Template talk:Solar System/Archive 3

Footer changes

User:70.225.171.73 changed the footer to the three line proposal. I think this is the way it should stay. Can we agree to not change it any more? --myselfalso 18:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I personally prefer the three-line. If we separate planets and dwarf planets then logically the Sun has to be on a different line also, making a much thicker box. We can always add another dwarf planet line when more are added to the list and space becomes an issue.The Enlightened 19:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I do believe the box should be as small as we can get it. I have seen the revert of the last edit, and I almost did that myself. Instead, I made the comment above. I see the logic in having it one way or the other. I just think the smaller, the better. Perhaps if the list of dwarf planets expand, perhaps it could get its own box. I also believe that a line for different moons are unnecessary. It can be condensed down to the way it was as Natural Satalites. --myselfalso 20:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Factual accuracy is more important than a slim box. That version implies there is no difference between dwarf planets and planets. 72.139.119.165 14:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Planet page

Does anyone have any idea why the footer is coming up with the first line in small print on the planet page? The Enlightened 03:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it - the "Reference" section was coded for small print, but the command to stop using small print wasn't there. Glad you spotted it, as it was also affecting the text above the footer. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Image

I have no idea how to do it but could someone else space out the planets on the image more evenly? Jupiter and Saturn look very close together compared to the rest. Mercury and Venus look very distant (and they are the closest two planets to each other!) We should have the same distance between the edges of the planets, not the centres. Also, how about including the dwarf planets with small white dots, a similar size to the Moon dot perhaps? The Enlightened 14:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

If its not to scale it should at least have even distances between each planet and/or belt in the image. The image is great looking but it looks silly because of the varied distances. The Enlightened 17:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Listing moon's as nouns or adjectives

The "natural satellites of:" is just clumsy. What was wrong with the adjective forms? I also think the adjectives are better as you don't have two links with the same name for each planet (even if one is listed with "natural satellites" at the beginning of the line). The Enlightened 02:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Interactive image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I propose System&oldid=80622585 this version please state your rationale for or against it. While reverting no one had mentioned any real reason.

I will revert the template back to the System&oldid=80622585 interactive version in the absence of a discussion within the next seven days.

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

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

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

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

I have removed it (wikicode cluters). If people desire to see it they can click System&oldid=80623447 this link or the older interactive version with planet names System&oldid=80622585 here. --Cat out 17:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Link to template pic with Pluto

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Image

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

New stuff:

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

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

Thank you

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

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

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

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

• • Pluto should be red, no?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a slighty modified version:

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

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

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

In response to RandomCritic:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following changes could be made:

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

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

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

2) I think this would be good

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poll

Support. I am in favor of the current image being used. I support this over the use of the interactive image. --myselfalso 20:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

There is a problem that a block of images often means one fails to load which looks worse than links would help. I think its nice for it to load up as one though. Although, on the other hand I like the idea that people can click on a planet they like the look of. I've yet to make up my mind.The Enlightened 06:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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

I oppose any use of an interactive image. Loading problems will make it look bad. Also, it is much more simple if we just stick with the text. --myselfalso 12:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Discussion

I believe a colorful image would make more sense than a Blue & White one. I however feel the planets should have a greater amount of distance between them so that the images can be properly labeled. Oh and btw Nbound earns a round of applouse. :) --Cat out 13:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Archive?

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

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

My attempt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the latest

Changes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1a) Don't forget, we know what to look for. I've got a 19" monitor, and there is was a bit of dust on it. I noticed it because it made Venus appear to have a moon - and it stood out better than the Martian "dots".

1b) In a diagram of this size, legibility must be a real priority.

3) I respect the desire to be "professional", but in this case the professional approach would be to roughen the edges, in the interest of realism. A clearly defined, "neat" edge looks artificial, much like the early computer-generated animations do. I think we generally interpret clean, neatly defined edges as a human trait, whereas nature is a bit "fuzzy".

5) Don't confuse "professionalism" with "accuracy" - they're not necessarily the same at all times.

