Template talk:Solar System

Archives

2004-August 2006 2

Reintroducing the question of dwarf planets in the image; other ring changes?

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but it is slightly out of date as it doesn't have the ring-of-Jupiter fix.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)

A separate question -- what about the distinctive 90-degree rings of Uranus, or the partial rings of Neptune? Alba 18:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to Alba: File:Solar sys.png Here is a different version with the contrast bumped up a bit and Neptune given more breathing room. Included are the rings of Uranus and Neptune.

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. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Upon the reclassification of the larger SSSB's to dwarf planets we will have crowding problems, and all the dwarf planets arre in the belts anyway so technically they are in the current image -- Nbound 10:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Dwarf planets

I don't think the dwarf planets are important enough to merit their own row. It almost makes them look more important than the real planets (since there are less of them listed). I'm thinking a simple link to a list of dwarf planets under the "Others" section gives them the appropriate weight. --Cyde Weys 04:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit - let's discuss this first before making such a major change please. You deleted a lot of useful information. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ckatz - this template has already been at the stage of edit warring between the Pluto promoters/demoters recently. No substantial changes should be contemplated without first trying to reach a consensus on this discussion page (an exception only for vandalism reverts).

I find your argument - that there being few dwarf planets on their own line, makes them more important - to be somewhat fallacious. The number of items under a category does not signify relative importance; but the vertical ordering of lines Star -> Planets -> Dwarf planets -> Other clearly spells out a hierachy at a more intuitive level. Also a subcommittee of the IAU will no doubt be formed to consider other TNOs and asteroids as candidate dwarf planets in due course of time (when we will presumably have a similar debate as to whether "candidates" should be included in the template!).

To labour the concept of why such consensus is required, by example: if you look at the history of the template, there have usually been links to the Earth's moon, but none for any other of the Solar System's 200+ satellites (six of which are more massive than Pluto or Eris). On 7 September I floated the idea of a set of 7 links for satellites (one to Natural satellites, the other six to the respective planetary satellite pages); the consensus was that although an entire line was perhaps not warranted on reasons of conserving space, at least one link to the page Natural satellites was desirable. In other words, given the options of zero links, one link, or seven links to that topic, the consensus reached was for one link - not zero, and not seven.

Your relegation of Dwarf planets to the Other row also denies linkage to 1 Ceres, Pluto, and 136199 Eris, so I can't imagine it being a popular move on those grounds either :) Philip Legge _{phi1ip@netscape·net} 07:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

One trivial correction to the above - idea actually raised on 28 August, various discussions between then and 7 September arrived at preferred one link to be included: Satellites Philip Legge _{phi1ip@netscape·net} 08:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for a breather please

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? --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Pluto's moons deserve to be on the natural satellites page

I see no reason that person reverted my edit. You cannot be seriously saying that since Sylvia has 2 moons the size of my fist that Pluto doesn't deserve to be on the list?? Blasphemy. Whether you Pluto haters like it or not, Pluto's moons are very much more distinctive than the moons of those silly little asteroids. It deserves to be up there just as much as Earth, Mars, or any others. -- This unsigned post was made by 69.106.180.64 (Talk), 01:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Pluto is on the natural satellites page, and this is not a matter of people being "Pluto haters". Please refer to the discussion above.Philip Legge _{phi1ip@netscape·net} 03:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Eris also has a moon, and many of the KBO's do as well, they are all moons much bigger than that of sylvia's, please do not resort to name calling, it weakens your argument. -- Nbound 01:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• And Eris' moons don't have an article, do they? Again, you're saying that Charon, one of a double planet parternship is no more distintive than the little pebbles orbiting Eris and others??????? -- This unsigned post was made by 69.106.180.64 (Talk), 01:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

YES -- Nbound 01:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Eris' moon Dysnomia is actually in terms of absolute magnitude the fourteenth brighest TNO in its own right; so your stance to include Pluto's satellites in the template also necessitates including linkage for the other satellite belonging to dwarf planets. Thus we would have nine links instead of seven, when it was discussed above that for reasons of space one link was probably the better compromise. Philip Legge _{phi1ip@netscape·net} 03:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• And yet, you're the biased one. You cannot objectively say that. It is in all ways, WRONG. -- This unsigned post was made by 69.106.180.64 (Talk), 01:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No it isnt... please do not vandalise the footer again -- Nbound 01:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• I"m NOT vandalising it. How are you right and I'm wrong? You're ignorant. -- This unsigned post was made by 69.106.180.64 (Talk), 01:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Because we link to the satellites of the Planets not of dwarf-planets/asteroids, please do not edit it again... if u contine to insult me (which has been removed) i will have ur IP blocked from wikipedia -- Nbound 01:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Pluto is a nothing. It only merits any mention in anything other than its article because of its historical significance. If it was discovered today, nobody would give a damn. --Cyde Weys 04:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's only the eighteenth most massive body in the solar system, extremely reflective, the brightest TNO by apparent magnitude (second in absolute terms) and moreover a binary system (the barycentre with Charon being in free space) with two extra moons. Hardly of any importance at all. No one should even bother. (tongue firmly in cheek :)

