Template talk:Solar System/Archive 2

message: The only outstanding question for the footer, I think, is whether the dwarf planets ought to be in the image. There was such an image devised:
but it is slightly out of date as it doesn't have the ring-of-Jupiter fix. What does everyone think about having the dwarf planets noted in a different color?
:Seeing that the only star and the planets are the same colour, I see no reason for dwarf planets to be differently marked - especially not with a more prominent colour than the planets. They should definitely be included in the diagram though. 70.225.183.120 09:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken the liberty of adding this graphic to the template, as it is just an upgrade of the previous one. If anyone objects, please feel free to revert. --Ckatzchatspy 21:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm of the opinion that one image - the EightPlanets.png - is enough for the footer. Each image is about 10 KB, so for those on slow connections it adds a second or two to the download of each page, and the templates are often used on graphically intensive pages as it is. It might be nice to include the inclined rings of Uranus or the ring arcs of Neptune; dwarf planets deserve about a pixel or two at most, and certainly not a different colour :-) Philip Legge phi1ip@netscape·net 01:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reintroducing the question of dwarf planets in the image; other ring changes? 

message: It's obvious that there are a lot of different opinions as to what to include in (or remove from) this template. Can I suggest that perhaps we discuss the changes, come to some sort of agreement, and then update? My concern is that the box is changing so frequently that it is becoming a distraction to casual readers. On several occasions, I've looked at the box, noticed several items I'd like to check out, linked to one of them, then gone to the instance of the template at the bottom of that page only to find that the other links weren't there any more. (I'm not talking about changes to reflect current events, like Eris. I'm talking about entire sections of the template being removed and re-added within minutes.) Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 04:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for a breather please 

message: Quite liking the update - it's cleaner, simpler, and easy to read. With this model, the dwarf planets can easily be moved to a separate line if the population increases. One tweak:
The Sun
Mercury · Venus · Earth · Mars · Ceres · Jupiter · Saturn · Uranus · Neptune ·  Pluto · Eris
Moons · Meteoroids · Asteroids (Asteroid belt) · Centaurs · TNOs (Kuiper belt · Scattered disc) · Comets (Oort cloud)
See also astronomical objects and the solar system's list of objects, sorted by radius or mass.
My only concern was that the previous version implied that Ceres is farther out than Neptune. The italics do a good job of suggesting a different status than the planets. (I've also tried it with bullets rather than hyphens as I prefer the look, and it saves a bit of space.) Over all, well done. --Ckatzchatspy 18:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, and I like the substitution of bullets as well. Can we get a rough consensus on this design? Alba 23:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the debate has stalled a bit, I'm going to "be bold" and implement the above version, which seems to be meeting with general acceptance. That doesn't have to mean an end to this discussion, however - let's try and keep the "talk, resolve, then replace" approach going as it seems to really help stabilize the template. --Ckatzchatspy 04:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I really don't see why the dwarf planets should be listed. For matters of expansion later, they should be treated like every other non-planet set of objects in the SS, and simply have a single link. --Exodio 21:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We can discuss that if the list of dwarf planets gets too long -- if we want to keep a dozen dwarf planets in the template, that is. But since it costs us nothing right now, I say keep 'em. Alba 23:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current proposal

message: All right, Cyde has an objection. Here's yet another version:
The Sun
Mercury · Venus · Earth · Mars · Jupiter · Saturn · Uranus · Neptune
Ceres · Pluto · Eris
Moons · Meteoroids · Asteroids (Asteroid belt) · Centaurs · TNOs (Kuiper belt · Scattered disc) · Comets (Oort cloud)
See also astronomical objects and the solar system's list of objects, sorted by radius or mass.
Now it's grouped the way the IAU has done - planets, dwarf planets, and everything else. --Ckatzchatspy 07:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not offended that easily :) RandomCritic 11:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Draft 4A is by far the best. Populations of Moons *do* need to be listed as many of these moons are more significant (in mass, size, atmosphere, possibility of life etc) than dwarf planets. Perhaps a better words for the last line is "regions".The Enlightened 15:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Objection; new proposal

message: The Sun · Mercury · Venus · Earth · Ceres · Mars · Jupiter · Saturn · Uranus · Neptune · Pluto · Eris
Moons: Terran · Martian · Jovian · Saturnian · Uranian · Neptunian · Plutonian · Eridian
SSSBs: Meteoroids · Asteroids & Moons (Asteroid belt) · Centaurs · TNOs (Kuiper belt, Scattered disc) · Comets (Oort Cloud)
See also astronomical objects and the solar system's list of objects, sorted by radius or mass.
If the Sun and the planets are considered alike enough to be on the same line, the dwarf planets can be there also. This can be changed if more dwarf planets are added. That event will likely be months away and thats a long time on wikipedia. 
The Enlightened 15:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean the "Cyde fix" version I did a while back? --Ckatzchatspy 01:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops yeah thats the one I meant -- Nbound 01:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People seemed to prefer the Sun being moved to the top left. As Cyde's objection was a different line between dwarf planets and planets, now the Sun was on the same line I thought the objection would have been invalidated.The Enlightened 06:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think Dwarf planets should be on their own line -- Nbound 06:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three line 

message: The Sun · Mercury · Venus · Earth · Mars · Jupiter · Saturn · Uranus · Neptune
Ceres · Pluto · Eris
Natural satellites · Small bodies: Asteroids · Centaurs · TNOs · Comets · Meteoroids
Regions: Asteroid belt · Kuiper belt · Scattered disc · Oort cloud
See also astronomical objects and the solar system's list of objects, sorted by radius or mass.
I still think we need to leave space for the additional dwarf planets that will almost certainly be identified, but I support the movement of the Sun to the upper left and I have no problem with the idea of linking "natural satellites" alone. Alba 15:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft 6C