Talk:Solar System: Difference between revisions
seriously, go get your eyesight checked because apparently you are disoriented |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{talkheader}} |
|||
{{ArticleHistory |
{{ArticleHistory |
||
|action1=PR |
|action1=PR |
||
Line 80: | Line 81: | ||
|moon-importance= |
|moon-importance= |
||
|space_exploration-importance= |
|space_exploration-importance= |
||
|nested=yes |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
}} |
}} |
||
{{WP1.0|v0.7=pass|class=FA|category=Natsci|VA=yes|WPCD=yes}} |
{{WP1.0|v0.7=pass|class=FA|category=Natsci|VA=yes|WPCD=yes}} |
||
{| class="infobox" |
|||
|- |
|||
!align="center"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br>[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]] |
|||
---- |
|||
|- |
|||
| |
|||
* [[Talk:Solar system/Archive_1|Archive_1]]: up to 31 December 2005 |
|||
* [[Talk:Solar system/Archive_2|Archive_2]]: up to 15 May 2006 |
|||
* [[Talk:Solar System/Archive_3|Archive_3]]: Up to July 2006 |
|||
* [[Talk:Solar system/Archive_4|Archive_4]]: Up to Sep 15, 2006 |
|||
* [[Talk:Solar system/Archive_5|Archive_5]]: Up to January 2007 |
|||
* [[Talk:Solar system/Archive_6|Archive_6]]: Up to April 2007 |
|||
* [[Talk:Solar system/Archive_7|Archive_7]]: Up to February 2008 |
|||
|} |
|||
==Table== |
==Table== |
Revision as of 21:40, 23 August 2008
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Solar System article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
![]() | Solar System is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | Solar System is the main article in the Solar System series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 9, 2007. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
Template:WPSpace |
Table
The anonymously added table was a variant of one that existed as part of this article years ago, but was ultimately removed. It and its sister tables can now be found at the page Attributes of the largest solar system bodies. If the table is to be reinstated, I think it should be discussed first. Serendipodous 15:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, Serendipodous, for that history. I almost reverted it, but just copyedited it instead. Thanks for the institutional memory. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 15:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Debate of planet classification
A comment was added to the article stating that the definition of a planet is hotly debated. Is this really the case? I know that some people didn't like the re-classification of Pluto - but it seems that the definition of a planet given in the article is pretty standard and accepted. Comments? PhySusie (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- I reverted it. This is not the place to discuss this. Wikipedia has three other articles devoted to this topic: Planet, Definition of planet and 2006 definition of planet. Serendipodous 07:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
New image
Overall, I like the new lead image (it's certainly more scientifically accurate than the last one) but it makes Mercury's orbital inclination out to be about 45 degrees, when in fact it's about 7 degrees. This exaggeration is misleading. Serendipodous 12:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can we swap the two - put the new one in "Terminology", and restore the other one to the lead? No offence to the creator, but the image quality is stronger in the original one (and may better suit the lead). --Ckatzchatspy 21:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Declining Orbit?
Is the earth theorized to be in a declining orbit? Why is there no detected decline in orbit? What's the theory behind why the planets weren't aborbed into the sun a long time ago? Could we add something to this article the gravitational balance of the solar system, and a calculation as to how much mass would need to be vaporized before we would expect an upset in that balance? 68.75.88.171 (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds like it might be an interesting thing to cover, but it would probably be better placed in Formation and evolution of the Solar System. Serendipodous 08:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually the orbits of the planets are expanding, due to the Solar mass loss. Saros136 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Image with orbits to scale?
I noticed that while there's a lot of nice images here, the article lacks an image of the solar system showing the relative distances to the sun and the relative sizes of the planets at the same time. That would obviously be a bonus. --Strappado (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- The article does have such an image; in the layout and structure section, there is an image captioned, "orbits of the objects in the Solar System to scale." Serendipodous 18:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is that the size of the planets and the size of their orbits are on completely different scales - you can't show them usefully on the same diagram. If you can see the orbits, the sizes of the planets are too small. If you can see the size of the planets, the orbits are way (way way) off the page. The compromise is in the article - one diagram shows the relative sizes of the planets, another shows the relative sizes of the orbits. PhySusie (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oops. Sorry, misread the OP. Yeah, that would be hard to do. I wonder what the scales would be like if we set Mercury at one pixel? Serendipodous 18:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is that the size of the planets and the size of their orbits are on completely different scales - you can't show them usefully on the same diagram. If you can see the orbits, the sizes of the planets are too small. If you can see the size of the planets, the orbits are way (way way) off the page. The compromise is in the article - one diagram shows the relative sizes of the planets, another shows the relative sizes of the orbits. PhySusie (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
opening paragraph
Could we include the vast number of man-made objects which currently orbit the sun in the opening paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oddzag (talk • contribs) 22:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- The number of man-made objects orbiting the Sun isn't all that vast; certainly not when compared to the number of man-made objects orbiting the Earth. Serendipodous 05:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Transit of Mercury image
This is a very odd image to use for the "Sun" subsection. The title makes no explanation of the fact that the image is of the Sun, with one of the blurred dots being Mercury, so the uninformed reader (which is who the article is for - someone who is looking up "Solar System" can't be expected to know what a "transit of Mercury" is) might assume that the image was of Mercury. Also as previously mentioned the transit of Mercury is not discussed in the article. Rachel Pearce (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Instead of assuming something one just may hit the link,or to go to the image caption and hopefully to learn something new and interesting of course assuming one wants to learn.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- That isn't how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Articles aren't supposed to introduce material without explaining it. It's unfair and confusing. Serendipodous 16:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. But the editor who placed it there seems insistent that it is more informative, though of what I'm not certain. I'll revert it again and direct the editor to the talk page. Serendipodous 09:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- IMO The image
not only has no encyclopedic value whatsoever, it has a negative value. What one could possibly learn from that image? The only thing that could be learned from this image is how not to take a similar image in order do not damage both your camera and your eyes. The image quality is horrible. It is full of camera artifacts.On the other hand the image
is highly encyclopedic. It shows not only the sun, sunspots and Mercury, but also Limb darkening. The image is a great illustration of the size of the Sun compare to Mercury. It is easy to correct the caption under the image and provide the link to the Transit of Mercury article. Then maybe somebody would go there and learn something new.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- IMO The image
This article isn't about sunspots, limb darkening, or transits of Mercury. It's about the Solar System. Such material is better covered in the Sun article itself. We can't assume that any reader, staring at this picture, would have a clue what sunspots, transits, or limb darkening are. If that picture were to be included, it would have to have some relevance to the article, which means that this already-gargantuan article would have to be expanded to discuss sunspots, limb-darkening, and transits of Mercury. I have no interest in doing so, and I doubt you do either. This article's section on the Sun is little more than a brief explanation of what the Sun is, which is all it needs to be, so a simple picture of the Sun is really all that's required. Serendipodous 16:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- The article talks about sunspots, about Mercury and about the Sun. The Sun has sunspots and limbs darkening. If a reader is interested in learning solar system, he would hit the links and learn something new. My image is of the Sun. Do you call that
