Contents

Template talk:Solar System table

Note: This table was created as a larger version of Template:Solar System; it was deemed too large for subpages of Solar system but appropriate for the Solar System page itself.

Astronomy: Astronomical objects / Solar System Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects. This template is supported by Solar System task force.

It's silly to have the moon families of the Jovian system separated from the members of those families, especially when reorganizing would really help the flow of that section of the table. Unless anyone has a problem, I'm going to reorganize it. Alba 13:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tompw, I have to disagree with your latest edits to the Solar System Table:

• As currently made, the line breaks do not make for a pretty table, but oddly placed spaces instead. I tried doing what you tried before coming up with the semicolon convention to seperate the groups; I found the results undesirable. This was tested on both Firefox and Safari before changing.
• The Saturnian moons should be reduced in font size to match the other lists.
• The Jovian moon order was not arbitrary but deliberate; I disagree with lumping the non-grouped moons into "other" when their previous order reflected their location in the system. (I can't help the Pasphiae and Carme groups overlapping, however).
• Why did you delete the Saturnian groupings?

I'm restoring my previous work; if you continue to disagree with my reasoning, feel free to reply. Alba 21:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but I did find one mistake I made: I didn't change the commas in the Saturnian lists to bars. I'll fix that. Alba 21:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actuyally, my original problem with the Jovian grouping was that some moons (S/2003 J2, S/2003 J12, Carpo, Themisto) are not currently considered to be part of any group. Hence my creation of the "other" group. I put in the line breaks because I felt that the Jovian moons were rather a large solid block, which makes the template harder to use. A possible compromise: instead of line breaks between groups, how about about several   instead? That would seperate the groups out. With the Saturnian mooons, the same comments apply. Also looking at Saturn's moon groups, I would suggest re-naming "E ring group" to "Inner Group". (The Saturnian groupsings got delete because I copied across the previous version without those groupings. I intended to restore them, but had to stop part way through, thinking I would be able to come back within an hour or so ... sorry, should've left a note). Anyway, I hope that clears things up. Tompw 11:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On groupless moons: I agree with the need to note that the moons you name are not members of groups, but it is for that very reason that I disagree with them being lumped into a 'misc.' or 'other' category. However, I would agree that noting their non-grouped nature in a succinct and distinct manner would be advisable, and I would be willing to entertain ideas. I tried the spacing, but found it to be a visual distraction due to its random placement in the lists. Maybe a (no group) notation, or an asterisk with a note below stating "groupless", or something of the sort would work.

On Saturnian groups: It would appear that these groups do not have formally defined names. It would probably match better to have an Inner and Outer, and I'm changing it to be so; but I'm still not quite happy, as that implies that Inner would include the shepherds and Outer the Inuit, Norse, and Gallic groups -- neither of which is the case. Alba 18:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Groupless moons: maybe just put Ungrouped: at the start of the list?

Saturnian groups: The only vaguely formally defined groups are the Inuit/Norse/Gallic groups. However, I am all for grouping the rest of the moons, provided it is done in a way that given any moon, it is obvious which group it goes into. Tompw 19:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The posts here could imply the existence of ‘formally defined’ groups. More precisely, the groups are identified by specific authors and the included members vary. Please see talk pages related to the different groups and irregular satellite article. The popular Sheppard’s site is not the only reference (his papers quoted, are a reference of course, but others are available).

I appreciate that it does not help the organisation of the table but I believe Wikipedia shouldn’t ‘choose’ a single source. Tight groups (Carme, Ananke) are less of a problem of course. Pasiphae is another story. Finally, the new discovered moons do not have mean orbital elements calculated (see JPL), so they classification based on the best-fit discovery is at least unsafe. Eurocommuter 12:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at what I just posted -- it is an attempt at a compromise here:

1) When it does not cause nearly empty lines in the middle of a list of moons, breaks are inserted to force group names to the left margin.
2) The order of moons is preserved, but nbsp's and asterisks clarify grouplessness.
3) Groupless moons are arranged with their nbsp's for good feng shui; I refer in particular to the Himalia group line.
4) I couldn't do the same trick with Epimethius & Janus / Inner group / Outer group. Sorry.