However, it's a dwarf planet all the same; I certainly don't rate it as importantly as the eight de jure planets, but it deserves a place somewhere else in the template. Philip Legge _{phi1ip@netscape·net} 06:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Leaving aside the heated question of whether Pluto is a planet or not, the current design of the template has a striking defect: it names a category "satellites" (not "planetary satellites), linking to "natural satellites" which includes the moons of any kind of body; and the satellites of non-"planet" bodies are not listed anywhere on it -- a disturbing omission, since it leaves out the 12th largest satellite in the solar system, Charon. I think there should be at least a grab-bag reference, maybe at the end, for the moons of non-planetary objects. Unfortunately there is no accepted term now that includes both "dwarf planets" and smaller bodies. So for the following example I'm just going to suggest "other", as follows:

Unfortunately the article I picked for inclusion is not very satisfactory from this point of view as it does not really discuss the moons of Pluto and Eris (although they are mentioned in the secondarily linked List of asteroid moons. Perhaps it could be edited for more completeness; there is AFAIK no article dealing with "dwarf planet moons" and arguably the category is not coherent enough to require such an article. We do, however, have Pluto's natural satellites and Dysnomia. For my money it does no harm to include dwarf planet satellites with the other planetary satellites, as it says nothing about whether they are "planets" or not, thus:

Or it could be on its own line:

The Solar System
Star: The Sun
Planets: Mercury - Venus - Earth - Mars - Jupiter - Saturn - Uranus - Neptune
Dwarf Planets: Ceres - Pluto - Eris
Small Bodies: Asteroids - Centaurs - TNOs - Comets - Meteoroids
Planetary satellites: Terran - Martian - Jovian - Saturnian - Uranian - Neptunian
Other satellites: Plutonian - Eridian - Asteroidal
Populations: 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.

RandomCritic 10:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If i were to choose one it would be the last one (just above)...

my take on this type of redesign would be:

The linkage to each planet(oid)'s moons is not really needed. -- Nbound 11:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, how about this -- only list the link to the Natural satellite article on the Solar System footer, and add to the various satellite pages something like this:

RandomCritic 13:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Great idea, i see youve implemented it already... Good Work *thumb up* -- Nbound 23:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Nicely done, RandomCritic... Philip Legge _{phi1ip@netscape·net} 23:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Template Redesign?

Ive noticed recently people have been pushing for a template redesign (as in removing/adding links from it), any thoughts/opinions/etc. should go here and we'll all try and reach a consensus -- Nbound :

Here are my two takes on a condensed footer:

Draft 1

Draft 1A

Discussion

I just think that it shouldn't be too long. There's a balance to be struck between listing everything in the solar system and listing just the essentials. At some point adding lots more links (like various dwarf planets nobody cares about and the moons of each planet) just dilutes the quality of the information. The template should very prominently emphasize the Sun and the the eight planets, not give equal weight to a bunch of little nothing objects. --Cyde Weys 04:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, I respect your right to your own opinions, but try to be fair - don't claim to speak for "everyone". Obviously, as demonstrated by the activity here and elsewhere, a lot of people do care about the other objects. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, while I agree with you that the template shouldn't be too long, twice now you have completely removed the set of links to satellites instead of retaining the suggested single link elsewhere in the template - a compromise which has received virtually no objection in the discussion above, since being raised on 28 August.

I believe I've given fair justification as to why the single link satellites should be there: e.g. of the top 30 objects in the solar system by mass, half of that number are planetary satellites, seven of which are larger than any known dwarf planet (or potential candidate dwarf planet). If you look at the logarithmic scale, there is larger difference between the masses of Saturn and Jupiter, or Neptune and Saturn, than there is between Ganymede and Mercury. Could you please refrain from removing stuff that several editors (other than me!) think is worthy of inclusion, and discuss the matter here first?

For my part, I think neither of these drafts are as good as several other attempts at drafts on this page. In particular, I think it is useful to flesh out some of the different categories of Small Solar System Bodies into at least asteroids, cis/trans-Neptunians, comets, and finally meteoroids, as several of the other suggested templates do. May I also suggest that at some point the current line of seven links to planetary satellite pages be replaced by just satellites? (I will wait a day or so before intending to act on this.) Philip Legge _{phi1ip@netscape·net} 06:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, that was an oversight on my part. I don't believe they should be listed individually, but having a link to that page is a good idea. --Cyde Weys 13:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

While it still needs work, I'm leaning towards Draft 1 as a starting point. I do think the dwarf planets should have a reasonably prominent position in the table (#1 vs. #1A). The IAU saw fit to create them as a distinct classification, rather than lumping them in with the "other stuff" as SSSBs. Our presentation of the system should reflect that. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I like draft 1A. It is compact, and while there will not be more planets discovered, there may well be more dwarf planets named in the coming months. Rather than rework the template each time, it makes more sense in my mind to have a category for dwarf planets and leave it at that. The goal should be for a stable template that changes as little as possible, and i think draft 1a will do a good job of that for the foreseeable future. --Exodio 05:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Any ideas on possible new designs or criticisms on the ones above? or are we sticking with current one? -- Nbound 05:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Nbound, I've restored the version prior to your recent edit for two reasons: one, because we're still discussing the design, and towo, because I honestly think the older version looks better. I don't think we need to list the numbers of the dwarf planets. They aren't referred to as that publicly (the IAU stated that they were only added to the list because Ceres was already there), it clutters the layout, and it complicates things if (when) more are added to that class. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, no progress seems to be happening on design discussions though :( -- Nbound 07:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not as concerned about where you capitalized text, although it does look better with only the first letters in caps. (I'm not a big fan of having Every Word Capitalized...) --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

hmm a case of beauty is in the eye of the beholder, i beleive headings that in each word is capitalised, look much better :P -- Nbound 07:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I personally prefer Draft 1, until such a time as the list of Dwarf Planets starts to overflow, at which point I would prefer Draft 2. I prefer both of them to the "Extended" footers which have been circulating recently. Bluap 13:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Nbound, you keep adding listings of the moons of each planet. Why do you feel this is necessary? The moons are overall a very minor part of the solar system, and can easily be read about in the respective articles on the planets themselves. To me, your way of doing it feels like making a template for all primate species, and besides including links to each primate species' article you also include a link to the article on their brains. --Cyde Weys 13:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit (moons/natural satellites)