an image of the sun? It is not what the sun is about. This image looks like a picture made by a 2-years old. No encyclopedia that respects itself would put such an image in the Solar System article. As I said earlier IMO that image is not only bad, but might be also harmful.BTW you've never answered what one supposed to learn from the current image of the sun?--Mbz1 (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- The article doesn't go into any detail about what the Sun is "about". Why introduce new ideas not covered in the article? It's not the reader's responsibility to compensate for our lack of explanation. Serendipodous 21:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've told you that introducing new ideas could make some readers to want to learn more and it is what education is about. You've never responded what ideas and values the current image of the sun has.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's a picture of the Sun. It isn't filtered; it isn't altered. It requires no further explanation. I would have preferred such a picture of the Sun from space, but there aren't any in the Commons. Serendipodous 08:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've told you that introducing new ideas could make some readers to want to learn more and it is what education is about. You've never responded what ideas and values the current image of the sun has.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- The article doesn't go into any detail about what the Sun is "about". Why introduce new ideas not covered in the article? It's not the reader's responsibility to compensate for our lack of explanation. Serendipodous 21:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- You've never answered my question What one suppose to learn from that so-called picture? Why to look at the article and not just at the sky? Wikipedia is encyclopedia and not a children picture book. BTW the only pictures of the sun taken from the space are taken with filtered telescopes. There are no other way to take the image of the sun.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- The article talks about sunspots, about Mercury and about the Sun. The Sun has sunspots and limbs darkening. If a reader is interested in learning solar system, he would hit the links and learn something new. My image is of the Sun. Do you call that
No other picture could be as encyclopedic. All other pictures of the Sun are taken with filters, so you can't see the Sun doing it's most important job: shining. An image of the Sun that looks like a star is better than an image of the Sun that looks like a beach ball. Serendipodous 17:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- The sun at the image is not shining - the camera artifacts do.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Directions of spin of each planet
I would love to see the directions of spin of each planet listed in a table somewhere, ideally along with as much other information as possible, including year length, day length, obliquity, eccentricity, and direction of spin of moons (if applicable). This information is currently scattered and I am not quite knowledgeable enough to consolidate it.
Directions of spin could be given as "North" or "Up" for Earth's rotation around itself each day, and "North" or "Up" for Earth's rotation around the sun. North/up is a nice way to use the right-hand rule, and I find it less ambiguous that clock/counterclockwise. North/up could also be called "counterclockwise when viewed from above/looking down at the Northern hemisphere."
Specific questions: What direction does Earth's rotational axis precess in? I assume from the difference in sidereal and tropical years that it must precess "down/South." And what direction does the anomalistic precession (the precession of the apsides) go? I also assume that is "up/North" from available, albeit indirect data. I could answer these questions myself, but not as fast as most of you. Plus, I want the table for the good of the world, not just the answers in a talk page for me. Thanks.Fluoborate (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds like you want this article. Serendipodous 10:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Ice Giants
Isn't it that Uranus and Neptune are no longer called Gas Giants (Jovian Planets), but now called Ice Giants? From what I know, it's because they were found to be made of frozen gases like the KBOs rather than gaseous gases like the Jovians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.219.236 (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Uranus and Neptune are referred to as ice giants, yes. Some consider ice giant to be a different classification than gas giant, others consider it a subclass of gas giant. They are called ice giants because their atmospheres contain far less hydrogen and helium than Jupiter and Saturn and a far higher proportion of volatile compounds such as water, ammonia and methane. Astronomers refer to these compounds as "ices" whether they are actually ice or not. Uranus and Neptune are also far smaller than Jupiter and Saturn; their combined mass is barely a third that of Saturn and barely a tenth that of Jupiter. Serendipodous 19:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Dwarf Planets
This page says that our solar system has exactly three dwarf planets. It is missing entries such as Xena [1]. National Geographic says that there are 44 dwarf planets [2].
MassimoH (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- "Xena" is the informal nickname given to the dwarf planet Eris before it was officially named. The issue of the number of dwarf planets is contentious. The defining characteristic of a dwarf planet (as opposed to a mere Kuiper belt object or asteroid) is that it is large enough to be round. But how can you tell whether or not a tiny lump of ice three billion miles away is round or not? Telescopes aren't really up to the job. The simplest solution would be to do what Mike Brown does and say that any object beyond a certain diameter, which would then be large enough to be round, should be called round. This would mean there were, as NatGeo says, about 44 dwarf planets. Unfortunately, there's a problem with this method: gravity alone cannot determine whether or not an object is round. Neptune's moon Proteus is larger than Saturn's moon Mimas, yet Mimas is round and Proteus is not. The reason is that Proteus is a lot colder than Mimas, and colder materials resist gravitational collapse more strongly than warmer ones. Also, icy objects like KBOs become spherical more easily than rocky objects like asteroids. Simply fixing a diameter, then, is not enough to qualify. So the IAU came up with a rather stupid solution. Any object with an absolute magnitude less than than H=1 (which meant it was exceptionally bright) would be called a dwarf planet. This would mean that there are unlikely to be more than four official dwarf planets in the outer Solar System: Pluto, Eris, 2003 EL61 and 2005 FY9. Neither of the last two have been officially classified as dwarf planets yet, and probably won't be until they get names. Serendipodous 17:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, what a knowledgeable response. Thanks! Maybe the main article can contain an extra sentence or so that clarifies the issue a little better?
MassimoH (talk) 02:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- The issue's a bit too complex to be explained in a few sentences. The articles dwarf planet and plutoid cover the issue fairly well. Serendipodous 06:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- This honestly makes me think that decisions are being made only to keep the number of entities with 'planet' in their name to a minimum and not for any scientific reason. This was the main argument for the whole dwarf planet thing in first place, that it would be awful for schoolkids to have to memorize several dozen planet names. Zazaban (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Unsourced sections
There are a lot of unsourced sections in this article, particularly towards the end. Are any specific editors maintaining it?-Wafulz (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- What unsourced sections? Serendipodous 20:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, should've clarified. A lot of subsections are unsourced.-Wafulz (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Aside from "Discovery and exploration", which sections do you think need more sources?
- Sorry, should've clarified. A lot of subsections are unsourced.-Wafulz (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
EDIT: Could you, to make my job easier, tag each uncited fact with [citation needed] ( {{cn}} ), so I can get an idea of how many are needed?Serendipodous 05:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Map
The map does not show Makemake, this should be fixed. Zazaban (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
the largest...
i propose to eliminate the tags from the list of dwarf planets at the beginning of the article that say "the largest..." to make it similar to the above list of planets --SquallLeonhart_ITA (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, there's really no reason to do so, and it is relevant information. I'd support leaving it as is. --Ckatzchatspy 22:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- As do I. Serendipodous 05:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Sun's expansion
This site say by 6 to 7 billion years from now sun's expansion can be between 200 and 700 times the size of now (between 1.0 and 3.5 AU). This means sun's expansion have a possiblity to encompass Mars orbit and it may give it a chance to swallow the planet up. When the sun evolve into a white dwarf star and if Mars still exists; then Mars is likely to be the innermost planet.--Freewayguy Call? Fish 21:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- FG, you've already gone through this over at Formation and evolution of the Solar System, which is the article to discuss this issue in anyway (this article contains a summary of the information in that article, so there isn't any point in adding any more information). Serendipodous 05:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
List In Order From Sun
Novices reading this article may very well think that all the dwarf planets are beyond Neptune, because the first list is the three-categories lists (terrestrial, gas-giant & dwarf) which is described as "In order of their distance from the Sun".
