Talk:Solar System/Archive 3

message: Hi, I have put this article under the scope of the WikiProject Systems because of the formal relation, but more because of the inspiring and motivating example this article can give our project and it's participants (to come). We are still a small and beginning group, and working to get our own toko going. In due time I hope we can also deliver a valuable contributions here from our point of view. In the mean time I wish all of you all te best. Best regards - Mdd 21:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article within the scope of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems|WikiProjects Systems]] 

message: We should explain how north and south are defined for other objects than earth. I assume it is defined as the same direction as earths north pole. Are the rotational axes of all planets parallel? --Apoc2400 01:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kinda. The only planets that could be said to be upside down are Venus (which rotates from left to right instead of right to left) and Uranus (which, depending on your point of view, is either 82 degrees tilted and rotating right to left, or 98 degrees tilted and rotating left to right. Serendipodous 13:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, is north and south for a planet defined from the planets orbit around the sun, or as parallel to earth? Which was does north point for Venus? --Apoc2400 07:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it (keep in mind that I'm not a scientist) "north" is based on what we call "north" on Earth. In space, there is no "up" or "down", so theoretically an alien visiting us could come at us from "below" and thus conclude that north was south and south was north. North and south are completely arbitrary concepts anyway, and are based more on the prejudices of cartographers than anything else. There's no real reason why maps can't be upside down; they just aren't. If, say, the Maori had been the culture to colonise the globe, then North and south could very well have been opposite. Serendipodous 12:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The cartographers that have given us the reversed map ? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: This content has since been moved to Poles of astronomical bodies. -- Beland (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of north and south 

message: to upload this video onto Wikipedia? I think it's better than the sequence of still images we now have. Serendipodous 15:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is there some way

message: This was added a short while ago:
The sun will stay in main sequence for about another 3 billion years. Eventually when it reach giant star it is expect to almost reach Earth's orbit. However the current research shows, the loss of the sun's gravity, mass, and probably atmosphere will cause all the planets to move further from the sun. Although Mercury is likely to escape to higher orbit, but it can definitely not escape from being engulfed by the sun because it can still expand large enough, the remaining gravity can still drag the planet down and still swallow it up in 5 billion year's time. In about 7 billion years from now the sun is expected to reach 110 times its current diameter. The Earth and even Venus will be able to escape to higher orbit to escape from being enveloped by sun. Venus is expected to reach 1.1 AU which will travel slightly beyond the current orbitof the Earth, while the Earth will escape to 1.4 AU which is almost as big as the current orbit of Mars. However all the oceans on Earth will boil up and its atmosphere will be stripped away.... Anyone want to take a crack at reworking it, or is it too specific for this article? Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 23:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessary; the future of the Solar System was broken off this article over a year ago and is now at Formation and evolution of the Solar System#Future Serendipodous 17:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Actually few informations is wring in 5.5 billion years sun will swell up to 100 times its current diameter. Earth will move out to 1.55 AU, and Venus will move out to 1.1 AU. sun suppose to stay in main sequence for about another 2.5 Gyrs. in 5.5 Gyrs sun will become RGB. Mercury will just stay in the same orbit the whole time and get destroyed, disintegrate, engulfed and destroy its magnetic field is too low for the planet to escape to higher orbit. Mercury will be swallowed up before the sun enters the RGB, almost after the Earth undergoes similar surface conditon as Venus. --Freewayguy--Comm 90 00:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here looking for information on the future of the Solar system (including information about the stability of the planets' orbits), and when I couldn't find it, I came to the Talk page to ask someone to add it.  We should at least have a brief summary section with a pointer to the main article.  --Doradus (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Revised the formation section. Bit truncated and choppy, but I think all the absolutely necessary info is there. Serendipodous 20:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Future" section 

message: I don't agree with this revert.  Who says that section is only about the planets?  I think we should reinstate the text.  --Doradus 20:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section read (and currently reads) as follows:"The five closest planets to Earth – Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn – are amongst the brightest objects in the night sky and were called "πλανήτης" (planētēs, meaning "wanderer") by the Ancient Greeks. They were known to move across the fixed stars; this is the origin of the word "planet". Uranus is also visible without optical aid at its brightest, but it is at the very limit of naked-eye detectability and therefore evaded discovery until 1781."The change added notes about Vesta, Saturn's moons, and the invention of the telescope - all interesting, but it bulks up what was a clear and succinct paragraph. --Ckatzchatspy 20:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the planets? 