Since I added the Template:SolarSatellites Footer to the various satellite pages, I think that a separate satellite section to the Solar System footer is redundant. I'm editing it as follows:

RandomCritic 15:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a much better solution. We might do something similar for dwarf planets, perhaps? --Cyde Weys 18:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

By that, do you mean we should remove the named dwarf planets, and only have a single reference? That would be a mistake, I think. Anyways, I have a proposed slight tweak as follows:

The Solar System
Star: The Sun
Planets: Mercury - Venus - Earth - Mars - Jupiter - Saturn - Uranus - Neptune
Dwarf Planets: Ceres - Pluto - Eris
Small Bodies: Asteroids - Centaurs - TNOs - Comets - Meteoroids
Populations: Moons - 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.

In this revision, the "Natural satellites" link is displayed as "Moons" for clarity - that is why the link is in the template, and it is a more recognizable name for the general public. (Plus, according to the article "Natural Satellites", we'd actually have to list everything in the box - incuding the Sun - under that heading.) I've also moved it to the first position because it is likely to be the first point of interest for readers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Many of these moons are huge objects - way bigger than the dwarf planets. If we were really being fair we would have direct links to each of them. I'm not advocating that, but if we're going to link to individual dwarf planets we should at least link to moon's planetary groupings. Right now they're being listed as insignificant as meteoroids.70.225.183.120 23:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Right now it seems like the important question is, are dwarf planets small solar system bodies? That is the only reason to put dwarf planet as a link without listing the actual dwarf planets. But then, if dwarf planets belong in a discrete group from small solar system bodies, what if 20 dwarf planets are named? Do we expand the template to include all of those? I think making dwarf planets a single link without listing what the dwarf planets are should be seriously considered. I am not 100% on it, because there are reasons to list them out also. So, I have no side at this point except to say i am leaning towards a single link. --Exodio 00:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The dwarf planets are seperate from SSSB's according to the IAU resolution, if there becomes too many dwarf planets, we should do what we've done with the moons, (add dwarf planets to the "populations" section and give them their own footer). -- Nbound

The dwarf planets are separate from small bodies, as are moons - according to the resolution small bodies must orbit the Sun. It seems silly to include "moons" in "populations" as they are not one population but exist in separate groups all over the system. They should be listed as such. I don't see how one extra line is enough of a drawback when they are such significant objects.70.225.183.120 02:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The word "Populations" seems to be the problem here, which is silly, because it's unnecessary -- it's the one header that's not also a hyperlink. Why keep it? And the "Moons" line works a lot better if it's not given the same precedence, i.e. size, as the lines for other groups. Try these proposals:

Draft 4A

Draft 4B:

Option A is clearer, but option B is more compact. Alba 04:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

We dont need linkage to each systems moons:

The Solar System
Star: The Sun
Planets: Mercury - Venus - Earth - Mars - Jupiter - Saturn - Uranus - Neptune
Dwarf Planets: Ceres - Pluto - Eris
Small Bodies: Asteroids - Centaurs - TNOs - Comets - Meteoroids
Populations: Asteroid belt - Kuiper belt - Scattered disc - Oort cloud
Other: Moons
See also astronomical objects and the solar system's list of objects, sorted by radius or mass.

-- Nbound 04:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC) --

Here's an idea for refining it a bit more:

--Ckatzchatspy 05:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I like that very much -- Nbound 05:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

We're getting there, but if we're going to mix those last two lines together, there are more logical ways of grouping the populations and their members together:

The Solar System
Star: The Sun
Planets
Mercury - Venus - Earth - Mars - Jupiter - Saturn - Uranus - Neptune
Dwarf planets
Ceres - Pluto - Eris
Satellites and Small Bodies
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.

Everything is now in association with related objects, populations and their inhabitants are linked, and items are listed in approximate order of their appearance in the Solar System from inner to outer (the way the other two lists are arranged). Alba 12:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact, do we even need the headers?

The Solar System
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.

There is something to be said for simplicity Alba 12:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Current proposal

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:

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. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Objection; new proposal

All right, Cyde has an objection. Here's yet another version:

Now it's grouped the way the IAU has done - planets, dwarf planets, and everything else. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

With the "Cyde fix" its much better (it also allows for a limited number of new dwarves in future too) -- Nbound 07:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

How about this? Saves a line. RandomCritic 10:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No offence, but i definately prefer the one prevous to this... -- Nbound 10:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not offended that easily :) RandomCritic 11:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Dwarf planets and small bodies on the same line

How's this for a slim-looking, info-full box:

The Enlightened 15:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Slight variation on the above (Moons -> Planetary Moons, RM dwarf planet moons [i beleive these moons are for the most pretty insignifant - though if consensus is for, then add], Populations -> Regions, Bullet point -> double minus sign) -- Nbound 15:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The box isn't any wider having the dwarf planet moons, it costs us nothing to include them.70.225.161.247 01:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

At least 2 of the candidate dwarf planets do... (136108) 2003 EL61 and (55637) 2002 UX25... and chances are there are going to be many more dwarf planets in the future... but the real reason is all these moons (with the possible exception of Charon) are pretty darn small, of course the same could be argued for Mars' moons though. but do we really need to link to all of them? but as i said above, im flexible and would happily have them in the template if people wish it so -- Nbound 01:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that you need to have satellites represented other than as a single class on this page. The satellites, being gravitationally bound to primary bodies other than the Sun, aren't really part of the Solar system -- they're part of Jovian, Saturnian, Uranian, or Neptunian systems, and should be classified under their respective planets. If the must be represented on the template, then maybe a small clickable symbol near the name of the planet would work just as well. Cf. the ideas Alba and I have been tossing around at Template_talk:Solar_system_table. RandomCritic 02:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That's like saying the Earth isn't really part of the galaxy because it orbits the Sun rather than the galatic core.