I think the primary list must be the order from the Sun of all the planets, dwarf planets and gas giants.
The list of three categories of objects I don't think can be thought of as the primary one.
Removing The List of Dwarf Planets
Removing this list has helped stop novices becoming confused that ALL dwarf planets orbit beyond Neptune, and it looks a lot "cleaner". HarryAlffa (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
What I'd Like After First Paragraph
In order of their distance from the Sun, those named celestial objects bound to it by gravity (excluding moons) are:
- Mercury (planet)
- Venus ( " )
- Earth ( " )
- Mars ( " )
- Ceres (dwarf planet)
- Jupiter (gas giant)
- Saturn ( " )
- Uranus ( " )
- Neptune ( " )
- Pluto (dwarf planet)
- Makemake ( " )
- Eris ( " )
Good Idea?
I thought it a reasonable (if not a good idea) to list the order of these objects in distance from the Sun, it is quite a major feature of the Solar System after all!
Then could come the paragraph: "In broad terms, the charted regions of the Solar System consist ...", then the lists of the categories.
HarryAlffa (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC) and HarryAlffa (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- That would work if dwarf planets were planets, but they aren't, so including the dwarf planets among the planets is incorrect. Serendipodous 21:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. I did write "major named bodies" at first, but you undid me! I was then inaccurate in my rewrite for this page (which I've now changed above). Just to be clear - I am trying to improve the article! Not just change for change's sake. I hope you are not feeling proprietorial about the page. HarryAlffa (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not being proprietorial. All I care about is factual accuracy. "major named bodies" doesn't mean anything. What is "major"? There are seven moons in the Solar System larger than all the dwarf planets, and they all have names. Serendipodous 22:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ok. Good point. I've changed it above using the language from the first paragraph. HarryAlffa (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC).
The proposed list just makes clear and complete the hard to read list of objects in the image. HarryAlffa (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- This needs fixing - as is, it isn't appropriate for a FA-class article. The image description should not be in the main body. I'll try to repair it later tonight. --Ckatzchatspy 00:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that including a list of the dwarf planets at all in the lead is cumbersome, particularly since the number of known dwarf planets will likely continue to rise over the next few years. The lead should describe the major orbits: all the planets (by definition), as well as the asteroid belt, scattered disk, etc.; that is, essentially as it was.
Both the lead image and the image in the "Terminology" section make the order of the bodies in the Solar System amply clear. I agree that the long list intermixing dwarf planets with planets is not an improvement. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 00:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- The lead image is incomplete, and the names of the objects are difficult to read. The incompleteness of the image supports your view that a list of dwarf planets would be cumbersome to maintain. So why has this image been included for so long? I think a list of objects, including dwarf planets, in order from the Sun is a primary motive for novices to astronomy looking at the article. It would be helpful to them to have a simple list of these at the start of the article - which must be part of the reason to have had the image there all this time. It is unlikely that there will be many more dwarf planets found in the asteroid belt, so including Ceres would not be an editorial burden. For the Kuiper Belt perhaps saying "Pluto and other dwarf planets ..." would be a satisfactory solution to maintainance. - HarryAlffa (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Any list that combines dwarf planets and planets instills in the novice the false assumption that dwarf planets are planets. They are not planets and should not be included with the planets. Yes, they're called dwarf planets, but, I repeat, they are not planets. Serendipodous 14:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- But you don't object to the list in the lead image using this reasoning?
- The list I have above makes clear which are planets, dwarf planets, or gas giants. So not all combining lists behave as you describe them. Again I say that a list of the named celestial objects in their order from the Sun is a pretty good idea for the introduction to this subject. -HarryAlffa (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
New List
Can we combine both a category list & a named object list? I would propose to replace the current list with this;
{===============
In broad terms, the charted regions of the Solar System and their constituents, in order of their distance from the Sun are:
- Terrestrial Planets are;
- Asteroid Belt contains;
- Gas Giant Planets are;
- Kuiper Belt contains dwarf planets;
- Pluto
- Makemake
- plus other Kuiper Belt Objects and possibly other dwarf planets
- Scattered Disc contains;
- Eris (dwarf planet)
- scattered disc objects and possibly other dwarf planets
===============} -HarryAlffa (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Makemake Pluto and Eris are KBOs. Your list {list now edited} implies they're not. And the image doesn't use the same reasoning. It separates the planets and the dwarf planets.Serendipodous 20:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- I offered this combined list in the spirit of compromise and cooperation. I thank you for your previous objections because I think this new list is better than my original or the current list. Like the image, it clearly identifies, and gives the relative positions of the dwarf planets, and it also includes the relative positions of the Asteroid and Kuiper belts, something the image and neither list did before - well done us! I have further amended the list as per your objection to imply that those dwarf planets in the Kuiper belt are KPO's, and added the Scattered Disk containing Eris. -HarryAlffa (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- I personally like the current list; though if we were to use this one it should be made into a table so that the information wouldn't take up as much room (i.e. vertical vs. horizontal) -- Phoenix (talk) 05:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- The description of the current list as, "in order of their distance from the Sun are", does lead an Astronomy novice (surely the target audience, at least for the introduction) to think that ALL the dwarf planets orbit beyond Neptune.
- Web designers will tell you that having a lot of white-space helps a human to absorb the information better - it's not as if screen space costs anything. The linear arrangement of the list intuitively informs the reader of an ever increasing distance from the Sun while progressing through the list.
- In fact now you've got me thinking of "detail density" and detail level. I think the second paragraph is too densely packed and goes in to too much detail. It lies about itself when it says "In broad terms ...", and then gives details of composition of the regions!
- I would replace the second paragraph with, "In broad terms, the charted regions of the Solar System and their constituents, in order of their distance from the Sun are:", and follow this with the list of regions and their constituents; I've now changed the list above to reflect this. -HarryAlffa (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- (Jumping into this discussion a bit late; I've had limited time the last few days but have been following the discussion.)
- We need to remember that this is the lead and should follow the style guideline WP:LEAD. Particularly: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points." (emphasis added) In the lead, a list is rarely appropriate at all, and I really don't think it's needed here. As I mentioned above, the names of dwarf planets are definitely not needed; in the grand scheme of things, the dwarf planets aren't terribly important.