message: I'm not sure if this is a valid measure of vandal attraction, but once the first fifty edits in the history section consist entirely of reverted vandalism, I think it's time to put a lock on it. Serendipodous 07:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I don't know.  The vandalism isn't overwhelming (~2 or 3 edits per day, all quickly reverted), and that "semi-protected" tag is kind of ugly.  Gnixon 16:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This page should be semi-protected

message: It gives the impression that Pluto is a major planet. Perhaps someone could photoshop the Kuiper belt into the last orbit? Serendipodous 18:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to recall there being a version of that image where Pluto had been airbrushed out, which struck me as being somewhat reminiscent of Stalin-era photos of Kremlin staff (you know the sort of thing: Foobarov is out of favour, so we must remove him from the official history). Maybe that image is still on the servers? Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 17:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed.  If the image should be planets only, then pluto should not be present.  If dwarf planets are considered significant, then ceres, sedna, and all the other known ones should be included.  As is, the image is self-contradictory.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.161.164 (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article's main image is a bit out of date

message: The picture of the Solar system on the bottom includes Eris, Pluto, and ceres, even though it shouldn't. They were designated as not planets, but dwarf plnaets and what happens to Wikipedia when later we find much more dwarf planets? Keep adding them? I mean, dwarf plnaets, I suppose, are much samller and thus easier to be made and thus there would be an abundance of them. The picture should take the dwarf plnaets out.—Preceding unsigned comment added by PRhyu (talk • contribs)  
:That image was provided by the IAU upon reaching their decision last year. Planets are listed on the top, dwarf planets on the bottom. Should they add new dwarf planets, which probably won't be until 2009, then doubtless they will release a new image to illustrate it. When they do, we'll swap it out. Serendipodous 07:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual Errors

message: I'm seeking consensus at MOSNUM talk for a change in the wording to allow contributors, by consensus only, to use unconverted metrics in scientific articles. Your opinions are invited. Tony 15:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  converting metrics in scientific articles 

message: It seems to me that this article should be renamed from Solar System to Solar system. It seems common in all direct related articles like for example:
* Copernican system 
* Dynamical system
* Manticore system
* Photometric system 
* Planetary system 
* Ptolemaic system  
* Star system 
* Tychonic system 
It seems that you only keep use capitals in a article title if it really an own name. But I'm not expert in Wikipedia rules & conventions. What do you think? - Mdd 22:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have an opinion, but I think perhaps the rationale is that a "solar system" is any system orbiting a star, while the "Solar System" is the proper name for the solar system that we inhabit.  --Doradus 22:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming the article to [[Solar system]] 

message: It should be mentioned that solar system can also refer to all other star systems, and generally does, at least in American English. In American English, our solar system is almost always refered to as our solar system or the solar system. Notice the our and the.
Webster's definition of sun: "1. a) the self-luminous, gaseous sphere about which the earth and other planets revolve and which furnishes light, heat, and energy for the solar system: it is the star nearest the earth, whose mean distance from it is nearly 93,000,000 miles: its diameter is about 864,000 miles; its mass is about 333,400 times, and its volume more than 1,300,000 times, that of the earth  b) the heat or light of the sun [to lie in the sun]  2. any star that is the center of a planetary system  3. something like the sun, as in warmth, brilliance, splendor, etc.  4. [Poet.]  a) a day  b) a year  5. [Poet.] a clime; climate  6. [Archaic] sunrise or sunset."
Notice especially the definition of the sun under 2. The definition of sun is ambiguous, like a lot of the English language, and should be mentioned in the sun and solar system articles. Excluding that information is an example of Wikipedia's bias.
Also look at the Merriam-Webster Online definition for solar system: "the sun together with the group of celestial bodies that are held by its attraction and revolve around it; also : a similar system centered on another star." These sources are much more reliable than Wikipedia, an encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to.
:Dictionaries don't employ official definitions; they draw citations from any and all printed works, not just scientific ones. The distinction between "the Solar System" and "a solar system" is one that is employed frequently in popular culture, but it is not one that has been officially accepted by astronomers. Yet. Serendipodous 05:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of solar system 

message: Pluto should still be a planet!! It is a dwarf planet and orbits around the sun! Why is it classified as an asteroid?! (and please please please dont delete this article!)
--70.110.4.132 22:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not classified as an asteroid, but as a dwarf planet. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 22:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pluto 