In a sense it is and in a sense it isn't. For this sort of purpose I think it wouldn't be. Say you were to create a navigation template for the local group of stars -- you'd have links to the Sun, α Cen, α CMa, ε Eri, τ Cet and so on; but you wouldn't have a link to Jupiter or Earth. I think it's the same way with the satellites. They're like sublessors in an apartment building; they live there, but they're not on the list of tenants. RandomCritic 16:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a fair point. However, I think that as some of the moons are larger than some of the dwarf planets they should be listed. Regardless of whether or not they directly orbit the Sun, they are certainly more significant than "meteoroids" and the rest of the small bodies. The Enlightened 19:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The solar system includes everything that orbits the Sun, whether or not it orbits as part of its own sub-system. It's a shame there isn't a word for "planemo moons" or something. Anyway, I think the dwarf planetary moons should be listed as Charon is actually larger than Ceres. How's this for a three line box:

Three line

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)

Seeing that there have been no further suggested improvements, I'm changing the footer to this.The Enlightened 23:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer Cyde's proposal further up, there is also a combined "megatemplate" in progress below which may be an even better option -- Nbound 00:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the "Cyde fix" version I did a while back? --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops yeah thats the one I meant -- Nbound 01:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

I still think Dwarf planets should be on their own line -- Nbound 06:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Draft 6C

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)

For comparison

Here's an idea I had for a larger Solar system navbox. I'm not suggesting this as a replacement for the footer -- it's not compact enough and has other issues -- but I'm wondering whether it would be possible to work in the same sort of use of the vertical element to organize the material in the footer. RandomCritic 07:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Replaced with a tweaked version, with help from Alba and Nbound. RandomCritic 17:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually like this too, as it does a very nice job of presenting lots of relevant information. Is it possible, I wonder, to develop a compact box as per what we're doing above, and have the more complete one as a "pop-out" box? (Darn... can't recall where I saw it, but there's an infobox out there somewhere which initially presents as a thin header - you click on a part of it to open up the full box. ) I'll keep looking for an example. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw one like that over at the Polish Wikipedia:

• pl:Szablon:Układ_Słoneczny

Unfortunately I don't know enough Polish to be able to figure out how it works. RandomCritic 01:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Pop-out boxes aren't a good idea. They break under lots of situations (including some alternative browsers and Wikipedia skins). Plus, 90% of people simply wouldn't even realize that the information is there, just hidden. --Cyde Weys 04:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the way this looks; I think it should replace what we use on the main solar system page. --myselfalso 20:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the kind of template that might be good to use on one article (e.g. Solar system). It's too big to be used on many articles as a nav template. --Cyde Weys 03:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You know what - this is turning into a really nice template - it's clean, very informative, and the size shouldn't really be an issue. (Compared to the size of a typical article, it's not out of place. Plus, it can replace having several templates - which often looks cluttered.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The latest version of the footer template is beginning to approach this in size :/ RandomCritic 07:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Footer changes

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)

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)

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)

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)

Planet page

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)

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. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Image

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)

It's not to scale... it is just to show the order... also the dwarf planets are already technically shown as they inhabit the system's belts. -- Nbound 04:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• They should still be included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Something14 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC).

They are there... Asteroid Belt = Ceres, Kuiper Belt = Pluto, Scattered Disk = Eris, all are shown on the image... There was an image put forward for the dwarf planets... but consensus was against it. (I actually created that image). And in hindsight I beleive the current option is best anyway -- Nbound 00:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Listing moon's as nouns or adjectives

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)

Interactive image

I have broken the image apart to create a more interactive style. I am not too happy with the existing image since it does not feature notable objects such as pluto and etc. --Cat out 11:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

There was a decision not to include Pluto, etc. --myselfalso 16:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I see no real purpose to the interactivity of the image when there are text links that provide the same usage. I have undone this, but I think that much more discussion is required on such an endeavor. Ryūlóng 21:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm including a copy of the template with interactive image (above), because I think it's an interesting approach and worth discussing. Perhaps a way could be found of integrating the image and the text. RandomCritic 23:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I really am completely uninterested in a heated debate... I had enough of those on a variety of topics... I will however post my rationale...

• If I recall correctly the International Astronomical Union met in poland and granted special status to objects like pluto coining them as "minor planets". So in that sense alone pluto and the other minor planets are still notable compared to say 1130 Skuld.
  • There aren't that many minor planets so including them wont create overcrowdness issues. I do not see a reason why not to include them on the image.
• The point of this template is to offer easier navigation. "no real purpose to the interactivity" is a terrible way to look at it. Why not? It offers easier navigation (hence purpose). I am actualy very very suprised that the edit I made was actualy reverted.
  • What I really want to do is keep the text as caption below the individual images. That will require a slightly wider image. It makes sense to align the planets with their captions.