- I think a pargraph something like "In order of their distances from the Sun, the terrestrial planets are Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars. The outer gas giants (or Jovians) are Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Some of the largest objects in the asteroid belt, Kuiper belt, and scattered disc are classified as dwarf planets." I think this sentence effectively summarizes the presence of the dwarf planets and their role in the Solar System without excessive detail; the information is covered and organized quite logically in the body of the article. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 14:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the most important fact about the solar system is the eight planets, and they should be clearly listed by themselves in the intro, with no breakdown by type. Many readers will come to this article looking for just that list and they should get it up front in its most simple form. The types of planets and the wide variety of other objects should then be introduced. Minor planets should come next simply because of the interest in Pluto. We should then begin to present the whole picture, perhaps beginning with a better diagram.--agr (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- I generally agree. However, I think we have to be careful about choosing the content of the lead based on popular interest. It's best if we stick to what our sources say and present the facts; we should trust our readers to read what the article says. Wikipedia is not here to bust common misconceptions. If we focus on popular misconceptions, we may wind up inadvertently strengthening them, particularly among readers who didn't have those misconceptions before reading the article.
- (Note: this comment is partially in reply to other threads in this discussion.) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 14:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Alex, you said lists where rarely inappropriate, then your suggested replacement text contained 2 lists! You've proven that you cannot write about the Solar System without a list of planets!
- The proposed bullet point list is clear, consise and gives up more information the more a novice studies it, rather than a comma seperated list which is rather indigestable!
- Arnold, I agree with you about the planets, that was my initial "improvement", but debate on this page has forced the evolution of the list above.
- I think the proposed bullet point list gives the order of the regions, planets, gas giants, dwarf planets, asteroids, KPO's and scattered disc objects. It does it all, and it does it more concisely than the current second paragraph + the three current bulleted lists! -HarryAlffa (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. I think the bulleted list is inappropriate and unnecessary: there are only four items in each list, which I don't think is hard to ingest at all in prose. I also think that the current second paragraph clearly and concisely summarizes the major components of the Solar System.
- I agree that listing the eight planets (in some form) in the lead is entirely a good idea. (I don't think there's any disagreement on that point.) I think that the gas giants and terrestrial planets are fundamentally different objects and ought to be separated; I don't think that adds to confusion. However, I feel less strongly about that last point. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 15:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- (I said lists are "rarely appropriate in the lead", not "rarely inappropriate".) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 15:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Apologies for the "inappropriate" typo.
- The three current bulleted lists mislead the novice reader to think that all the dwarf planets orbit beyond Neptune. The dwarf planet list is also too detailed.
- The second paragraph lists seven regions and descripes the composition of three of them, giving a list stretching to fifteen data items! Then you seem to be suggesting that eight more items are "condensed" (at least in screen-space if not in kilobytes) into prose?
- The Open University course I've done, which included theories on Human Compter Interaction and Interaction Design, tell me that a bulleted list is far better here.
-HarryAlffa (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the current version tries to do too much in the intro. We have the rest of the article to explain these concepts. I also think we should avoid editorializing comments like "Dwarf planets are unlike other categories of named celestial objects in that they populate more than one region of the solar system..." which is also just plain wrong (e.g. comets and asteroids). All we have to say is the the dwarf planets are in several regions. As for terrestrial vs gas giants, the scientific community calls them all planets and that should be our starting point. --agr (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the intro tries to do way to much; the current version is not at all concise (as the lead is supposed to be). The lead does not need to stand alone as a full description of the topic, only a concise summary (re this edit summary). I think it is fairly clear that there is a strong consensus amongst all but one of the editors here that the verbose version is not a good starting point, so I am reverting. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 20:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- You cannot say that my version was verbose! Are you confusing the amount of screen-space it occupied with verbosity? It contained the same or a lesser amount of text! Almost all of the current second paragraph was subsumed into the new list and in a great deal less text. -HarryAlffa (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with agr that saying "the dwarf planets populate several regions" is far more consise! Although in my own defence I would say that my description became somewhat inflated to accommodate criticism!
For clarity; I meant individually named objects like Makemake or Ceres; perturbed objects, like comets, can't be said to populate the other regions they are passing through; asteroids only populate the Asteroid belt. -HarryAlffa (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- @HarryAlffa: I think the current list, separating planets and dwarf planets, is slightly better than your suggested "new list" since it is more readable (not a "list of lists") and somehow "catchier". I put the planets in a single list and added the "smaller" attribute in the sentence leading to the dwarf planet list, so that it becomes (hopefully) clearer that planets and dwarf planets are two different categories, and each category's list is ordered for itself. Also, the total order is already provided by the picture given. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Since there are likely hundreds or even thousands of dwarf planets waiting to be discovered and then waiting some more to be classified, I think the template should be:
In broad terms, the charted regions of the Solar System and their constituents, in order of their distance from the Sun are:
Delaszk (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Heliopause
The second paragraph should be clear about the heliopause being "a named ovoid region of space where the solar wind meets the interstellar medium and not known to contain objects". All the other regions named are known to contain objects. The Oort Cloud is still theoretical, but the theory includes objects. HarryAlffa (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- The heliopause is not a region, it's a thing; it's the edge of the bubble created in the interstellar medium by the action of the Sun. And it does contain objects. Quite a few billion solar particles, in fact. Serendipodous 10:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's more accurately described as an interaction rather than a thing, you cannot assert that interaction is an inaccurate descriptor! I suppose you might say it is a thing, like the asteroid belt, but I think this would be wrong. The asteroid belt occupies a region of space obviously, but the Heliopause is the region of space where the interaction happens - and this region changes depending on the solar wind.
- I don't believe your assertion that "a few billion solar particles" are objects, is a useful one in the context of describing the Solar System. HarryAlffa (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- And what? Are you going to argue that an interaction would contain objects? By definition it wouldn't. There's no point in bringing it up, any more then there is in saying, "The atmosphere contains no continents." Serendipodous 14:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't believe your assertion that "a few billion solar particles" are objects, is a useful one in the context of describing the Solar System. HarryAlffa (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with you that the Heliopause contains no objects. My opening proposal was {now with minor edit} to describe the Heliopause as "a named ovoid region of space where the solar wind meets the interstellar medium and not known to contain objects".
- So we are now in agreement that the region contains no objects.
- "The first sentence on the Heliopause in the Solar System article says, "The heliosphere is divided into two separate regions." Then names the Heliopause as the outermost region.
- So unless you want to rewrite the Heliopause section, or main Heliosphere article, and change the description of it as a region, and you want to include celestial objects, then you are in agreement that the Heliopause can be described as:
- "a named ovoid region of space where the solar wind meets the interstellar medium, and is not known to contain objects". - HarryAlffa (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Plenty of objects have orbits which take them through the heliopause. Sedna for one. Eris's orbit probably takes it into the termination shock. There are probably thousands of objects crossing the heliopause right now. But the heliopause is not a population, like the asteroid or Kuiper belts. You're trying to compare apples and oranges. Or maybe apples and machine guns. Serendipodous 19:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- "a named ovoid region of space where the solar wind meets the interstellar medium, and is not known to contain objects". - HarryAlffa (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- So we agree that the Heliopause is a region?
