. (Mainly because of the scale issue with the moons.  In reality, Ganymede (Jovian) and Titan (Saturnian) are both larger than the planet Mercury.  It makes more sense, for scale's sake, to keep all planemo satellites the same size.)
*** I think it's more important to keep moons scaled to their planets than scaling moons between planets. The planets are not to the same scale anyway, but we can at least keep the relative moon/planet sizes intact. The only glaring anomaly was Earth/Luna; all the others were reasonably close to correct scale. I move to use version XIV (of course I do, I requested it ;-)) Alba 07:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but it's a case of "to scale with a minimum size of one pixel." The Enlightened 14:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Version XIV

message: At this link there's an image that shows the positions of a large number of asteroids at one particular point in time.  As you can see, the near-Mars boundary is fairly sharp, but the boundary towards Jupiter is a good deal fuzzier, even not taking the Jupiter trojans into consideration. And here is another such plot (even busier). RandomCritic 05:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Asteroids

message: Archived to the end of September because the talk was getting too long. RandomCritic 05:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: How was the v-d-e added to the top right corner of the template?  --myselfalso 04:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a guess, but I think it's the sort of table that is used. The Enlightened 23:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-controversial question 

message: Image:Solar System XV.PNG
# Original Sun restored (has no artifacting)
# Complete removal of artifacting around Jupiter
# Cleared a little more space around Charon to make it more obvious
# Restored original Earth (less pixelised)
# Restored original Mars (to scale and true colour - it's not as red as we may think of it!)
# Restored original Saturn (more spherical and true colour)
# Asteroid belt more vague edge on Jupiter side (as requested)
# Flipped Venus so shadow is on the right side
I think that's it. The Enlightened 21:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks really nice. RandomCritic 21:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, Saturn looks bad to me--it's not spherical. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 23:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saturn's polar/equatorial aspect ratio is .9 -- the largest smallest of any solar system planet. RandomCritic 23:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be so, but it still appears wrong to me. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 00:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This one is definitely spherical. Its a true image of Saturn where the previous one was clearly stretched pole-to-pole. The Enlightened 05:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image XV 

message: You may have started out with a better image, but I still think the method of scaling has resulted in detrimental loss of information around the edges.  Here's a better scaled image, but the colours are weak again, as I used the image in Saturn's infobox and haven't corrected for colour:
└ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 13:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version XVI 

message: Going back to the lovely Eridian/Erisian debate, there are inconsistencies between this footer and the natural satellites footer.  This one uses "Erisian," while the satellites one uses "Eridian."  This causes a problem when viewing, say Phobos or Dysnomia and you have both on the same page.  Either change this footer to Eridian, or change the satellites footer to Erisian. Werothegreat 13:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contrast with Natural Satellites footer