--Cat out 13:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of opposition rationale I am reverting the template back to interactive version. --Cat out 09:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I oppose the interactive version. It is unnecessary, and creates double links in the box, since you have the names of the planets right underneath the box. --myselfalso 14:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, this proposal should be called up for a vote. Just look at all the previous versions that has been proposed. --myselfalso 14:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I oppose any kind of vote. On wikipedia we discuss, not vote. Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Cat out 14:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Your changes are fairly involved, especially the decision to remove the names of the planets, which makes the box extremely confusing to the novice reader. This should be fully discussed before implementation. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe every edit is required to be discussed. This is not inline with WP:BOLD but whatever lets discuss like no tomorow. *sigh*

I propose this version please state your rationale for or against it. While reverting no one had mentioned any real reason.

I will revert the template back to the interactive version in the absence of a discussion within the next seven days.

--Cat out 17:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read the edit summaries and this page - you'll see several good reasons for why people chose to revert. Don't take it personally. Also, you are correct in stating that we don't need to discuss every edit. That would be counterproductive. However, your latest version of the interactive template, which removed the text links to the planets, created a template that was confusing and unclear. Sorry to be blunt, but that's what happened - and it demonstrates why we should develop these templates on the talk page BEFORE they go "live". --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I actualy agree with you thats why my original proposal had the links but then people said it was creating duplicate links so I comprimised which apperantly upset you... I am working on my sandbox on the template further. Feel free to edit there. --Cat out 15:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the code for the interactive version here so that we can discuss it properly: --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed it (wikicode cluters). If people desire to see it they can click this link or the older interactive version with planet names here. --Cat out 17:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Link to template pic with Pluto

Can somebody post the link to the template picture that had the Pluto silhouette in it still? I found it before but lost it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Something14 (talk • contribs)

Hope its what your after, someone asked me for it a few days back but i was on holiday -- Nbound 08:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

While that is helpful, I'm talking about the one with Pluto that was on there before August 24, 2006.Something14 08:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Pluto is still there where it has always been :P ... --Cat out 09:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cat, and besides... the old version with pluto has it outside of the Kuiper belt... its not really accurate -- Nbound 09:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, in all fairness putting the image inside the belt makes an interactive navigation much much more diffcult. Interactively it is best to link to the Kupier belt which can then redirect to pluto and other similar objects if we use the current image (it is posible to make it interactive but would be very hard to click as ploto and others are just tiny :P). I'd however prefer an alternative solution.

--Cat out 11:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree... and the yellow would be able to designation a dwarf planet within the clickable region. In terms of mass, the rest of the belts are much larger than the dwarf planets within anyway -- Nbound 13:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. So we might want to do that. We still need a larger image to align the text properly :/

Inquiry: Shouldn't there be a link to planet X? It is supposıvely beyond the kupier belt IIRC. It could be made to be a hollow object for instance.

--Cat out 09:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Planet X isn't real. At least not yet. When it is discovered, then it should be included. --myselfalso 22:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I know Planet X isn't but there is an article about it. The point of the footer is to link to relevant wikipedia articles about the solar system, not scientific accuracy. And I am not proposing we put it after Pluto. Nemesis (star), Vulcan (hypothetical planet), and Planet X can be presented somewhere on the template :/ --Cat out 17:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the purpose of the footer is to represent the actual solar system as it is known by astronomers. Hypothetical objects guessed at by mistaken scientists or written about by trashy scifi writers or astrologers have no place here. You would not have fictional Prime Ministers listed on a Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom page would you? The Enlightened 23:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree completely and restate my case. This is a navigational template and a line about hypotetical (and notable) objects is more than approporate. None of the three objects are fictional but instead are theorised and hence should not be on the planet line. --Cat out 15:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

But these are all defunct theories. Nemesis would certainly have been picked up by radiation scans, Vulcan would be pulled apart by gravitational and thermal forces and the observations which caused the Planet X theory were found to be mistakes! Besides, this template lists planets and dwarf planets accepted by the IAU. There is a far better case for putting the 40 or so possible dwarf planets on the template than there is for objects which in all likelihood don't even exist. And doing so would make the template massive. The Enlightened 16:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I didnt think of it like that... I guess planet X and others may have their own sub template or something... Do we have an article that talks about objects like Planet X and etc? --Cat out 13:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Why should the dwarf planets be yellow? It looks silly as the bright colour makes them more prominent than the planets. Besides, all other objects in the image are white - The Sun, planets and belts. You can't claim theres more of a difference between planets and dwarf planets then there is between planets and the Sun. And if the dwarf planets are going to be in there we really do need to make the spacing uniform. The image is very cluttered in some areas and very spaced out in others. The Enlightened 13:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest eliminating the picture entirely? It seems to have little utility; only those people already familiar with the structure of the Solar System will understand what the circles and lines stand for, and they don't need it. If there's an imperative to keep the footer small in size, surely this is the most dispensable of its elements. RandomCritic 16:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper. All images on wikipedia are unnecesary with that anology. --Cat out 17:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Not so; labelled diagrams, illustrative photographs and so on are great aids in helping people understand text. But this diagram has no such purpose; it's not labelled, and it's so schematic as to be very misleading if it is comprehensible at all. Its utility for a navigation box is particularly dubious; most navigation boxes have no illustrations at all, those that do generally have small symbolic illustrations placed in corners which would otherwise be blank space.