- Yes, these object cross the Heliopause. I agree. The Heliopause does not contain them. Comets cross the inner region of the Solar System, but you would not say that it contains comets.
- You said the the Heliopause is unlike the Asteroid or Kuiper belts. Yes. I agree. The Asteroid and Kuiper belts contain objects.
- However, I would amend my proposal to "the Heliopause is an ovoid region of space named for the interaction of the solar wind with the interstellar medium, and not for any population of celestial objects." -HarryAlffa (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Why? It's cumbersome and unnecessary. The article already explains what the heliopause is. Why add a line essentially saying that an apple is not a machine gun? Serendipodous 20:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- So you have no objections to the meaning?
- If people do not know the difference between apples and machine guns then a line explaining that difference would be useful. I expect a number of people will not have heard of the Heliopause, and the context of the paragraph concentrates on the objects constituting the regions of the Solar System, so pointing out that the Heliopause is named for reasons other than for a population of objects seems pertinent and contrasting. Such contrast creates interest.
- So that explains why it is necessary.
- Cumbersome. No, it contains the data, reasons and interesting contrast. Any shortening would go beyond succinct into loss of either data, reasons, or contrast. -HarryAlffa (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Like the various collections of objects, the heliopause is an important part of the Solar System, so it's worth mentioning in the lead, but we shouldn't explain it beyond a mention. All these terms are both wikilinked and discussed in detail in the body of the article. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 15:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- It sounds like you are suggesting that the Heliopause is a collection of objects, but that could just be the way you've phrased it. It is surely a point of interest that it is NOT named for any population of celestial objects, therefore worth explaining for that reason alone, and for any assumptions the reader might make given the inner regions are named for their populations of objects. -HarryAlffa (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- No, I was contrasting the heliopause to the various collections of objects. Perhaps it is a point of interest, but this is the lead! It's not a place to include every point of interest. We can't spend our space in the lead trying to anticipate every possible assumption some reader might make.
- The heliopause section of the body of the article (Solar System#Heliopause) perhaps could take a little bit of expansion; I think it's a bit short on context. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 17:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- "The readers assumption", thing I could have put better. The article leads the reader to believe that the Heliopause is another collection of objects. Surely you can see this is obvious; a long list of regions stated to contain objects, then the last two items (Heliopause and Oort cloud) listed without explanation; how is the novice meant to know what these last two items are? He must assume, due to the lack of contradiction, that they are both collections like the previous items in the list - and he'd be half right.
- You quoted (for a different section of this talk page) that the lead should include, "why the subject is interesting or notable", from wiki recommendations for the lead.
- You said you were contrasting the Heliopause; exactly my point! Contrast creates interest; "it's the only ..." is always memorable!
- You said:
- "not a place to include every point of interest"
- "I was contrasting the heliopause to"
- "perhaps it's a point of interest" {because of the contrast?}
- and intimated that the lead should include points of interest
- You said:
- There are only two points of interest I want to include:
- "The dwarf planets are the only ... "
- "The Heliopause is the only ... "
- There are only two points of interest I want to include:
- Can't you see that the very points you make arguing against including these points logically support putting them in? -HarryAlffa (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Heliosphere
On further thought, I think using the word "heliopause" in the introduction at all may be causing us to talk past one another. It's not so much the heliopause that's interesting; it's the heliosphere/interplanetary medium. Perhaps this wording of the second paragraph is better:
- In broad terms, the charted regions of the Solar System consist of the Sun; four terrestrial inner planets; an asteroid belt composed of small rocky bodies; four gas giant outer planets; a second belt, the Kuiper belt, composed of icy bodies; the scattered disc; and ultimately the hypothetical Oort cloud. The stream of charged particles from the Sun, called the solar wind, creates the heliosphere which permeates the Solar System.
Thoughts? —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Works for me. Serendipodous 19:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- It misleads the novice into thinking that the Heliosphere stretches all the way out to the Oort cloud, see Unresolved Problems With The Lead below. -HarryAlffa (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Unresolved Problems With The Lead
A lead is supposed "... to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points."; from Wikipedia:LEAD
The lead has problems with to deep a level of detail for a lead and with consistency of level of detail.
- The second paragraph is self inconsistent when it says "In broad terms ...", and then gives to much detail of the composition of some of the regions
- The second paragraph misses out the dwarf planet(s) which are part of the composition of the Asteroid Belt, Kuiper Belt and Scattered Disk
- The second paragraph is inconsistent as it lists the composition of all the regions it names apart from the Oort cloud.
- The second paragraph misleads the novice into thinking that the Heliosphere stretches all the way out to the Oort cloud
- The bullet list misleads the novice to think that ALL dwarf planets orbit beyond Neptune
- The qualifying text for each dwarf planet in the bullet list is too detailed for a lead
- The qualifying text for Pluto and Makemake is to complicated for a lead and would seem contradictory and confusing to a novice.
(any contradictions of one point with another emphasises the inconsistency of the lead) -HarryAlffa (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for providing a concise summary of your concerns; it makes it much easier to make improvements to the article! I think you do have legitimate concerns, although I don't view inconsistency in the level of detail given to different things mentioned in the lead is necessarily a problem.
- Re 1: I have reworded the paragraph a bit; I agree that "in broad terms" doesn't have much meaning.
- Re 2: I reworded the first paragraph to (hopefully) make it clear that dwarf planets aren't anything special. The terminology is a bit awkward, as Small Solar System Body is (stupidly, I think) defined as any body that's not a dwarf planet; hopefully "small bodies" won't be equated with "Small Solar System Body".
- Re 3: I added "of comets".
- Re 4: I disagree that it's misleading, and I don't think it's a big deal anyway. There aren't rigid boundaries between these things (except between the solar wind and the interstellar medium). This doesn't say anything untrue (that I see), and the interested novice can read the article for the details! (The fact that the Oort Cloud is probably mostly outside the heliosphere is very much a detail.)
- Re 5–7: As I've said above, I don't think the dwarf planets should be named at all in the lead; they're not particularly important. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 21:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
For the most part I think that the introduction to the article (lead) reads fairly well right now. I think that dwarf planets should still be mentioned; everyone has heard of Pluto. However,
- "The largest of the small bodies are classified as four dwarf planets" - does not read well. The "four" should be moved or removed. The reference to their moons should also be removed - the fact that some dwarf planets have moons is explained more clearly later on anyway.
- "the hypothetical Oort cloud of comets" - does not read well. I would argue that it is not only comets that make up the Oort cloud, but even ignoring that, this sentence should be re-written. As far as consistency goes, the scattered disc does not describe what it is composed of, and it's debatable that any of the planetary groups do either.
- "the solar wind, creates the heliosphere which permeates the Solar System" - the word "creates" is definitely wrong here. Perhaps "defines" the heliosphere.
- I definitely agree that the qualifying text for the dwarf planets is too complicated - the list would read just as well without any qualifying text. It is purely incidental anyway.
Feyrauth (talk) 07:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Remember; a lead is supposed "... to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points."; from Wikipedia:LEAD
The lead has problems with to deep a level of detail for a lead and with consistency of level of detail.