Thanks again, by the way, and kudos for taking all the proposed revisions in stride. It's all part of making this the best it can be! --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

1) Well I've brightened the larger moons, Triton a lot, and Dysnomia a bit. I asked several people which of the planets showed moons and they all picked Mars straight out as they listed them.

3) As for the belt edges, check out those images I sent you - the vertical drops look man-made. It's because asteroids outside that main belt were collected during the "clearing the orbit" stage of planet formation. The realism is having sharpish cut-offs. I'm not representing every asteroid, I'm representing the belt, and the belt *does* have a clear cutt off. 95% of asteroids are in that belt.

5) Well the "accurate" thing is that, aside from Saturn, the gas giants do not have visible rings. If you image search for say "jupiter" and "rings" you'll see theyre only picked up on non-visible wavelengths. The Enlightened 20:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts

1. I like the new sun
2. Belts too tidy (thats why I aimed for a rough edge in my attempt)
3. Pluto's position is good
4. Don't like the enlarged moons as others are smaller... if we must enlarge one... only earths... theres no reason to enlarge charon (unless its designated a dwarf planet)
5. New moon line up good
6. I'm fine with either box size...

hope that helps -- Nbound 00:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support in some areas. Regarding your two complaints:

1. I understood your rough edge attempt and I did try to incorporate the idea in the image. The original belt was too tidy, and had to be amended. The only issues are a) there is a very real steep cut off in belts in real life and b) I'm keep to maintain a vertical uniformity in belt density. It's important that people are shown there are so many asteroids its a uniform amount all the way round the Sun - it doesn't bulge in the middle or something.
2. I think that Charon is really important as a large object. If any definition for a binary planet is accepted it will solely relate to Charon. It really is massive compared and what has effectively gone on is two dwarf planets have started orbiting each other. The Enlightened 03:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Both good reasons... you have my full backing -- Nbound 04:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Minor Moons

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

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

I'm not arguing this for scale purposes. By scale none of the gas giant moons should be listed. I'm just saying we should have consistency for what is included in the image. Why is it more important that Mars has moons when they're just tiny rocks? If we're lowering the size limit for 20m diameter surely we should include all the major asteroids and KBOs? The Enlightened 20:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There is internal consistancy of the objects, just not a sized based one! All of these are the most "important" moons or well known of each planet. Since Mars has no round fellers it makes sense to include the smaller ones. --Perfection 21:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we have a straw poll of "support"s (keeping the tiny moons), "oppose"s, or "not bothered"s on this? If everyone's against me I'll give it up

I support keeping Phobos and Deimos, and in general keeping the moons as they are (though I still think Titan could be a bit brighter).RandomCritic 14:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Version X

File:Solar System X.PNG

(1) More solar flares, solar wind etc.

(2) Several moons brightened as requested. The galileans are now the most prominent, along with Triton. Plus within each planetary system the largest bodies should be the brightest.

(3) Pluto even more on edge of main Kuiper belt, as in reality. The Enlightened 20:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Version XI

• Different image used for Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus.
• Earth's moon is slightly smaller.
• Mars' moons are more visible.
• Galilean, Saturnian, and Uranian moons are more visible. Triton is also more prominent.
• The asteroid and Kuiper belts, scattered disk, oort cloud, and dwarf planets are more visible.
• Spacing and scale are slightly different. (For example, Earth is slightly larger compared to Venus, whereas in the last version Venus and Earth looked about the same. This is to show that Earth is the largest of the terrestrial planets.)
• Over all, less aliasing (particularly Saturn's rings and the edges of the outer planets). BlytheG 22:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

