Talk:Solar System

So are Jupiter and Saturn slightly more than 90 percent the planetary system mass, or slightly less?

Also, where is the citation saying that the Sun, which outmasses 95 percent of the stars in the galaxy, is a "low mass star"? Serendi^podous 17:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that a low-mass star undergoes a core helium flash while on the red-giant branch. Intermediate mass stars can start burning helium directly without undergoing a flash stage. E.g. The most common type is the very low-mass star; i.e. fully convective red dwarfs. Praemonitus (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

That article ignores all stars with a mass lower than 0.8 solar; a somewhat selective definition of "low mass". Within that sample, yes the Sun is low-mass, but not all stars have died in the age of the universe. Serendi^podous 21:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I was merely clarifying why some astronomers categorize the Sun and similar stars as "low mass". It has nothing to do with the initial mass function. This topic is covered in the star article, so perhaps you can find a suitable citation there. Praemonitus (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Apparently the distinction is between "low mass stars" and "very low mass stars". I still think this is confusing to the layman. Would a note be apropos? Serendi^podous 20:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, a clarifying note would make sense. Praemonitus (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Before such a change is made, I'll comment that in physics, "low" and "high" are always very context-dependent qualifiers. E.g., "high temperature" can mean liquid-nitrogen temperatures (in context of superconductors), and "low mass" can mean more than solar mass when referring to black holes. So a phrase "low mass star" is not itself meaningful outside of the context of which stars are being referred to. The sun is "low mass" when referring to the median mass (stars can range from 0.07 to over 100 solar masses), but "high mass" when referring to the average of all stars. There is no absolute meaning to "low mass" or "very low mass" qualifiers without specifying which population of stars and what form of comparison. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Comet West

The article says The furthest known objects, such as Comet West, have aphelia around 70,000 AU from the Sun. with reference to BBC. I can't find this number, and the article for Comet West says The comet has been more than 50 AU (7.5 billion km) from the Sun since 2003. and gives its aphelion in the infobox as 1,500 au (unsourced). Any thoughts? Artem.G (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

It was possibly based on outdated information. There are some other candidates on list of Solar System objects by greatest aphelion. Praemonitus (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

"Système solaire" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

Single image depicting both Sizes AND Distances - Critical info which has long been lacking

One method for showing both the sizes and distances to scale all within one single image is by using perspective. Here the Sun-Neptune distance is scaled to the length of a football field. In the foreground, objects corresponding to the Solar System are shown being held in one hand, with the Sun being ~2/3rds the diameter of a golf ball, the four terrestrial planets all being smaller than the ball found at the tip of a pen, and the four gas giants all being smaller than bb pellets. In the inset, perspective has been removed, with the hand being shown up close to one single yard of the field. This image makes it clear that all of the typical representations of the Solar System show a dramatic compression of the vast actual distances.

This article has been lacking critical info about the Solar System. That is an image which presents both the sizes and distances to scale. Nearly everyone has a gross misunderstanding, because all of the images which taught this were grossly misrepresenting one or the other.

THIS edit today added the image shown here which was intended to rectify this situation, but was repeatedly deleted by Remsense (talk). The essence of the criticism is this:

- An American football field is unrelatable to most of the world ("not everyone has the cultural anchor of a football field"),

- This image has an unprofessional look ("it seems unencyclopedic compared to the rest of the article"),

- This image is not as novel as I seem to believe (I am "overselling the novelty").

I will address the third criticism first:

3) I do not care about this particular image. What I care about is the info it presents. Absolutely nothing in this article conveys visually to scale how vast the distances are between objects likewise shown to scale. Not novel? Again, I do not care. Find one you like, and then show that image here. The point was, and remains, that nowhere does this article show this. It has been one full DECADE since this image was published to Wikipedia, yet this article persists without showing anything to the public. Not in any single image at all.

1) The entire world is familiar with soccer. And the vast majority of people all around the world have some understanding that this peculiar sport of American football (which shares its evolution with Association Football) is a field /pitch of roughly the same size. The goal line to goal line distance of an American football field to a soccer pitch is quite comparable. And this plain fact is literally spelled out right here on Wikipedia, in exact terms: List_of_unusual_units_of_measurement#Football_field_(length)

There it explains that the FIFA World Cup recommended goalline-to-goalline distance is 105m (115yds). The NFL American football field distance shown in this image is 100yds (91.44m). It is a difference that is within 15%. Look closely at the image, and you can see that the game being played is soccer. None of the players seem to be bothered by the hash marks. And the obvious advantage of the hash marks is that it helps to give an extremely precise correlation to planet distances. This does not happen on soccer fields around the rest of the world (as far as I'm aware).