- NOT SOLVED. (I thought the phrase "in broad terms" was exactly right for the lead). The second paragraph is inconsistent with Wikipedia:LEAD aims; it gives to much detail of the composition of some of the regions.
- NOT SOLVED. (Of course there will be confusion for the novice between "small bodies" and "Small Solar System Body"!). The second paragraph misses out the dwarf planet(s) which are part of the composition of the Asteroid Belt, Kuiper Belt and Scattered Disk.
- NOT SOLVED. The second paragraph is inconsistent as it lists the composition, or numbers their population, of all the regions it names apart from the Oort cloud.
- SOLVED. (I added "out to around the scattered disk". The heliosphere has a definite border, rigidly defined by fluid dynamics, not rigidly fixed in space). The second paragraph misleads the novice into thinking that the Heliosphere stretches all the way out to the Oort cloud
- The bullet list still misleads the novice to think that ALL dwarf planets orbit beyond Neptune
- SOLVED. (Text removed). The qualifying text for each dwarf planet in the bullet list is too detailed for a lead
- SOLVED. (Text removed). The qualifying text for Pluto and Makemake is to complicated for a lead and would seem contradictory and confusing to a novice.
- NEW. The second paragraph is tautological with itself and with the first paragraph
(any contradictions of one point with another emphasises the inconsistency of the lead)
I had resolved all of these problems by my previous (see my talk page) bold edit, which is what wikipedia encourages, but my changes were reverted. -HarryAlffa (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
...and so the next step is to discuss them. It's not a problem. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've reworded a bit. The first paragraph is mostly about the objects themselves, while the second paragraph is about the regions/groups of objects. There certainly is overlap, but I don't think it's tautological and I do think the two paragraphs are helpful. Hopefully this wording makes the paragraphs feel less redundant.
- Note that I put this sentence at the end of the first paragraph: "The small bodies which are massive enough to be rounded by their own gravity are called dwarf planets." That material might better belong in the introduction to the list of dwarf planets (if that stays). —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Fraid I changed it. The wording made it seem like dwarf planets were small bodies when they aren't. This situation is complicated. Any attempt to make it clearer in the lead will probably just end up being wrong. Serendipodous 19:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- I would argue that the dwarf planets are "small bodies", just not Small Solar System Bodies. The terminology is really stupid, but because it's the lead, I don't think it's a big deal to not worry about the "small Solar System body" term. Again, dwarf planets aren't a distinct class of objects at all, which I think is the basis of Harry's concern. We could say "The small bodies which are massive enough to be rounded by their own gravity are called dwarf planets, while smaller bodies are called small Solar System bodies.", but that may be getting verbose (which is why I didn't put it that way). Another option might be to say "The smallER bodies which are massive enough...." —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- If it's difficult to be precise enough without getting too wordy, that might be a sign that the sentence should be moved into the main body of the article. In other words, the lead can mention dwarf planets, without attempting to define them. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 23:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- I would argue that the dwarf planets are "small bodies", just not Small Solar System Bodies. The terminology is really stupid, but because it's the lead, I don't think it's a big deal to not worry about the "small Solar System body" term. Again, dwarf planets aren't a distinct class of objects at all, which I think is the basis of Harry's concern. We could say "The small bodies which are massive enough to be rounded by their own gravity are called dwarf planets, while smaller bodies are called small Solar System bodies.", but that may be getting verbose (which is why I didn't put it that way). Another option might be to say "The smallER bodies which are massive enough...." —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Fraid I changed it. The wording made it seem like dwarf planets were small bodies when they aren't. This situation is complicated. Any attempt to make it clearer in the lead will probably just end up being wrong. Serendipodous 19:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
1. & 3. are essentially the same problem. 2. the second paragraph relates to regions of the solar system. Dwarf Planets is not a region; the asteroid belt, the kuiper belt and the scattered disc are. This also affects your new point #8. 5. perhaps there should be qualifiers, but simpler than before. Eg. Ceres (located in the asteroid belt)
Feyrauth (talk) 07:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
You are mis-understanding the text, and possibly not reading all of it! 1. & 3. are different aspects of the same problem. Which is why a catch-all (any contradictions of one point with another emphasises the inconsistency of the lead) ended the list to try to prevent people from making that kind of point. 2. Again - read & analyse! It in no way says or implies that dwarf planets are a region! 5. Yes. You could add that qualifier to the dwarf planet list.
The changes made so far solve little of the problems, and they cumulatively make the lead an ever more better fit for the description May Contain Nuts.
Again, my version of the lead solves all the problems I've raised, it is consise (due to using nested, bulleted lists) and adds some interesting factoids at the end for the novice or casual reader.
It seems to me that no one else is empathising with the novice astronomer. Who else is likely to be seeking knowledge from the lead of this article? -HarryAlffa (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- As someone who teaches astronomy to non-science majors, I think the lead paragraph as it stands now is great. It gives the information they would be looking for in a clear and concise way without misleading them. I definitely do not feel that the editors here are doing an injustice to the novice astronomer.PhySusie (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- No one critisised the lead paragraph. It's the second paragraph onwards (of the lead) which contain problems.
- The text of the image is very unclear, unless you have a good monitor. The image itself is an unusual construction, even with the image the two bullet lists make it seem as if ALL the dwarf planets orbit beyond Neptune, (how many times have I said that?!). -HarryAlffa (talk) 10:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- SOLVED. (details removed). The second paragraph is inconsistent with Wikipedia:LEAD aims; it gives to much detail of the composition of some of the regions.
- SOLVED. (details removed). The second paragraph misses out the dwarf planet(s) which are part of the composition of the Asteroid Belt, Kuiper Belt and Scattered Disk.
- SOLVED. (details removed). The second paragraph is inconsistent as it lists the composition, or numbers their population, of all the regions it names apart from the Oort cloud.
- SOLVED. (I added "out to around the scattered disk". The heliosphere has a definite border, rigidly defined by fluid dynamics, not rigidly fixed in space). The second paragraph misleads the novice into thinking that the Heliosphere stretches all the way out to the Oort cloud
- NOT SOLVED. Even with the image the two bullet lists still misleads the novice to think that ALL dwarf planets orbit beyond Neptune
- SOLVED. (Text removed). The qualifying text for each dwarf planet in the bullet list is too detailed for a lead
- SOLVED. (Text removed). The qualifying text for Pluto and Makemake is to complicated for a lead and would seem contradictory and confusing to a novice.
- NOT SOLVED? tautological? The second paragraph's first sentence seems a bit redundant with the first paragraph and with the rest of the second.
(any contradictions of one point with another emphasises the inconsistency of the lead) -HarryAlffa (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
SOLVED 5. Replaced dwarf planet bullet list with; "Four smaller objects are classified as dwarf planets. Ceres in the Asteroid Belt, the other three (as of mid-2008, though the list is expected to grow) are all beyond Neptune - Pluto; Makemake; Eris." -HarryAlffa (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Terminology
- I think this section should read more like a dictionary, it's purpose is surely to act as a reference for the rest of the article?