If someone could rework the illustration so that it was a faded background to the "The Solar System" line, then it might work purely as symbolism. As it is, it has little function either as a symbol or as a teaching diagram. RandomCritic 20:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The diagram can be used interactively. See previous section. I am working on making it labeled. --Cat out 15:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that planets need to be more evenly spaced. That would make navigation much easier. I think the Sun should be made yellow so that it doesnt look like a planet. As for dwarf planets and rings (asteorid belts) should perhaps be presented with a dark grey color since they are the more darker objects. --Cat out 18:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

New Image

Im bored and on a caffeine high... I created the new image... hope y'all like it -- Nbound 16:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

New stuff:

• Colour! (both planets and dwarf planets (where known)
• Main belt slightly enlarged
• The extras are at the end are redesigned Kuiper belt (with plutinos and others in separate areas)
• Scattered Disk
• Oort Cloud

• Comments:
  • The coloration, in general, is excellent.

Thank you

• • The main belt is hard to see, as the color of the orbits is too close to the background color at this point. (I suspect the belt orbit color is the same for all belts, but the outer belts have a darker background and are easier to see.)

Main belt is grey (as it would be), outer belts are white (more icy)

• • The dwarf planets are also hard to see; they need to either be a bit larger, or have a bit more distinct color border for visual clarity. One can't quite tell what one is looking at... I can pick out Ceres in the main belt, but not Pluto and Eris in the Kuiper belt and scattered disk.

I copied from moon size shouldnt be too hard to change though in the near future

• • Pluto should be red, no?

It's pink if you zoom in far enough :P

• • ---------------------
  • You know what would be really well co-ordinated? An eight-planets diagram spaced so that the name of the object auto-aligns under its name. I don't know how to co-ordinate that across various platforms, settings, and browsers without breaking up the image, though. Alba 17:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Im collaborating in a project attempting this as we speak... (its also gonna be interactive)

Slight improvement made on dwarf planets and belt colour... -- Nbound 17:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Dwarf planets 3px (Mercury is 4px, Moons were 2px)
• Main belt MUCH darker

Personally, I prefered the simple white for the planets. Don't forget that this is primarily a navigational aid, and shouldn't distract with garish colours. Bluap 18:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a very pretty, striking image. I especially like the darkening of the background with distance from the Sun. RandomCritic 19:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is a slighty modified version: File:Eight Planets colour3.png

I added the rings of Uranus and Neptune, evened out the spacing, and made the sun's roundness less rough.

I'm adding it for the time being, if you have a problem with it please feel free to remove it.

• Can't Earth be bigger? It's the largest of the terrestrial planets, but it looks smaller than Venus. RandomCritic 22:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In response to RandomCritic: File:Eight Planets colour4.png

I've made Earth and the Moon slightly larger, and moved Mercury further from the sun and closer to Venus. As it is a very minor modifcation, I'm adding this new version to the template. --BlytheG 23:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

These last two versions seemed to have caused slight image degradation... people who are changing them if possible save them at the highest quality... else the picture will slowly degrade... either that or its some slight optical illusion-- Nbound 02:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems its version 4 that has lost quality (and thus someone has gone back to version 3 on the footer)... perhaps enlargening of earth again without the quality loss? -- Nbound 04:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops... you must have been leaving the above note while I was restoring v4. Didn't realize there was an issue with it. Nice work, by the way! --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

(1) I have to say I think the new image is great. Kudos to you nbound. The spacing is definitely better, but could I possibly ask for it to be made uniform? I know its not to scale, but viewers would be under the impression that Mercury to Venus is a bigger distance than the rest of the planet-to-planet gaps. I think edge to edge uniform distance would be best as centre to centre would make the distances between the gas giants seem too small.

(2) Additionally, I think Venus should be shrunk, rather than Earth enlarged, and Uranus & Neptune should be large. While again acknowledging its not to scale, I think it should be shown that there are four clearly larger planets and four clearly smaller ones. Also, I think Saturn should be made larger as its almost as big as Jupiter - see [1]

(3) A suggestion, how about giving each planet a black outline to give them a bit more definition? Also, what about having the asteroid belt in black to match the rest of the belts? (I'm sure you've tried both of these things Nbound, I just want to hear your thoughts and perhaps see the examples.)

(4) What do people think about showing the Moon, Phobos & Deimos as the only moons?

(5) I'm sorry if I seem like I'm demanding too much. I would try having a go myself but I only have paint to work with! I think now that the image has improved so much its raised my expectations of what is possible! The Enlightened 05:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The following changes could be made:

• Spacing - Should we bother... itd be impossible with scale spacing - and centre to centre would make the gas giants seem closer than the inner planets when the opposite is true
• Size - Perhaps increase the size of the last 3 gas giants
• Shrink Venus/Enlargen Earth - If we shrink Venus 1px, its mars size... If we enlargen earth... there will be no scale with even enlarged outer gas giants. Personally they should be the same size... the difference between the two would not be visible at this scale
• Moons - Perhaps remove Phobos/Deimos... and include all planemos in the top ten or something?

Thoughts? -- Nbound 06:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

1) I think the spacing is important. To scale would surely be impossible, but by not having uniformity we might give the impression it IS to scale and that the varied distances mean something.

2) I think this would be good

3) If that's the case with Venus we should keep it the same. Although perhaps a black outline put around all the planets would stop the optical illusion of Venus being bigger (which occurs because of the lighter colouring). Maybe also Venus darkened slightly would help?