1) There was significant image degradation on last image. In particular there were visible off-clour areas of space around Venus and the Sun. 2) The gas giant moons have already been made a lot more visible. As long as people are working with monitors with decent contrast they should all now be seen. Also, there seems to be colour loss of such moons compared to last edit. 3) Earth should not be larger than Venus. It's more important that they are about the same size - this shows the difference location from the Sun can cause. Venus is 0.93 Earths - very, very similar. 4) The new spacing means planets do not line up with text. 5) If anything is needed, its more aliasing, not less. If objects stand out too much they look more pixelated than spherical. The Enlightened 22:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Version XI is better - if there are image degradation issues, they can certainly be resolved, but the overall effect is better. The moons really stand out, and the belts look great. Also, we cannot attempt to have text align with images - there is no way to ensure that things remain aligned, given the wide range of browsers, platforms, and text size settings. If this were for an Xbox, we could perhaps expect consistency, but I can assure you that Wikipedia pages can look radically different as rendered by Firefox, Opera, Safari, and the PC and Mac versions of IE. (I use all four browsers, on PC and Mac platforms - I can't speak for Linux setups, though.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Further to my notes above, there is definitely some artifacting around Venus, which could have emerged when the black background was brightened (which should be reverted). Also, the image is slightly stretched horizontally and compressed vertically - small amounts, but again, this should be undone. Other than that, however, the overall improvements help the presentation - we should make the fixes and use it. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

As a linux user id say its far more browser dependant than anything else... But firefox in windows or linux looks the same -- Nbound 03:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll stop the drive for text lineup, and I can understand a brightening of the moons under such circumstances. It would be good if people could keep their original colours though, albeit brighter. I am concerned about the new asteroid belts though. Do they need to be brighter? As long as the belts can be seen its not necessary to pick out each dot - too bright they look more like a star field than anything else. While I must accept a certain degree of brightening though, others must accept that some people see things a lot brighter on their monitors/browsers/whatever and as such too bright (as the last one was) can a) just look bad and b) lose the vividness of colour so things stand out less. Compromise remains important.

Also, there is absolutely no reason to use different images for the planets. There was a valid criticism of Venus and it was right to replace that, but the rest just lack colour and vividness. Also I spent a long time working on the edges of several of the planets to make sure they appeared round & not pixelated, and also integrated with the image (so they didnt look stuck on there). I would be keen for this not to be changed unless there's a really valid reason. Why should the Earth & Moon sizes be changed when they were previously to scale? The Enlightened 03:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Honestly... I prefer the planets from version X... also space doesnt seem black in XI... as well as the other graphical areas already mentioned :S... stick with X I reckon =) -- Nbound 05:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

For most of the planets it seems to me like six of one, half a dozen of the other, but the colors of Jupiter in XI seem more realistic to me. RandomCritic 05:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Version XII

• Inner planets to scale.
• Space more black.
• Outer planets made more to scale (particularly Uranus & Neptune compared with Jupiter & Saturn).
• Spacing corrected for better text lineup.
• Jupiter image flipped to correspond with side facing the sun.
• Galilean and other moons' color restored.
• Artifacting around Venus removed.

I believe I've addressed all of the problems with v. XI and am adding v. XII to the template.--BlytheG 07:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Most problems seem solved.. my only qualm is that the original saturn looked better, the current one looks washed out -- Nbound 12:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this is good. Artifacting round the Sun, Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto, Charon & Eris remains. My original Jupiter was probably two vivid but I think this one is a little too washed out. I still think the Moon should be restored - We should either have all the moons the same size or maintain scale. A compromise between the two views achieves neither. The Enlightened 13:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC) PS. On reflection, the Galileans look great now. Good work.

Version XIII

• Artifacting around the Sun, Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto, Charon, and Eris fixed.
• Terran moon restored.
• Mars made rounder.
• On a side note, Saturn is actually not as colorful as the Voyager 2 picture suggests. If you look at any of the pictures sent back by the Cassini probe, you will see that Saturn's clouds are composed of more subtle, subdued colors. The same applies to Jupiter. Also, the picture of Saturn in v. X seems to be stretched horizontally.

Someone reverted it back to v. X, but for the time being I'm adding v. XIII.--BlytheG 01:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that I liked the old (bigger) Moon better. RandomCritic 03:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur. It's now my only complaint with the image. Alba 03:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It gives the impresson that its bigger than the moons of jupiter/saturn though... which is my only concern -- Nbound 04:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Version XIV