EDIT: But by making a subcategory noting the unverified nature of three shepherd moons, this problem was overcome!!

5) Because a incomplete line no longer signifies the end of a moon list for Jupiter and Saturn, I inserted blank lines there to visually separate the lists. Uranus and Neptune don't need this treatment because of the bolded Rings link at the end.
6) For visual continuity, I then reduced the Asteroid belt and the minor planets box from four lines to three by moving the break.
7) Purely for aesthetics, I spread the inner planets out a bit further to more completely fill the box.

The ultimate result is slightly bigger, but is much more visually pleasing and makes finding anything in the list (the search and find therbligs) quick and easy. I think it's more optimal -- give me your read. Alba 19:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's a lot better. The only change I made was to remove the blank lines at the end of the moons.... hang on, sudden realisation: the table should have horizontal border lines between rows - it does in IE, and should do in all browsers, but clearly it doesn't. I've put the blank lines until I figure out how to get this one to work. (InList of Saskatchewan general elections, do the rows alternate grey and white for you? If so, might this be a possible way to indicate what belonsg with which planet?) Tompw 22:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore everything after the first sentence in the above. I've realised that the border line things is now deprcated HTML, hence it not working properly. Have a look to see what I've done. (Which is more in line with what I originally intended when I made this template). Tompw 22:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superlative -- the horizontal border lines now show up in non-IE, and are much, much better than the blank lines I had inserted previously. I made one minor tweak -- the word "group" was hanging off the end of the Jovian list, so I shortened a space to fit better. I don't see any further problems. Alba 16:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This table is claimed to be a larger version of Template:Solar System (with a more complete listing of objects). But it really is a complete list of Solar System moons, and so more closely related to the Natural satellites page than the Solar system page. It doesn't, for instance, include even the larger TNOs found in Template:Trans-Neptunians, let alone those in Template:Trans-Neptunian objects.

I suggest having two tables: one which can incorporate more material on asteroid and TNO bodies, and another one devoted entirely to satellites, which would incorporate the largest part of this table. RandomCritic 15:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my concept more fleshed out:

First table, giving a pretty detailed solar system overview, but only linking to general satellite articles:

Second table[edit]

Second table, giving a fuller accounting of all the known natural satellites of the Solar system:

RandomCritic 01:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a problem with the placement of "Earth's Moon": it looks off center one way or the other. It would be better if you put it in the same standard format as all the others, with "The Moon / Luna" or some such on the right. And why is Pluto and its moons bolded? Alba 23:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The latter was an error, though Charon's big enough to be bolded according to the principles of the rest of the table. I tried to fix the Moon problem. RandomCritic 01:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what happened -- but the switch from dashes to dots has had two effects:

1) The dots are not all the same size -- compare Saturn's and Uranus's. (fixed)

2) The careful space formatting has been ruined, and I don't know how to force the boxes to shift size enough to restore it. Alba 13:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reset widths to 125 for the left column, 700 for the right -- does that help? RandomCritic 15:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive. Most impressive.[edit]

But let's see if we can improve further:

Alba 23:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really like the colors. I'm unsure about the O and * for the rings and moons, though; it's hard to click on something as small as an asterisk. Maybe one could use a symbol like this: ☾ or this ◐ or this ❍ for moons, and for rings maybe this ⦾ or this ⦿? Something like this: RandomCritic 01:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The character you use for the rings does not show correctly on my PC (Using Firefox in Linux), perhaps use the following: ☾ for moons and ❍ for rings -- Nbound 03:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ring and moon symbols, continued[edit]