message: Could someone explain something to me that I have not been able to immediately figure out on my own after quick review of several articles.  Is our solar system a galaxy?  or are there several solar systems in a galaxy?  Does the word "solar system" refer only to OUR solar system?  If not, what is the name of our solar system? and what is the name of our galaxy?  and what is the milky way?  a series of galaxies that we can see from Earth?
Thanks. dearly 02:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: This new Image might be useful.--Nemissimo 16:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Image

message: ...would be nice if someone could add the link to the excellent Hindi version of the article - thanks? Watasenia (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you provide a URL, I'll provide the link. My Hindi is rather limited… Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to Hindi version

message: As an earlier attempt at commenting was reverted (probably mistook as vandalism even though the comments were hidden from normal view), here's another go:
Is the shot (probably taken by a compact digital camera) in current form truly encyclopedical? Consider :Image:The sun1.jpg (which is currently used) and the previous :Image:The Sun.jpg. What do they show? A burnt out highlight, some blue sky and lens flare. In comparison, perhaps these do not quite fit in? As the article history only goes back to April 20 2007 I can't determine if they were included in the version that underwent the FA process. Cheers, 88.148.207.23 12:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They were. Or at least earlier versions of them. Serendipodous 13:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos of the sun

message: Isn't that like the name most people use in fiction when we found other star systems i can try to find references but i doubt it
--24.107.202.65 (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some scifi books have used it, most notably the Foundation series, but it's not used much in reality. Serendipodous 00:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sol System 

message: The anonymously added table was a variant of one that existed as part of this article years ago, but was ultimately removed. It and its sister tables can now be found at the page Attributes of the largest solar system bodies. If the table is to be reinstated, I think it should be discussed first. Serendipodous 15:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Serendipodous, for that history. I almost reverted it, but just copyedited it instead. Thanks for the institutional memory. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 15:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Table

message: A comment was added to the article stating that the definition of a planet is hotly debated.  Is this really the case?  I know that some people didn't like the re-classification of Pluto - but it seems that the definition of a planet given in the article is pretty standard and accepted. Comments?  PhySusie (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted it. This is not the place to discuss this. Wikipedia has three other articles devoted to this topic: Planet, Definition of planet and 2006 definition of planet. Serendipodous 07:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Debate of planet classification

message: Overall, I like the new lead image (it's certainly more scientifically accurate than the last one) but it makes Mercury's orbital inclination out to be about 45 degrees, when in fact it's about 7 degrees. This exaggeration is misleading. Serendipodous 12:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we swap the two - put the new one in "Terminology", and restore the other one to the lead? No offence to the creator, but the image quality is stronger in the original one (and may better suit the lead). --Ckatzchatspy 21:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New image

message: Is the earth theorized to be in a declining orbit?  Why is there no detected decline in orbit?  What's the theory behind why the planets weren't aborbed into the sun a long time ago? Could we add something to this article the gravitational balance of the solar system, and a calculation as to how much mass would need to be vaporized before we would expect an upset in that balance?  68.75.88.171 (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like it might be an interesting thing to cover, but it would probably be better placed in Formation and evolution of the Solar System. Serendipodous 08:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the orbits of the planets are expanding, due to the Solar mass loss.  Saros136 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Declining Orbit?

message: I noticed that while there's a lot of nice images here, the article lacks an image of the solar system showing the relative distances to the sun and the relative sizes of the planets at the same time. That would obviously be a bonus. --Strappado (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does have such an image; in the layout and structure section, there is an image captioned, "orbits of the objects in the Solar System to scale." Serendipodous 18:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the size of the planets and the size of their orbits are on completely different scales - you can't show them usefully on the same diagram.  If you can see the orbits, the sizes of the planets are too small.  If you can see the size of the planets, the orbits are way (way way) off the page.  The compromise is in the article - one diagram shows the relative sizes of the planets, another shows the relative sizes of the orbits. PhySusie (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. Sorry, misread the OP. Yeah, that would be hard to do. I wonder what the scales would be like if we set Mercury at one pixel? Serendipodous 18:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image with orbits to scale?

