Talk:Solar System

message: The redirect Système solaire has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Duckmather (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Système solaire]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I’ve been reverted in my edit (rather harshly labeled in the revert summary as “awkward,” which I dispute) by an editor, and I’d like some other views, thanks. I believe it is helpful to briefly mention Pluto’s former status in the lede, since most people only read the lede and Pluto has only been demoted for the last couple decades after over 70 years of official planethood. Jusdafax (talk) 05:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Lots of things we once believed are no longer recognised as true. This is just one of them. No need. HiLo48 (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

text: This, and the additional controversy surrounding the 2006 reclassification, are already discussed on Pluto's main article and the article on dwarf planets, both of which are relatively high-traffic articles. The Solar System article itself already mentions this as well (see Notes), though it is relatively obscure and inserting the information into a section could be helpful; however, leads alone aren't meant to be exhaustive. ArkHyena (talk) 08:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

text: There are plenty of planets no longer considered planets, including the Sun, the Moon, and four asteroids. Should we mention them too? Serendipodous 09:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Sure, Pluto is a planet in the traditional sense, as are all the other dwarf planets. However, the lead doesn't discuss the discovery history, so there's no need to single out Pluto for that reason. I prefer the current wording which has the planets segregated by class. It aligns with the current IAU definition, as do, for example, the modern constellation boundaries. Praemonitus (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention Pluto as considered a former planet in lede 

message: it links to a card game, i assume it is not talking about a danish card game. TheT.N.T.BOOM! (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch, thanks for pointing this out. Pointed it to Chaos theory, which was probably the intended destination. Remsense诉 17:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  the link to chaotic in structure and composition 

message: I just made some major changes to the article. The most notable of which are:
* Convert small headers listing individual bodies into bullet points, conserving the links using 
* Merge oddball sections "Comparison with extrasolar systems" and "Location", create a new section for a general overview (which is basically a repackaged version of "Comparison with extrasolar systems" with some irrelevant information transferred to other parts of the article). Move "General characteristics" down for readability.
* Remove AU to kilometers and miles conversion, strictly only use AU. Also replaced "approximately X AU from the Sun" with clear aphelion and perihelion data.
There are a few parts of this article that I still feel lacking, such as the description of individual bodies or some subsections in "General characteristics". What do you think about the article as it is? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Made sense, but I always feel like it is an odd-ball thing... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I merged the "extrasolar systems" section to the general characteristics of the solar system. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

text: My dear, @Fdfexoex, what exactly would it be "overview" for you? Just a asking. 45.233.183.235 (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: — Assignment last updated by Jgleana (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Jgleana Hey! Do you want some help? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, I noticed you commented this 1 month ago, what'sup? 45.233.183.235 (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: English Composition 1102 085

message: The infobox for this article has an atrociously poor level of citation, and is utterly inadequate for an FA-class article. I think it should be draftified until the citation issue is resolved. Praemonitus (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Praemonitus Cited most of them except for the galactic inclination info. I have no idea where it came from. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Same for the Hill sphere. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I just made a to-do box on top, feel free to add anything more into it – CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I don't think that a few uncited numbers in such article justify draftification. Artem.G (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Could you tell me where the problem is? I ain't any FA-class specialist, but I can't found the mistake here, maybe I could be wrong, but it is not clearly wrong. 45.233.183.235 (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Overall, many things need to be clarified here, so that in the future this article will become so unreliable, that it's gonna be almost impossible to redeem this later, It is always good to avoid this kind of referential stagnation—referential, in this sense, of reference sources. 45.233.183.235 (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poorly-cited infobox 

message: Praemonitus, why do you think that galleries disrupt the flow of text? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: They create a block of space that directly interrupts the text. Where possible, the reader should be given the option of when to view the images. Praemonitus (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Make sense. Let me adjust picture placement accordingly. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  About gallery 

message: I don't think that a lot of readers care about stuff in the general characteristics section and would much prefer read about the things that is inside the Solar System. Should I put that section below "Boundary area and uncertainties" section? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Starting with a high level overview makes more sense to me. Praemonitus (talk) 04:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... what do you think this article needs work on? I have a feeling that I have to rewrite descriptions about the dwarf planets and expand Solar_System#Centaurs,_trojans_and_resonant_bodies and Solar_System#Asteroids a little bit. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pushing "general characteristics" section below 

message: What is the justification of the new lead image? Small text is practically useless, and previous image (without the text, but with a caption) in the infobox was imho a better choice. Artem.G (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'm using an average sized laptop, AND using my reading glasses. I cannot read the smaller text. On any smaller screen that image would be quite useless. HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree. The text helps match the name of the planets with the planet pictures. I find it pretty helpful to show that to the students. 113.160.44.130 (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations on completely ignoring the concerns expressed in the previous two comments. I suspect that when you show it to students, you display it on a somewhat larger screen than my phone. HiLo48 (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

text: hey, , , , any thoughts on this? Artem.G (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the ping. The present image presents more information than the previous image (seen here). Even without reading the smaller print it presents large-enough useful printed data, and the smaller print is available by one or two clicks on the image. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

text:  From my perspective, it's too cluttered with information for such a small image. I don't find it attractive, artistically. Less is more. Praemonitus (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

text: That works for me. Praemonitus (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox picture 

message: Over the last month, this article has been completely rewritten from the ground up, without discussion or peer review. I think we need to take stock of what has happened. Perhaps bring in a disinterested party. Serendipodous 12:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree that it has been completely rewritten, but there have been a significant number of changes. I've been making another pass through and trying to tweak the results. It mostly seems to be in decent shape, FA-wise. The one glaring omission I see is there is no mention of planetary migration in the "Formation and evolution" section, but the migration of Neptune is mentioned twice. Praemonitus (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've attempted to address the last. Praemonitus (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are we done now? 

message: Asteroids within the asteroid belt are not covered. Serendipodous 22:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There's some discussion at the end of the section. Praemonitus (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. I'll do it. Serendipodous 16:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the point of changing the "asteroid belt" topic header to "asteroids" if you're not going to mention other asteroids? 

message: In some spots, distances in AU are presented without conversion, while others convert it to miles and km. It's inconsistent. The size of an AU is well defined at the start of the "Distances and scales" section. Do you think we can use AU thereafter without the intermittent conversions? An example is the Asteroid belt section, where the inner and outer radius from the Sun is converted, then AU is used for orbital distances without conversion. The benefit of the AU in this context is that it provides a convenient scale. There shouldn't be a need to keep converting it; that just adds clutter. Praemonitus (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: agree, AUs should be enough. there is no way anyone can imagine what (15 billion km; 9.3 billion mi) is, 100 AU does the same job and is more concise. Artem.G (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

text: Support removing conversions. The distances in kilometers are simply too large, astronomical units are more appropriate to such large scales. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

text: As a note, a lot of other prominent astronomy articles employ this too (e.g. Pluto); should we remove conversions there as well? ArkHyena (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well the pluto article just jumps in and starts using AU without defining it, so I'm not sure. Perhaps that's a more general discussion for WP:AST? If there's a consensus, it could go in the astronomy style guide. Praemonitus (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distance conversions?