I suspect not. I think what might help would be a more intense coloration on some of the pixels along the edge of Earth's "dayside". The Venus dayside just seems to fill out its semicircle a bit more thoroughly than Earth's does. RandomCritic 06:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

4) I would definitely remove Mars' moons. Perhaps include all planemos. We would only need single pixel dots for the gas giants' moons and Saturn would only need seven. Charon should also be in there too.The Enlightened 06:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, it would be great if the planets could line up with the text link below it! The Enlightened 06:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose the idea of removing Mars' moons. Right now, the image clearly suggests that Mars has moons. Conversely, it suggests that Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune don't. The casual reader will look at the image and presume that planets with moons on the image actually have moons, while planets without moons on the image, actually don't have moons. (Remember, our audience isn't just those of us who already know this stuff...) I also think that the outer belts need to be softened, or darkened, or otherwise treated, as it is very difficult to find the dwarf planets in there. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

True... perhaps less visible (yet still easily seeable) would be better...to give the impression: theres moons... but they arent anything to write home about -- Nbound 08:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

In an ideal world (or graphical display environment, to be more precise) I'd agree with you, but we have to keep the medium in mind. This is a very small diagram, which will be seen on a wide variety of monitors and displays. We don't have a lot of room for subtlety. Honestly, the existing representation of Mars' moons is just fine. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Poll

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)

Support. I support the use of the non-interactive image. --BlytheG 20:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Support The plan is actually to make this interactive... though of course if against consensus... it can be left as now -- Nbound 02:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Support - although my preference right now is for non-interactive. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Support The new image is outstanding, and the detail within each planet makes the case for interactivity a lot stronger as each planet is so identifiable. I think there's still a lot of tweaks to be done (as should be expected with a new image) but we should all give a round of applause to Nbound for his hard work. PS. The new belts look great too! The Enlightened 05:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Support It looks great, however I would rather this image not be turned into a block of images when it's a lot easier just to use text links. Ryūlóng 06:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Support with one caveat: Pluto's color should be slightly exaggerated so that it can be seen to be pink (and provide a slight contrast with the orbit lines). I would support spacing the planets out further to match the text links. Alba 15:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

I oppose the existance of a vote and refuse to make a valid vote. :P This is a poll and not a discussion. I have relabeled it accordingly. --Cat out 13:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Discussion

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)

Archive?

Is it time to start archiving this talk page? It's getting really long. Alba 17:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Archived up through August 2006. RandomCritic 19:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

My attempt

I felt a little unfair with all my demands on the previous image. So I went ahead and made one myself:

The terrestrial planets are to scale with each other, the dwarf planets are roughly to scale, and the gas giants and the Sun are roughly to scale. I've included all the moons for terrestrial planets and dwarf planets, and the major ones for the gas giants. I've made the spacing uniform and, subject to this constraint, lined up the celestial bodies with the text. I've also changed the heavily populated regions into dotted areas rather than lines, and I've merged the Kuiper belt with the scatted disc. I've also partially rearranged the box. Thoughts? Suggestions? Comments? The Enlightened 00:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Turns out the Sun is way too big... I'll have to correct this.The Enlightened 02:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I like it, but I also like Nbound's graduated darkening with distance from the Sun. For some reason Eris looks a little smaller than Pluto. RandomCritic 01:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It might be because Pluto is a lighter colour. I'll try lightening Eris.The Enlightened 01:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow - looks great. I'm not sure you need the gradual darkening, though - this version strikes me as more representative of what space actually looks like, and it makes the image look more like a photographic image (as opposed to a graphic). --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Also the standard background colour means it is easier to edit when future dwarf planets are added. The Enlightened 01:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Another thing - the best maps of the asteroid belt that I've seen show the most heavily populated regions as a lot fatter -- starting just outside Mars' orbit, and extending at least halfway to Jupiter. This image obviously can't be excruciatingly realistic, but you could get away with making the main belt at least as prominent as the Kuiper Belt and be accurate. RandomCritic 01:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was balancing up spacing issues. The gap between Venus and Earth is 0.3 AU and the gap between Mars and the main belt is 0.5 AU. I don't want to clutter the image too much so I just spaced everything out equally. Also the asteroid belt is 2AU wide, whereas the Kuiper Belt is about 20, so I wanted to make the latter more prominent.The Enlightened 01:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Holy shit! I love it... this should replace my attempt for sure :) though our moon is way to big... and so is charon, also venus is coloured wrong... perhaps use an image with its clouds, perhaps the main belt a little bigger -- Nbound 02:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

with fixes -- Nbound 03:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

One thought for both versions - try making the edges of the asteroid belt a little bit more irregular, as with the outer belts. Right now, it looks a bit too much like a sharply defined "edge", whereas I suspect that the belt actually thins out as it ends. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

belts fixed =) -- Nbound 10:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope noone minds... Ive updated the template with the new picture -- Nbound 10:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC) also lined up links by removing "the" from "the sun" -- Nbound

Actually, can we restore the original sizes of the Moon and Charon. I had made sure they were to scale with their respective planets. You did a good job on Venus though - I had accidentally used a surface image. The Enlightened 11:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure if people want it... but it gives the impression these moons are much larger than the single pixeled moons of say jupiter/saturn... it should remain single pixel IMHO just to denote whether there is moons or not... and besides its not like the rest is to scale -- Nbound 12:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I tried to get each region to scale. The terrestrials are all to scale, so are the gas giants, the ice giants and the dwarf planets. The moons are all to scale with their respective planets, unless it was too small and then it was just a pixel. I don't think anyone looking at the image will think Luna is bigger than gas giant moons. I think its clear that region of the solar system is to a different scale. The Enlightened 15:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's the latest

Changes:

1. Sun is now to scale with Jupiter & Saturn.
2. New image of Sun used - now a little more ferocious!
3. Sun now has an atmosphere, rather than ending abruptly.
4. Widened main asteroid belt.
5. "Tidied" the edges of all the belts.
6. Made Pluto more on the edge of main Kuiper belt.
7. Restored Moon & Charon sizes.
8. Moons of Saturn and Uranus now more in line with planet curve.
9. Slimmer, sleeker box!