message: Could we include the vast number of man-made objects which currently orbit the sun in the opening paragraph?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oddzag (talk • contribs) 22:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The number of man-made objects orbiting the Sun isn't all that vast; certainly not when compared to the number of man-made objects orbiting the Earth. Serendipodous 05:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: opening paragraph

message: This is a very odd image to use for the "Sun" subsection. The title makes no explanation of the fact that the image is of the Sun, with one of the blurred dots being Mercury, so the uninformed reader (which is who the article is for - someone who is looking up "Solar System" can't be expected to know what a "transit of Mercury" is) might assume that the image was of Mercury. Also as previously mentioned the transit of Mercury is not discussed in the article. Rachel Pearce (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Instead of assuming something one just may hit the link,or to go to the image caption and hopefully to learn something new and interesting of course assuming one wants to learn.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Articles aren't supposed to introduce material without explaining it. It's unfair and confusing. Serendipodous 16:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed. But the editor who placed it there seems insistent that it is more informative, though of what I'm not certain. I'll revert it again and direct the editor to the talk page. Serendipodous 09:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *IMO The image  not only has no encyclopedic value whatsoever, it has a negative value. What one could possibly learn from that image? The only thing that could be learned from this image is how not to take a similar image in order do not damage both your camera and your eyes. The image quality is horrible. It is full of camera artifacts.On the other hand the image  is highly encyclopedic. It shows not only the sun, sunspots and Mercury, but also Limb darkening. The image is a great illustration of the size of the Sun compare to Mercury. It is easy to correct the caption under the image and provide  the link to the Transit of Mercury article. Then maybe somebody would go there and learn something new.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The article talks about sunspots, about Mercury and about the Sun. The Sun has sunspots and limbs darkening. If a reader is interested in learning solar system, he would hit the links and learn something new.  My image is of the Sun. Do you call that  an image of the sun? It is not what the sun is about. This image looks like a picture made by a 2-years old. No encyclopedia that respects itself would put such an image in the Solar System article. As I said earlier IMO that image is not only bad, but might be also harmful.BTW you've never answered what one supposed to learn from the current image of the sun?--Mbz1 (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article doesn't go into any detail about what the Sun is "about". Why introduce new ideas not covered in the article? It's not the reader's responsibility to compensate for our lack of explanation. Serendipodous 21:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've told you that introducing new ideas could make some readers to want to learn more and it is what education is about. You've never responded what ideas and values the current image of the sun has.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a picture of the Sun. It isn't filtered; it isn't altered. It requires no further explanation. I would have preferred such a picture of the Sun from space, but there aren't any in the Commons. Serendipodous 08:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

text: *You've never answered my question What one suppose to learn from that so-called picture? Why to look at the article and not just at the sky? Wikipedia is encyclopedia and not a children picture book. BTW the only pictures of the sun taken from the space are taken with filtered telescopes. There are no other way to take the image of the sun.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *The sun at the image is not shining - the camera artifacts do.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transit of Mercury image 

message: I would love to see the directions of spin of each planet listed in a table somewhere, ideally along with as much other information as possible, including year length, day length, obliquity, eccentricity, and direction of spin of moons (if applicable). This information is currently scattered and I am not quite knowledgeable enough to consolidate it.
Directions of spin could be given as "North" or "Up" for Earth's rotation around itself each day, and "North" or "Up" for Earth's rotation around the sun. North/up is a nice way to use the right-hand rule, and I find it less ambiguous that clock/counterclockwise. North/up could also be called "counterclockwise when viewed from above/looking down at the Northern hemisphere."
Specific questions: What direction does Earth's rotational axis precess in? I assume from the difference in sidereal and tropical years that it must precess "down/South." And what direction does the anomalistic precession (the precession of the apsides) go? I also assume that is "up/North" from available, albeit indirect data. I could answer these questions myself, but not as fast as most of you. Plus, I want the table for the good of the world, not just the answers in a talk page for me. Thanks.Fluoborate (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like you want this article. Serendipodous 10:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Directions of spin of each planet 

message: Isn't it that Uranus and Neptune are no longer called Gas Giants (Jovian Planets), but now called Ice Giants? From what I know, it's because they were found to be made of frozen gases like the KBOs rather than gaseous gases like the Jovians.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.219.236 (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Uranus and Neptune are referred to as ice giants, yes. Some consider ice giant to be a different classification than gas giant, others consider it a subclass of gas giant. They are called ice giants because their atmospheres contain far less hydrogen and helium than Jupiter and Saturn and a far higher proportion of volatile compounds such as water, ammonia and methane. Astronomers refer to these compounds as "ices" whether they are actually ice or not. Uranus and Neptune are also far smaller than Jupiter and Saturn; their combined mass is barely a third that of Saturn and barely a tenth that of Jupiter. Serendipodous 19:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ice Giants