- It's not a novel, readers don't want to have to read through everything to get to stuff that's new to them.
- It needs sub-sectioning, even if it makes the TOC a bit longer:
- Terminology
- Object Classification
- Planets
- Dwarf Planets
- Ice
- Distance Measurements
Is it worth explaining more about a year and a day being individual to the planet you're on, and contrast that with Earth-years?
What about the same for a day? Mars rover guys use Sol as the name of a Mars-day. Will other terms evolve with other planets? -HarryAlffa (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and I think prose is preferable. Explaining years and days on individual planets is appropriate for their respective articles, not the Solar System article: the length of the day on the planets depends on their individual rotation rates, which is not really a function of the Solar System itself. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 13:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you agree that the terminology section acts as a reference section for the rest of the article?
I think it does.
I did NOT say that Wikipedia was a dictionary, this is a fundamentally dishonest tactic, implying in your reply that I asserted something by nay-saying something I did not actually say, or imply.
I was suggesting that the Terminology section should be closer to a dictionary than a normal, complete article. A good idea in terms of conciseness. Straight to the point. Full prose can be saved for the main articles of which the Terminology section is a useful précis.
I did not suggest that we explain the lengths of the days and years for each planet.
I was suggesting exactly what you said "the length of the day on the planets depends on their individual rotation rates". I might edit what you said to "ALL the planets". If something about ALL the planets doesn't fit in the Solar System, where else do ALL the planets fit? -HarryAlffa (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Wording of lead. The saga continues...
Two further disputes regarding the lead:
- Should the solar wind sentence begin "An incessant hail of charged particles from the Sun (the solar wind)..." or "A steady flow of charged particles from the Sun (the solar wind)..."? I strongly prefer the latter. For one thing, I'm not sure an inanimate object can be incessant. The solar wind is not constant in intensity/velocity/whatever, but it is steady in that it flows essentially continuously. Also, "flow" is the appropriate word to describe the motion, as it is a fluid, whereas "hail" evokes misleading images of a hailstorm (at least for me).
- There is a dispute between two versions of the dwarf planet paragraph:
- and
I believe the first option reads better. I have refrained from reverting pending the thoughts of others. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 13:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well I wrote the first version, so I think it reads better. And I reverted it back. Call me territorial. Serendipodous 13:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Ashill, it sounds like, from your use of the word Saga, that you are levelling some criticism at me for raising any questions?
1. The solar wind fluctuates, therefore "steady flow" is simply incorrect. Ashil, get a dictionary, if your not sure about the application of a word, don't try to use the fact of your ignorance as an argument. Incessant can be applied this way. You have said both that "the solar wind is NOT constant in intensity/velocity", AND that it is "steady! Do you actually read what you write? Arterial blood flows "essentially continuously", but it is NOT steady (it is pulsatile). The solar wind is continuous, incessant you might say, but it cannot be described as steady.
As I said on my edit note, I was trying to capture the dynamism (look it up) and the high speed of the solar wind, "steady flow" might describe pus seeping from a wound, but it is far to tame to describe a 400 km/s - 750 km/s storm of protons and electrons at temperatures of thousands of Kelvin. Incessant hail is much more dynamic.
2. Sod, you're territorial. Your "first" sentence is actually a rewrite of my "original" sentence - solving the problem of the bullet list misleading novices - which I pointed out and was met with resistance from you, but no logic.
Sod, on the dwarf planet sentence you've gone from insisting on a bullet list, to embedding the names in parenthesis in the middle of a sentence, plus you've introduced a higher level of maintainance by enumerating the dwarfs in two places.
My original solution to a problem only I spotted is easier to maintain as it enumerates the dwarfs once, and I think wiki convention allows my version precedence when it comes to matters of taste. My version is easier for the novice to absorb, it is closer to a bullet list than your re-write of my solution. Even going down to "in order from the Sun", yours mixes them all up, mine doesn't. -HarryAlffa (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- I apologize for giving the impression that I object to any editor raising questions; that was certainly not my intent. I must admit to being a bit frustrated by elements of this protracted discussion, but I could have chosen a better word than "saga".
- I'll let other editors worry about who's territorial here, but my feelings about the clarity of the two options for the dwarf planet section should be as clear as yours.
- Re dynamism: The solar wind does have high velocities and temperatures (by terrestrial standards), but it is so low density that "incessant hail" seems to me like an inappropriate description. How about just "flow"? In thinking about it, I'm not sure any adjective is necessary.
- Editors' opinions evolve as we edit and discuss—that's the whole idea!
- It is completely irrelevant who wrote what sentence or who first noticed which problem. New dwarf planets will undoubtedly be identified, but not exactly every few days; I think the burden of changing the number of dwarf planets in three places in one paragraph is not a convincing argument. We're here to write the clearest prose, not make our editing job easiest if and when a new dwarf planet is identified.
- I see no evidence on the talk page that there is a consensus in favor of the "incessant hail" wording or the second dwarf planet wording (above), so I am reverting. If further opinions indicate a new consensus, then revert me (or I'll self-revert) and we'll go from there.
- There is no policy that gives any editor's version of an article precedence over any others except consensus and verifiability. The only exception is trivial matters like choice of U. K./U. S. English (WP:ENGVAR). —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 18:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Your frustration showed in your use of the word Saga. You must have been frustrated by pointless objections, or ones without reason.
- Sod invited himself to be called territorial.
- You might say that "incessant hail" is colourful prose, but it can it really be inappropriate when the solar wind can be fatal to astronauts doing space-walks, or on the moon's surface? If flow it be, then it never stops and it is not steady.
- I don't mind editors opinions coming closer to what I've been trying to tell them, but rewriting something just because of who the author is is irksome, particularly when they make such a mess of it.
- I agree on clear prose, my version is clearer, no on likes tripping over multiple parenthesise.
- Again my dwarf planet sentence is clearer.
- Ashill you again show lack of cognitive ability, this article Wikipedia:The Truth is about idiots who believe "facts" without evidence, a bit like my May Contain Nuts is about idiots who don't get visual layout, among other things.
-HarryAlffa (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Terminology section
The description of the definitions of the terms planet, dwarf planet, and small Solar System body was deleted from Solar System#Terminology. I restored it because that terminology is used extensively in the rest of the article and really ought to be explained in some detail on the Solar System page itself, rather than consigned exclusively to sub-pages. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The description of the definitions of the term ice was deleted from Solar System#Terminology. I restored it because that terminology is used extensively in the rest of the article and really ought to be explained in some detail on the Solar System page itself, rather than consigned exclusively to sub-pages. -HarryAlffa (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I deleted the definition of the term "ice" per a user's suggestion; in response to that discussion, I added a definition. Should be defined in both places?
- I think the terminology section is focused on the somewhat arcane uses of the "planet"-related terms, not every Solar System-related term, and I think that focus works well.
- I'll refrain from reverting; I've done enough reverting on this page today. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you see that the reasons you have given for restoring the description of the definitions of the terms planet, dwarf planet, and small Solar System body, must also result in restoring the "ice" section. Even Sod edited this section to improve it.