there we go -- Nbound

• I took the liberty of swapping the rings symbol for another one that may be less confusing. I hope that it shows up correctly, though! RandomCritic 10:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the symbol, but its size was visually distressing. I took another liberty and made the ring symbol the same size as the moon symbol. It shows up fine for me on Firefox, IE, and Safari. Alba 19:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll just run this up the flagpole and see who tears it down. RandomCritic 19:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely no "tearing down" needed, but I have added a splash of colour. I have added the image from Template:Solar System to the bottom of this template - it's a very nice image, but it's not on the Solar System page! (The footer template was removed some time back because it duplicated the information in this larger template.) The image is also interactive, thanks to the new Wiki coding for interactive images. Check it out... I've left detailed information on how it is coded as comments inside the template, as well as a further explanation at Template talk:Solar System. (The other, minor change was to add a link to the Astronomy Portal at the bottom. It mirrors the rewording of the lower text on the footer template.) Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above classifies the solar system by some kind of mixed body and orbit classification. I prefer the distance-from-sun (dynamicist) organization:

• Sun
  • Terrestrials:
    • Mercury, Venus, Earth ☽, Mars ☽
  • Asteroids:
    • Ceres, Pallas, Vesta, Hygiea, classes: inner, main belt, outer, NEAs...
  • Jovians:
    • Jupiter ☽, Saturn ☽, Uranus ☽, Neptune ☽
  • Transneptunes:
    • TNO:s
      • Pluto, Eris, Varuna, Sedna, classes: KBO:s, plutinos, resonance objs, OCO:s, centaurs
    • Comets:
      • Halley, Hale-Bopp, Hyakutake, classes: damokloids, inner, neptune, OCC:s

Just saying is one thing - I'll prepare some kind of alternate navbar. Back L8R. Rursus 06:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS – when I'm ready, you'll not see anything special, except maybe some odd extra clickable text in some corner... Rursus 06:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nemesis is a hypothetical hard-to see red dwarf star or brown dwarf, orbiting the Sun at a distance of about 50,000 to 100,000 AU (about 1-2 light years), somewhat beyond the Oort cloud... but.. it sems that is reller ten hypothetical sense March 12, 2010) and the Orbital Path of Sedna, Sedna shouldn't be there,” said Brown. “There's no way to put Sedna where it is. It never comes close enough to be affected by the Sun, but it never goes far enough away from the Sun to be affected by other stars.” Brown postulates that perhaps a massive unseen object is responsible for Sedna’s mystifying orbit, its gravitational influence keeping Sedna fixed in that far-distant portion of space sense the (Oort cloud is hypothetical) and (Nemesis is hypothetical to or sems to be maby more reller) how abowt puting Nemesis in the (Solar System table) to but also put the (hypothetical) weht it can any 1 do it plz and thaks. for the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemesis_(star) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.39.109 (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. There is no scientific consensus on the existence of a "Nemesis". RandomCritic (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes it is scientific paper published this month http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.0437(click the pdf file in the right hand corner)

Interesting, but you missed this part: "The regularity of the timing compared with earlier calculations of orbital perturbation would seem to exclude the Nemesis hypothesis as a causal factor." So: no Nemesis. And a simple search of reviews of that article shows that most reviewers dismiss the apparent periodicity as an artifact of the authors' statistical method. So no periodicity either. RandomCritic (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

news of nemesis over the years

2010 http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/nemesis-comets-earth-am-100311.html

2001 http://www.space.com/news/nemesis_010410.html

2006 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10930988/ manchurian candidate 08:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

also look what nasa WISE mission found http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=wise-satellite-already-spots-two-br-2010-05-27 Wright later said that whereas the spectra of WISE 1 and WISE 2 are unambiguous, the spacecraft has found many more objects that may also be brown dwarfs. Confirmation of those will await follow-up observations, which the group has proposed on the Spitzer Space Telescope. Distances to the two new brown dwarfs are not known, Wright added, but WISE should be able to turn up bundles of such objects in its 10-month mission, some of which may be closer to the solar system than Proxima Centauri, the nearest known star to the sun.

so when they release the data it will confirm.at least have a hypothetical tag to it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 19:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this considered a particularly notable asteroid?