message: This page says that our solar system has exactly three dwarf planets. It is missing entries such as Xena . National Geographic says that there are 44 dwarf planets .
MassimoH (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Xena" is the informal nickname given to the dwarf planet Eris before it was officially named. The issue of the number of dwarf planets is contentious. The defining characteristic of a dwarf planet (as opposed to a mere Kuiper belt object or asteroid) is that it is large enough to be round. But how can you tell whether or not a tiny lump of ice three billion miles away is round or not? Telescopes aren't really up to the job. The simplest solution would be to do what Mike Brown does and say that any object beyond a certain diameter, which would then be large enough to be round, should be called round. This would mean there were, as NatGeo says, about 44 dwarf planets. Unfortunately, there's a problem with this method: gravity alone cannot determine whether or not an object is round. Neptune's moon Proteus is larger than Saturn's moon Mimas, yet Mimas is round and Proteus is not. The reason is that Proteus is a lot colder than Mimas, and colder materials resist gravitational collapse more strongly than warmer ones. Also, icy objects like KBOs become spherical more easily than rocky objects like asteroids. Simply fixing a diameter, then, is not enough to qualify. So the IAU came up with a rather stupid solution. Any object with an absolute magnitude less than than H=1 (which meant it was exceptionally bright) would be called a dwarf planet. This would mean that there are unlikely to be more than four official dwarf planets in the outer Solar System: Pluto, Eris, 2003 EL61 and 2005 FY9. Neither of the last two have been officially classified as dwarf planets yet, and probably won't be until they get names. Serendipodous 17:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Wow, what a knowledgeable response. Thanks! Maybe the main article can contain an extra sentence or so that clarifies the issue a little better?
MassimoH (talk) 02:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue's a bit too complex to be explained in a few sentences. The articles dwarf planet and plutoid cover the issue fairly well. Serendipodous 06:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

text:  This honestly makes me think that decisions are being made only to keep the number of entities with 'planet' in their name to a minimum and not for any scientific reason. This was the main argument for the whole dwarf planet thing in first place, that it would be awful for schoolkids to have to memorize several dozen planet names. Zazaban (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dwarf Planets

message: There are a lot of unsourced sections in this article, particularly towards the end. Are any specific editors maintaining it?-Wafulz (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What unsourced sections? Serendipodous 20:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, should've clarified. A lot of subsections are unsourced.-Wafulz (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from "Discovery and exploration", which sections do you think need more sources? 
EDIT: Could you, to make my job easier, tag each uncited fact with  (  ), so I can get an idea of how many are needed?Serendipodous 05:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced sections 

message: The map does not show Makemake, this should be fixed. Zazaban (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: i propose to eliminate the tags from the list of dwarf planets at the beginning of the article that say "the largest..." to make it similar to the above list of planets --SquallLeonhart_ITA (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's really no reason to do so, and it is relevant information. I'd support leaving it as is. --Ckatzchatspy 22:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As do I. Serendipodous 05:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  the largest... 

message: This site say by 6 to 7 billion years from now sun's expansion can be between 200 and 700 times the size of now (between 1.0 and 3.5 AU). This means sun's expansion have a possiblity to encompass Mars orbit and it may give it a chance to swallow the planet up. When the sun evolve into a white dwarf star and if Mars still exists; then Mars is likely to be the innermost planet.--Freewayguy Call? Fish 21:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FG, you've already gone through this over at Formation and evolution of the Solar System, which is the article to discuss this issue in anyway (this article contains a summary of the information in that article, so there isn't any point in adding any more information). Serendipodous 05:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sun's expansion 

message: Removing this list has helped stop novices becoming confused that ALL dwarf planets orbit beyond Neptune, and it looks a lot "cleaner". HarryAlffa (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing The List of Dwarf Planets

message: On further thought, I think using the word "heliopause" in the introduction at all may be causing us to talk past one another. It's not so much the heliopause that's interesting; it's the heliosphere/interplanetary medium. Perhaps this wording of the second paragraph is better:
:In broad terms, the charted regions of the Solar System consist of the Sun; four terrestrial inner planets; an asteroid belt composed of small rocky bodies; four gas giant outer planets; a second belt, the Kuiper belt, composed of icy bodies; the scattered disc; and ultimately the hypothetical Oort cloud. The stream of charged particles from the Sun, called the solar wind, creates the heliosphere which permeates the Solar System.
Thoughts? —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. Serendipodous 19:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