There are numerous references to "ice" & "icy" throughout the article (I searched), such a common word (intrinsically bound to water on Earth) MUST be explicitly explained for it's astronomical use. There is just no escaping this logic no matter what your emotional response is.
If the Terminology section is to focus exclusively on planet-related terms, then it must be renamed. But this is why I suggested earlier (where I answered your points there) that some sub-sectioning is required. And are you saying that ice is not a planet related term, but light-year is? That is the implication of what you are saying. -HarryAlffa (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- If that's the case, why did you remove my references to gas and rock? Both of those terms are also in the article, and both are equally misleading. Focusing on ice in a section that is meant to apply to the entire Solar System is confusing to the novice, as you say. Interesting nickname you have for me. Serendipodous 06:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- If I remember rightly, you obliterated my ice contribution with a poorly put together cut & paste job, I restored my paragraph and re-edited to included gas (rock is not misleading). -HarryAlffa (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Having not been contradicted, in the wikialerts, in my count of active editors of the Ice paragraph - I'm restoring it. I make it two active talkers to one in favour of having some sort of version on Ice. -HarryAlffa (talk) 12:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Lead/Heliosphere
The lead reads pretty well right now, and most of HarryAlffa's initial points seem to have been addressed. Two brief comments:
- "eight planets and their 166 known moons, four dwarf planets" - eight known planets, and four known dwarf planets. But using the word known three times would make the sentence awkward. Can somebody suggest an improvement?
- the article has been reverted to "creates the heliosphere" - I would suggest rewriting the whole sentence, perhaps "A flow of charged particles from the Sun (the solar wind) permeates the Solar System. Roughly at the outer edge of the scattered disc this flow is interrupted by the interstellar medium. This region is known as the heliopause, and is widely acknowledged as the boundary of the Solar System." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feyrauth (talk • contribs) 06:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- It's not quite right to describe the heliopause as the boundary of the solar system. It is the boundary of the solar wind, but the Sun's gravity holds out for several thousand times that distance. Serendipodous 07:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- That's a good sentence, but the article itself says there's a couple of different ways of looking at the boundary, speaking simplistically; the Oort cloud is thought to be the last region of orbiting objects; and the Sun's gravitational influence stretches out to 2ly.
- The heliosphere is "a bubble in the interstellar medium", it's hard to argue against "the solar wind creates the bubble in the interstellar medium", but it's still good.
- I would still like something a bit more exciting than "flow of charged particles". That seems to sedate for a 400 - 700 km/s hail of protons and electrons which could kill a man!
- I would suggest the rewrite: "A low mass, but unceasing blast of charged particles from the Sun (the solar wind) permeates the Solar System. Roughly at the outer edge of the scattered disc this flow is halted by the interstellar medium. This boundary region is known as the heliopause." -HarryAlffa (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think "unceasing" or "blast" are really encyclopedic, or even accurate in this context. A supernova or the stellar wind from a massive star or an asymptotic giant branch star is a blast, while the solar wind is small potatoes, astrophysically. The solar wind does not have an impact on any significant volume of the interstellar medium or the Galaxy, very much unlike other astrophysical winds. Can the 400—700 km/s wind kill a man? If so, I don't think it would be because of the speed of the particles, although I haven't thought about it.
- I do like saying that the heliosphere is a "bubble in the ISM"; that helps with context. (I'm biased, though, being an ISM scientist.) ;) I prefer something similar to the current wording like
- A flow of charged particles from the Sun (the solar wind) creates the heliosphere, a bubble in the interstellar medium which permeates the Solar System. The heliosphere terminates in the heliopause, roughly at the outer edge of the scattered disc.
- I think the "bubble in the ISM" part isn't controversial, so I'll make that change. It really is the wind that creates the heliosphere, so I think that word is good, although "defines" might work equally well. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 22:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- My initial choice was hail instead of blast, in an earlier edit. For someone who claims to be an ISM scientist, you say "unceasing" is an inaccurate way to describe the solar wind? Are you drunk? The solar wind does occasionally cease? - No. It doesn't. From what you have written then, if you really are a scientist, it has to be concluded that you are not a very good one. I won't even comment on a single word not being a compendium of knowledge. No! Really? Oh! Pardon me, you meant that "unceasing" and "blast" were unsuitable for use in an encyclopaedia? You want to remove these two words from all of wikipedia? No? You didn't mean that either? Are you drunk?
- A blast from a car-bomb is small potatoes compared to the blast from an atom bomb. It doesn't mean you can only apply it to the latter. A blast from a fire-fighter hose is small potatoes compared to the blast from a ship's steam hose. It doesn't mean you can only apply it to the latter.
- The volume of the interstellar medium virtually equates to the volume of the galaxy itself. Are you drunk? Of course it's not going to impact much of that volume, nothing will! Yes, the solar wind could kill an astronaut without specific shielding, for example, on the surface of the moon. You don't think it would be the speed of the particles that would do it? Are you drunk? It's a hail of free protons, and electrons! The faster they're travelling the more deeply they'll penetrate matter. So yeah, sure, the speed doesn't matter, yeah, yeah. Sure.
- C'mon, you're a computer technician at an observatory aren't you! Confess all! -HarryAlffa (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Harry, Ashill has been more than patient with you, regardless of your behaviour so far. Now you have crossed the line into personal attacks, and I have made a complaint at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Serendipodous 21:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
My objection to the word "bubble" is overruled; it seems that it is official terminology. I will put in a link to stellar wind bubble. But it's the solar wind, not the bubble, that permeates the solar system. How about: "A flow of charged particles from the Sun (the solar wind) permeates the Solar System. This creates a bubble in the interstellar medium known as the heliosphere, which terminates at the heliopause, near the scattered disc." Feyrauth (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. Serendipodous 06:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- I like that wording. Done. (I didn't wikilink heliopause because it redirects to a sub-heading on the heliosphere page.) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 12:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- "A flow of plasma from the Sun" is better in my opinion. Solar wind carries magnetic field, and neutrals can be present as well. Or possibly "magnetized plasma". Ruslik (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Plasma is good, particles suggest dust rather than free protons & electrons.
- Terminates at the heliopause is bad! Could read like the heliopause is separate something which just happens to mark the end. Room for confusion with "termination shock". I think it has to read like the heliopause is an integral part of the heliosphere.
- Near the scattered disk? The outer area of the scattered disk crosses through the heliopause.
- I would suggest, "A flow of plasma from the Sun (the solar wind) permeates the Solar System. This creates a bubble in the interstellar medium known as the heliosphere, which ends in the heliopause, around the outer edge of the scattered disc." -HarryAlffa (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- "A flow of plasma from the Sun" is better in my opinion. Solar wind carries magnetic field, and neutrals can be present as well. Or possibly "magnetized plasma". Ruslik (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- I like that wording. Done. (I didn't wikilink heliopause because it redirects to a sub-heading on the heliosphere page.) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 12:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)