2) As for the image seeming to be "unencyclopedic", I would argue that it is a tragic disservice to the typical reader to withhold vital info because certain editors wish to value style over substance.

And the entire concept of Wikipedia is along the lines of 'Stone Soup'. Ok, maybe you find this particular image to be not to your taste at this point in time, but what it DOES DO is serve as a call to editors around the entire planet to come up with a BETTER image.

This is how Wikipedia has become the best source of info for everyone in the world. Not by chopping down efforts toward progress, but by building on top of it. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Dude, uncool. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Also also...

- "visuals should ideally be legible at thumbnail size, which this certainly is not".

4) This fourth criticism is regarding legibility. The way most thumbnail images work on Wikipedia is that the small image conveys the essence of the info being presented. And readers who wish to gather more detailed info have the option to click on the image to get the full-sized presentation. It seems clear to me that the essential info IS conveyed with the thumb. Just a cursory reading of the image description makes it clear that the Sun-Neptune distance has been scaled down to the length of this field. This seems perfectly clear, once that basic premise has been understood. The exact details are unimportant to most. But the fundamental concept is not presented anywhere else in this article, except in words.

My persistence here has been based on the notion that a picture is worth a thousand words. This is why Wikipedia included the capability to present images from its very inception. Of course the thumbnail does not present all of the image's info in full. That is actually the very purpose of thumbnails. To give the essence. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a featured article. If you accept that this image is not encyclopedic, then it shouldn't be on a featured article, because this is meant to be example of Wikipedia's best work. A discussion of the merits of an illustration of this kind is fine, but I'm still skeptical of the depth of the revelation it provides as you describe. Remsense诉 18:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

To sacrifice vital info for the purpose of maintaining 'featured article' status is exactly the criticism which was conveyed by upholding style over substance.

But more importantly, the argument can be made that including this edit makes it an even better featured article. That is my personal view. Nowhere did I express my personal view that this image is not encyclopedic. What I did was acknowledge that it is your view, and might be shared by certain other editors. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Also also also...
I am just now noticing that these words look to have long been in stable form here at the end of this Distances and scales section:

If the Sun–Neptune distance is scaled to 100 metres (330 ft), then the Sun would be about 3 cm (1.2 in) in diameter (roughly two-thirds the diameter of a golf ball), the giant planets would be all smaller than about 3 mm (0.12 in), and Earth's diameter along with that of the other terrestrial planets would be smaller than a flea (0.3 mm or 0.012 in) at this scale.

Here is the NASA school education page which was offered in reference: NASA for educators

So one option would be to add this old NASA image which goes a long way toward explaining the text. But then again, that cartoon does not show any of the sizes to scale. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

All your points hinge on the novelty and importance of the content in question—as do all content discussions—and I apologize, we have to agree to disagree here. I think it's a neat idea that could possibly be a net positive to the article in some form, but not in this form for the reasons I've stated. I think the NASA image gets us part of the way there, but I'm curious what other contributors think, since I've added comparably very little to this article. Remsense诉 18:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

A "realistic" image of sizes and distances would be meaningless. We would have the sun and then some tiny and indistinguishable points at very long distances. And unless the image is incredibly big, the rocky planets would be so small that should very well be invisible to the naked eye. The Solar system is a case where the image (any image, in Wikipedia or elsewhere) is unrealistic by necessity, and the truth must be explained in text because an image would not work. Cambalachero (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Jeez, Tdadamemd19, did you think that by waiting long enough you could restart your war? [For the record, he tried this back in 2014]. This article has already been modified as far as it can be in response to his complaints. Serendi^podous 20:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

God almighty. I mean—I guess yes, that could work, since he last tried this a month after I first made my account, and years before I became a contributor. The theory of patience is sound. Remsense诉 20:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Also for the record, in a truly accurate size and distance map of the Solar System in which the Sun's diameter is 2 inches, Mercury would be seven feet away and less than 0.2 mm wide. Serendi^podous 20:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• I thought that "Americans measuring everything in football fields" is a meme, but here we are... Artem.G (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• Sorry but I don't find that image to be particularly useful as an example of Solar System scale, especially when it requires an exceedingly long caption to explain what it means. Plus it looks amateurish. There are better examples out there. Praemonitus (talk) 05:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Mention Pluto as considered a former planet in lede