text: It misleads the novice into thinking that the Heliosphere stretches all the way out to the Oort cloud, see Unresolved Problems With The Lead below. -HarryAlffa (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Heliosphere

message: * I think this section should read more like a dictionary, it's purpose is surely to act as a reference for the rest of the article?
* It's not a novel, readers don't want to have to read through everything to get to stuff that's new to them.
* It needs sub-sectioning, even if it makes the TOC a bit longer:
:* Terminology
::* Object Classification
:::* Planets
:::* Dwarf Planets
::* Ice
::* Distance Measurements
Is it worth explaining more about a year and a day being individual to the planet you're on, and contrast that with Earth-years?
What about the same for a day? Mars rover guys use Sol as the name of a Mars-day. Will other terms evolve with other planets? -HarryAlffa (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and I think prose is preferable. Explaining years and days on individual planets is appropriate for their respective articles, not the Solar System article: the length of the day on the planets depends on their individual rotation rates, which is not really a function of the Solar System itself. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 13:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: A recent edit removed the word "known" from the statement that "the Sun ... contains 99.86 percent of the system's known mass".  Can anyone explain how it is known that there's no extra mass lying undiscovered out there orbiting the Sun?  I don't see how we can possibly rule out, say, an enormously massive Oort Cloud, spherically symmetric about the sun, composed of massive black holes.  The referenced paper is a dead link, so if we can't find some explanation for this, I think we should put the word "known" back in there.  --Doradus (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put the word "known" back in there.  --Doradus (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I didn't reply more quickly; it took me a while to track down the Woolfson article (DOI:10.1046/j.1468-4004.2000.00012.x) which is the source for the statement. The relevant sentence is "The Sun with 99.86% of the mass of the system has only 0.5% of the total angular momentum contained in its spin; the remainder is in the planetary orbits." No mention of "known", but also no mention of how that number was derived. If there's a better source (particularly a more readily-available one), that would be fabulous, but I had a surprising amount of trouble tracking one down. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 16:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if your hypothetical enormously massive Oort cloud was exactly spherically symmetric, its effects would be noticeable on other bodies in the solar system (due to assymetrical forces over an eccentric orbit). So the 99.86% is fairly certain. But we should definitely get a reference for this. Feyrauth (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it wouldn't.  A spherical shell exerts no net force on anything inside it. --Doradus (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would affect the motions of Voyager 1 and probably some other spacecraft, though. Looie496 (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not until a spacecraft gets outside it, which hasn't happened yet.  But that's a good point: when v'ger gets far enough away, we should be able to make definite statements about the total amount of mass in the Solar System.  --Doradus (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

text: The fact is still that we have a source for the 99.86% figure, but not for the word "known". FWIW, estimates of the total Oort cloud mass are of order a few Earth masses (e. g. 1983 A&A 118: 90 and the Oort cloud article, which is well cited). —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 23:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: @ spherical gravitational shell - I never heard that the net force is zero before! But it would have some pretty crazy effects over time as the solar system encounters interstellar bodies. I imagine a spherically symmetric shell of black holes would not be very stable. For that matter, although the net force on the bodies within the sphere may be zero the net force on the individual black holes would not be, so any mass within the sphere would pull the black holes inwards... with pretty nasty consequences for us if we *are* inside one... Feyrauth (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with all of the above.  I'm just playing devil's advocate really, but I think Alex hit the nail on the head by focusing on sources we can cite.  --Doradus (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Known mass 