• Terran moon has been enlarged as requested.
• Artifacting around the Sun further cleaned up.
  • Feel free to add this image to the template; I'm leaving v. XIII there for now. (Mainly because of the scale issue with the moons. In reality, Ganymede (Jovian) and Titan (Saturnian) are both larger than the planet Mercury. It makes more sense, for scale's sake, to keep all planemo satellites the same size.)
    • I think it's more important to keep moons scaled to their planets than scaling moons between planets. The planets are not to the same scale anyway, but we can at least keep the relative moon/planet sizes intact. The only glaring anomaly was Earth/Luna; all the others were reasonably close to correct scale. I move to use version XIV (of course I do, I requested it ;-)) Alba 07:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

but the moons are not scaled to their planets either... esp. the martiant moons which are only 10 and 20km across -- Nbound 13:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's a case of "to scale with a minimum size of one pixel." The Enlightened 14:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Nice, but why the moons of Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus need to be in one area and in a semi-circular organisation?--Pedro 22:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Asteroids

At this link there's an image that shows the positions of a large number of asteroids at one particular point in time. As you can see, the near-Mars boundary is fairly sharp, but the boundary towards Jupiter is a good deal fuzzier, even not taking the Jupiter trojans into consideration. And here is another such plot (even busier). RandomCritic 05:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• We have no planets in the solar system, just dwarf planets. :P -Pedro 08:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we keep this on topic rather than anti-IAU propaganda -- Nbound 13:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Archive

Archived to the end of September because the talk was getting too long. RandomCritic 05:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Eridian

I've changed this to Erisian. I can see nowhere that states that "Eridian" would be the proper adjective, and since "Erisian" is in very common use in regards to the goddess (at least the Discordian Eris, if not the Greek Eris), I would guess it to be correct. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 15:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a silly dispute, and I'm reluctant to contribute to it, but the facts are these: nobody in the astronomical community has, so far as I know, used an adjective meaning "of Eris" in the literature. Eridian is an expected form, based on the stem seen in the genitive ἔριδος (eridos) of the Greek word ἔρις (eris), and forms such as Jovian, Martian, Plutonian, Palladian which are based on their nominal stems Iov-, Mart-, Pluton-, Pallad-.

I do not believe that people who study mythology use Erisian (or any adjective at all) with reference to the Greek spirit of disharmony. As far as I know, the use of Erisian is limited to the Discordian counterculture, who are probably (given their tenets) deliberately thumbing their noses at grammar and precedent. RandomCritic 15:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I should add that I queried the IAU's Committee for Small Body Nomenclature on this subject, and they disclaimed both intent and competence to adjudicate this question. So the determination is going to be a matter of usage and not of prescription. But we can't assume that an adjective applied to a figure of counterculture myth applies equally well to an astronomical body -- as one of the CSBN members pointed out, there's an even older term derived from ἔρις, eristic -- which nowadays means "characterized by disputatious and often subtle and specious reasoning"!RandomCritic 16:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's a "silly" dispute, but as you say, we're not about prescription here, but description. It may very well be that use ends up being "Eridian" (if there's really any need for an adjective at all), but currently, in more cases than not, according to a Google search, the word "Erisian" is used to refer adjectivally to "Eris" (yes, a different Eris in a sense, but with a clear connection). If we're going to use any term, shouldn't it be the most common one currently found "out there"? Isn't the only other option to not use either until a clear "winner" emerges? _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The latter would seem to be the most sensible option, if you're looking to base Wikipedia usage purely on observed usage: because "Erisian" used in the sense "of or relating to the astronomical object Eris" just isn't found, and "Erisian" in another sense is no more a propos than "Eristic" or, for that matter, any other word in the dictionary. RandomCritic 18:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far. Clearly, another use of the name "Eris" which has its origins in the same Greek goddess would be more fitting than "any other word in the dictionary". That said, you are correct, it is not particularly fitting, given the divergence of the two (Discordian goddess and astronomical body) from the original. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 19:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, the dwarf planet is named after the Greek goddess, not the Discordian one. As such the word has a greek root and the adjectival form would thus be "Eridian". The Enlightened 21:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

