Talk:List of Solar System objects

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Solar System (Rated List-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.
WikiProject Astronomy (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon List of Solar System objects is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Systems (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the field of Systems.
 

Natural satellite size limit criteria.[edit]

What are the criteria for whether a moon gets listed on this page? natural satellite has a fairly complete list of all the moons in the solar system. While it is clear that there are too many to list on this page, there doesn't seem to be criteria as to what should be listed - size seems to be a fairly obvious criterion (i.e. only list moons >100 km in diameter or something), but that is definitely not being followed now. As well, there are some moons which are arguably more "important" than others, but are smaller (i.e. Mars' moons Deimos and Phobos are smaller that many of Jupiter's lesser moons, but are better known). Anyone have any ideas?

-lommer 04:43, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) P.S. I think it may ultimately be easier to stick with the ad-hoc system thats in use now...

The page started out as having moons >1000km (as it says on the line starting with Planets). You just put in Mars' moons, which is the first violation of that criterion. So, in the long-term, we either need to remove Mars' moons or change the criterion. I'll temporarily remove Mars' moons until we settle on the criterion. -- hike395 05:38, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sedna[edit]

It seems that Sedna is a trans-Kuiper object, but not a member of Oort cloud.--Nixer 20:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Until astronomers understand how it got the orbit that it has, its Oort cloud status is very doubtful. I've changed its heading to "Possibly inner Oort Cloud" Deuar 13:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Further to this point, I've tweaked it slightly by placing the description "possibly inner Oort Cloud" following "Sedna". A small change, but I think it makes the theory clearer. (Sedna is thus presented as an SDO that is possibly part of the inner Oort Cloud; with the previous version, there's no connection to the Scattered Disc.) Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 21:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Better. Deuar 19:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the Oort Cloud a hypothetical mass? Thus Sedna is not be a member of the Oort Cloud, since the Oort Cloud is only a proposed mass. Am I missing something, or is that a correct statement? --Iamunknown 14:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I suppose it could be a member of this hypothetical mass (although I doubt it). Deuar 15:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Zones.[edit]

A quick Google search only gave me [1] which has "ZONE III (OUTER) a = 2.825 to 3.279 AU", some non astronomy articles, and mirrors of this Wikipedia article. Nixer please cite your sources before reverting a zoneless version of the article. — Jeandré, 2005-09-25t11:39z

Templates vs. static duplicated text.[edit]

Wouldn't it be better to use the templates since they're usually more complete, more up to date, and will reduce inconsistencies and unnecessary denormalizations? -- Jeandré, 2006-07-15t19:26z

I don't know. I entertained that thought. On my third edit of the list, however, I deleted the template (see the diff). I thought that the template was unnecessary because the list had the exact same content. Granted, the list is not as complete as the template, but the list does provides links to other articles/lists by which a user may find every other link exclusively on the template.
In his recent edit, however, Tompw added the template back in (see the diff). I think that since both he and I have been bold in removing and then adding the template, that it should now seriously be discussed here.
--Iamunknown 15:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Note: I just noticed that the article exclusively has some links, while the template exclusively has others. Both should include at least a link to another list, if not directly to other articles, for all astronomical objects and regions.
I think the templates should then be updated to include the missing links, and the templates transcluded into this article. -- Jeandré, 2006-09-16t07:30z
Do you propose that the template should be the exclusive content displayed in the article? Or should it be transcluded before or after the existing list? Please elaborate.
I identified two additional issues with the template: (1) the article is currently identified as, and organized by, orbit, while the template is not; and (2) it does not currently display a conspicuous nav line to the lists of objects by mass and by radius.
I am still unconvinced of the option to exlusively include the template and of the option to include both the template and the current list. (1) While the three lists are not entirely consistent because of the nature of their data, they are all three in their basic forms lists, with information descending vertically down the page. The template, however, is not in its basic form a list. It is organized as a template. To promote the current consistency, I argue that the list should be either exclusively or not exclusively used. (2) To include both the list and the template is merely confusing. The list is by orbit, as the nav line currently identifies this article as, whereas the template is not. To include a list by orbit, and a table not by orbit, is confusing and nonsensical. (3) Furthermore, the list is well-behaved if the viewer has an increased text size, whereas the template does not. The template expands beyond the screen size, which could possibly decrease readability and usability (irreparably or not) on certain mediums. The list, however, expands within the allowed screen size.
In review, I argue that the list should be used exclusively in order to reduce confusion, promote consistency, and to ensure both readability and usability.
--Iamunknown 07:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The lists are doing a good job, and in this case are more complete than the templates. I think we should keep them the way they are. Furthermore, there are several places in this list where the brief several-word explanations are very useful. Template boxes are not suited for this. Deuar 14:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sortable Wikitable[edit]

Shouldn't we merge all the sub-articles (by orbit/mass/radius) into one with a sortable wikitable; like the one in List of countries by population density article. This would look more organized. — Ambuj Saxena () 18:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a nice idea on the face of it, but I don't know... It would be technically messy - As an example, grouping by orbit is best done as a two-tier hierarchy - first by semi-major axis from the Sun, then a separate sort for satellites of each planet. As a technical aside, the sorting of List of countries by population density is badly broken - it sorts by the leading digit, which is useless (for example, placing 9.9 as higher than 85). Is this fixable or a "feature"? Deuar 14:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
There are still some bugs, but if all the cells are filled and it uses only numbers and decimal points (.) (no commas (,)), it's useful. See List of countries by murder rate. -- Jeandré, 2006-12-19t20:27z
Commas are also allowed, provided that leading " " codes are used, and no numbers are negative, see South_America#Territories.--Patrick 11:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the suggestion of the wikitable. Other interesting values for a table would be aphelion, perihelion, eccentricity and temperature, I think. I am starting to draft it here Any idea? --Cyclopia (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Isn't there also some sort of numbering system for solar system bodies? Kortoso (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Include distance from Sun[edit]

... for each item. Good idea? Ha! (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. Wikitable. Aldenrw (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I realize it's more than two years I don't work on that. Huge shame on me. But I'd be happier to complete it if you know of some database containing such data that I can query automatically, so to build the list with a script (since, if we're going to include asteroids and satellites, it will be a huge list). Any hint? --Cyclopiatalk 17:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Types of Solar System Bodies[edit]

The new Venn diagram of solar system bodies is nice, but I think it's wrong: dwarf planets, including trans-Neptunian ones, are also minor planets. That's why they have minor planet numbers. Also, many comets are not trans-Neptunian. Tbayboy (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. I'll fix it. tahc chat 03:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)