The Enlightened 14:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic! RandomCritic 15:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! All done despite the limits of MS: Paint too! The Enlightened 15:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking good - congratulations to everyone involved in this project. You've all done great work. The planets and the Sun look really nice. There are still a few things to tweak, however:

1) The moons at Mars, Neptune, and Eris need to be larger. "To scale" is fine in concept, but they have to be legible as well. Right now it is very easy to miss the tiny dots, and I'm viewing them on a properly adjusted 19" monitor. Besides, no-one is going to use this graphic to define the comparative sizes of the moons and planets.

2) I'd like to see the box just a bit taller, as it once was, as the images are too crowded vertically.

3) The edges of the belts shouldn't be "tidied" or else they look artificial.

Last thought - I'm not sure how this is being edited, but you might want to consider (in future) creating your master as a high-resolution image, designing and revising with that, and then exporting a small version for use on the page. Tha would help in maintaining the image quality between versions. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the edges of the belts being "too tidy". I don't think the image is too crowded vertically, though. I'm not sure about the moons:

1) Mars' moons are faint, but then they are very small in reality, and would be invisible in a photograph showing Mars that size. Since there is nothing around them, they are reasonably visible. Still, I doubt anything would be lost by keeping them at 1 pixel but brightening them up a tad.

2) Jupiter's 4 moons are all fainter than Saturn's, although they are in reality all larger (except for Saturn's Titan, which is about the same size as Ganymede). They could be brighter too (and, if wanted, there are enough color variations between them to play with color distinctions, though that is hardly necessary).

3) Saturn's 7 moons show a nice gradation from tiny to big, but one doesn't get an impression of how much bigger Titan is than the others. Again, this is probably better adjusted through brightness than by adding pixels.

4) The fourth of Uranus' 5 moons (Titania) really stands out as brighter than the other 4; but in reality it's almost exactly the same size and color as Oberon, the 5th moon.

5) I can see Dysnomia okay, but I can see that if you're not expecting it, it might get lost in the KBOs/SDOs around it. (Which is realistic, but not schematically helpful!)

6) Was there a decision to omit the Jovian/Uranian/Neptunian ring systems from the graphic? RandomCritic 16:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, a few thoughts before I goto work on another version.

1a) Are those moons really that hard to see? I'm using a 15 inch screen and they all stand out to me.

b) I'm particularly hesitant about increasing the size of Phobos, Deimos. I actually question whether they should be on the image at all seeing that they aren't even comet sized.

c) I know that precise sizes aren't going to be determined but I wanted only to show larger moons where the system is, or is close to being, a double system. i.e. Earth/Luna and Pluto/Charon. Four pixels vs One pixel is a big difference. I would be ok with increasing the brightness to give a great perception of size however...

2) I understand about the height of the box. But I think a longer slimmer one really does look better once its in the template. Check it out and see how much better it corresponds to the names just below it.

3) Maybe its the perfectionist in me, but I think a "tidier" edge looks more professional. Also I think it looks better as a schematic to show the belts are a particular band in the system as a main belt. There are, after all, asteroids buzzing about all over the solar system. The Centaurs mean that there is no strict complete end to the asteroid belt, but there is a solid end to the main belt - check out [[2]] and [[3]] to see how sharply these belts actually do begin or end. I have put in a gradual thinning out of the belts though, if you'll compare with my first image above.

4) I'll have a play with the brightness. Part of the problem is that some of them *are* a very dark colour and I'm keen to maintain some element of that.

5) No decision was made, but those rings are invisible at this scale and even with all the large images I looked at to use (500x500 pixels). I suppose they could be put in, but I think it would lose the professionalism of the image.

Thanks for the input guys! The Enlightened 17:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Minor Moons

What do we think about leaving the smaller moons (non-round ones) off the image? Roundness is already a criterion for objects orbiting the Sun and the gas giants, so why should tiny things orbiting Mars and Eris get in? Some have said this will lead people to conclude those objects don't have moons, but the links in the template should mean they come to the conclusion those objects do have moons, just insignificant ones. Seems crazy for Phobos to get in the image but Sedna, Quaoar, Varuna, Ixion, etc etc to be left off. The Enlightened 18:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I must vigorously disagree with that proposal. This is a graphic representation of the solar system. It is not - in fact, cannot - be an exact model, and if we ignore that reality in the pursuit of "perfection", we risk ending up with an image that is of little value to the casual reader. (Keep in mind that there is no way to create a usable image that is to scale in all respects.) We shouldn't be making judgements as to whether or not a particular moon is "worthy" of inclusion, or expecting that people will expect that people will "come to the conclusion those objects do have moons, just insignificant ones." The more important fact is that Mars has moons, and that fact should be represented on the graphic. Plus, given the relative instability of the text links, there is no guarantee that there will always be links to the moons - whereas a graphic has a somewhat longer lifespan. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)