I’ve been reverted in my edit (rather harshly labeled in the revert summary as “awkward,” which I dispute) by an editor, and I’d like some other views, thanks. I believe it is helpful to briefly mention Pluto’s former status in the lede, since most people only read the lede and Pluto has only been demoted for the last couple decades after over 70 years of official planethood. Jusdafax (talk) 05:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

No. Lots of things we once believed are no longer recognised as true. This is just one of them. No need. HiLo48 (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

the link to chaotic in structure and composition

it links to a card game, i assume it is not talking about a danish card game. TheT.N.T.BOOM! (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks for pointing this out. Pointed it to Chaos theory, which was probably the intended destination. Remsense诉 17:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Clean up

I just made some major changes to the article. The most notable of which are:

• Convert small headers listing individual bodies into bullet points, conserving the links using {{visible anchor}}
• Merge oddball sections "Comparison with extrasolar systems" and "Location", create a new section for a general overview (which is basically a repackaged version of "Comparison with extrasolar systems" with some irrelevant information transferred to other parts of the article). Move "General characteristics" down for readability.
• Remove AU to kilometers and miles conversion, strictly only use AU. Also replaced "approximately X AU from the Sun" with clear aphelion and perihelion data.

There are a few parts of this article that I still feel lacking, such as the description of individual bodies or some subsections in "General characteristics". What do you think about the article as it is? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the comparison with extrasolar systems section. It made no sense to take a perfectly good descriptive title and rename it withe the meaningless "overview".

I've also restored the location section. Celestial neighbourhood does not belong in a section called general characteristics of the solar system. Fdfexoex (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Made sense, but I always feel like it is an odd-ball thing... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I merged the "extrasolar systems" section to the general characteristics of the solar system. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Also I just fixed picture placement. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: English Composition 1102 085

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2024 and 2 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jgleana (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jgleana (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jgleana Hey! Do you want some help? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Readers and lurkers, what do you think about this article

I'd reckon that at least one people see this talk page every day. If that person is you, please tell me:

• What do you like about this article?
• What do you don't like about this article?
• What is something that you wish this article would talk more about?

I want to get some ideas for improvement, because the Mars article as it is right now is great, but not amazing. I want to turn this into an amazing article. Readers, anonymous editors and registered editors, feel free to make a comment.

P.S. you might notice that I made the same thread at Talk:Mars. That's because I don't want to improve an article, I want to improve 2 articles. :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, both this article and the one for Mars are featured articles. Of course that there may still be room for improvement if we find out ways to improve them even further, but "great but not amazing" is not exactly specific. Cambalachero (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Both Mars and the Solar System have passed FAC in 2007, which I was 1 year old at the time and when Wikipedia's FAC standard was still relatively low. If both of these articles must go through FAC again, then it would certainly don't pass. But I feel that there's another problem at play here which is that these articles are simply not interesting enough. I want to have an article that...

• a teacher could copy the lead and give it to student to read in an assignment,
• a person could skim this article for facts to argue on the internet,
• a reader who's interested in astronomy could read as a comprehensive introduction to the topic, and
• an astronomer could read these articles as a refresher.

You know what I mean. I feel that Wikipedia right now is neglecting its readers and I want to reverse that trend. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The page is a feature article and has been edited by scientists, astronomers, and other professionals in their fields. Can you point to an instance in the lead in which an edit would improve the page per the bullet points above, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that the biggest improvement to move towards this direction is to reorganize the content and make it easier to navigate. I can attest to that via my prior revisions to the article. Before, the article's planets and dwarf planets sections are a bit hard to digest. I removed the sub-subsections, turn them into bullet points and move individual images into small galleries at the top of the section. Virtually none of the content has been removed, except for unit conversions. Now, I think that the article is easier to skim compared to before. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Yikes, just looked at the page history and see you've done one of your multi-multi edit runs over the last few days (as usual, on a featured and well-edited article). I hope page watchers take note and check your edits. Maybe better, maybe worse, but lots of edits on a well-known page (well over seven thousand views a day) usually have quite a few mistakes and non-improvements. Hopefully you know what you are doing, I'm not going to check for awhile but might end up mass reverting again if there are too many bad edits to dig out and spend time fixing. Or not. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Stop assuming bad faith. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)