message: I think that image works well in heliosphere, because it shows the various components of the heliopause in detail, but I don't think it works well in a general article about the Solar System because, for some odd reason, Mercury and Venus aren't in it. Serendipodous 06:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Uranus is also missing, and the Sun is in the wrong place.  (It seems to be at 0.1 AU, but the Sun's surface is actually at 0.00465 AU.)  --Doradus (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's nice because it's the only image in the Solar System article that shows many of the constituents with distances to scale. It certainly could be moved down to the Heliosheath, Outer Solar System, or Neighbourhood sections, although when I looked through, the place I put it seemed the most logical at the time. (I could also see an argument to make it the lead image, as the article is about the Solar System, not the planets.) I think it's visually very nice and worth including on the more prominent Solar System article. I agree that it's odd that it lacks three planets, but it shows enough for a reader to easily infer their location. As for the Sun, there is no zero on a logarithmic scale, so you have to make a compromise, and I don't question the artist's decision on that point. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 16:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, the image right below it was supposed to provide an idea of the orbits to scale. Serendipodous 16:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah; I had missed that because the image was too small to be legible. I made it larger and removed the logarithmic image, although I still really like it and think it would be good elsewhere in this article. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 16:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Could someone edit the image to include the missing planets? I notice someone has edited the lead image to update the dwarf planets. The image would have to be fairly large though, it's barely legible as it is on the heliosphere page. As for the Sun, the scale between the Earth and the Sun is still logarithmic so I'd say the Sun's surface appears to be at about 1e-3AU, which about as accurate as you could get on this scale. Feyrauth (talk) 02:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You could get Mercury and Venus in it, but on that scale, Uranus and Neptune would be on top of each other. Serendipodous 08:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: logarithmic image

message: ::::Nice work; I think the article reads better now. Two further organization-related points to think about (which I'll stew over before making changes myself):
::::#Could the "Definition of planet" section be folded in somewhere else, like to the first mention of planet? It's hanging a bit as it is now.
::::#The interplanetary medium section is also hanging a bit; perhaps it should be merged with the content in Solar System#Heliosheath?. Also, I'm not sure the "heliospheric current sheet" image is terribly helpful here; it's too small to see the orbits.
::::Both of these issues may be unavoidable because the article is largely organized (logically, I think) "geographically", from the center out, but both planets and  the interplanetary medium cover a range of regions. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Further work

message: Hi all — having had my attention brought here by a post on wp:ani, I've looked over the back and forth here, and it seems to me that there is a possibility of smoothing things out by informal mediation.  I would be willing to give it a shot, if all parties agree — in particular, HaffyAlffa would need to agree.  Here are some relevant factors:
#To make it clear, I am not an admin.
#I don't intend to edit the article myself, in any case.
#I am a neuroscientist with a pretty strong background in general science, but not an expert on this topic, so I would not express opinions about who is right when there is a content dispute — I might express an opinion about how to resolve the question, though.
#I would express opinions about whether a given change is helpful or hurtful to the structure of the article, and whether instances of conduct are appropriate.
#I would resolutely avoid coming down hard on one side or the other, even if I think one is more correct, because doing so destroys a mediation process.
#I would ask people to try to make concrete assertions and proposals, and to defend them as tersely as possible.
#It is my opinion that all parties here are intelligent and reasonable, and committed to creating a good article, but that the arguments about how to do it have become a bit too hot-tempered and assertive.  Fixing that would be my main goal.
#To be concrete, the first thing I would do is ask HarryAlffa to apologize for this , which was disrespectful.
What do you think? Looie496 (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm perfectly fine with it. Serendipodous 20:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, me too. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 20:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A welcome step indeed; thanks for offering to help out. --Ckatzchatspy 20:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: May I ask what is so wrong with computer tecnicians? 67.212.185.186 (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing. But he was accusing Ashill of being dishonest, and disrespecting his scientific credentials. Serendipodous 06:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

text: No. 8 is not coming down hard against you.  As I see it, you lost your temper and said some things that were over the top, and made the others angry.  Even if you think you were justified, I hope you will acknowledge, for the sake of harmony, that you could have said it in a less provocative tone.  That's all. Looie496 (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me add that the goal of that is to enable this to move forward, without getting into any more arguments about who did what bad thing to who in the past—arguments about that are always unproductive. Looie496 (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I would say I was justifiably exasperated by stupidity! But then I would say that! But seriously, I said, "From what you have written then, if you really are a scientist, it has to be concluded ...". You can see that my target was his analysis, if he had come back with a better analysis then this would have forced me to say something like "Ok. You're not that bad then", but he didn't and I haven't. -HarryAlffa (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am unclear if you have agreed to mediation; could you please clarify? —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 14:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't met 8. -HarryAlffa (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that things have been calm for the past few days.  Let's let it rest, and I'll keep my eye on the discussion here and step in if it looks like there is going to be a flareup.  Or is there still a content issue under dispute here? Looie496 (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Possibility for mediation?