English is not Greek. There is no requirement that a Greek ending be applied to a Greek root in English. It may be likely, but is not necessarily the case. The fact that there are plenty of Greek and Latin words with English plural forms should be enough to convince you of this. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 23:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You say Erisian and I say Eridian, let's call the whole thing off. RandomCritic 00:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope this debate has been finished here. But there really is a simple solution. And that's to not use the adjective forms. There isn't a need for that. It's not hard to have Moons: Earth, Mars, Asteroidal, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Eris. --myselfalso 03:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a good solution, unfortunately. While it avoids the 'Eridian/Erisian" debate, it creates far more confusion as there would be two listings of each planet's name. (Yes, the term "Moon" is there, but it's not enough.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Or you just don't have it at all, also eliminating another line from the box, and simply have a link for Natural moons or Natural moons of objects. --myselfalso 19:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It is nice to have the easy access to the moons - plus there has already been a lot of discussion (and subsequent edit/revert sessions) about that line. More importantly, though, the template has been relatively stable for a while, compared to the almost constant change of a few weeks back. With that in mind, it would probably be better to stick with "Erisian" (and have just one minor disputed point) rather than restarting a larger debate. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, this footer is the only one that uses "Erisian." Everywhere else on Wikipedia that I've seen uses "Eridian" (for example, the natural sattelites footer). And, as stated before, "Eridian" is more linguistically correct. And its not like we have context issues like with "Venerean," which prompted the creation of "Cytherean." By the by, would "Erisian" be pronounced "Er-eezh-yan" or "Er-is-i-an"? -- Werothegreat 15:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Seeing that there is no clear evidence which should be used, can we all agree just to abide by whatever majority comes out in a straw poll? Perhaps on the Eris talk page? The Enlightened 23:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• There already has been. There have been the linguistic arguments for "Eridian," someone contacted IAU, who didn't give an good answer, and its pretty much the same debate going on here. The best thing we can do is to continue to monitor the internet for the most used form (making sure this is in reference to the dwarf planet, not the discordian deity).Werothegreat 18:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Non-controversial question

How was the v-d-e added to the top right corner of the template? --myselfalso 04:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a guess, but I think it's the sort of table that is used. The Enlightened 23:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Image XV

1. Original Sun restored (has no artifacting)
2. Complete removal of artifacting around Jupiter
3. Cleared a little more space around Charon to make it more obvious
4. Restored original Earth (less pixelised)
5. Restored original Mars (to scale and true colour - it's not as red as we may think of it!)
6. Restored original Saturn (more spherical and true colour)
7. Asteroid belt more vague edge on Jupiter side (as requested)
8. Flipped Venus so shadow is on the right side

I think that's it. The Enlightened 21:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks really nice. RandomCritic 21:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Er, Saturn looks bad to me--it's not spherical. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 23:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Saturn's polar/equatorial aspect ratio is .9 -- the largest smallest of any solar system planet. RandomCritic 23:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That may be so, but it still appears wrong to me. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 00:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This one is definitely spherical. Its a true image of Saturn where the previous one was clearly stretched pole-to-pole. The Enlightened 05:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Version XVI

You may have started out with a better image, but I still think the method of scaling has resulted in detrimental loss of information around the edges. Here's a better scaled image, but the colours are weak again, as I used the image in Saturn's infobox and haven't corrected for colour:

_└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Version XVII

Colour-corrected (although not as distinct banding as on your version):

_└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Nice work. The Enlightened 15:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Another plus point is the colours seem to fit in better with Jupiter now. I've noticed a couple of things to do another edit, so if anyone else has noticed anything now's the time to say. (I feel guilty taking constantly loading up new images with only a couple of changes.) The Enlightened 15:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I was going to suggest a couple changes, but then I just went ahead and made them myself (this time, uploading a new version over XVII, not making an XVIII). A new Earth, Mars and Neptune, touch ups to Mercury, and the Moon. Earth might need "bluening", but I think it looks better than the more pixelated version that was there before. Pluto and Eris probably need a touch up on their "bright corners" as well, so they look less square. You probably need to hard refresh to see the new version. Apologies if my edits have duplicated any work you were doing, The Enlightened. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 19:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Neptune is very good. As is the Earth, but yes, it needs some more blueing. The Moon also looks great but for consistency purposes could we use an image with slightly less shadow? I do have a problem with Mars, as it does look very fuzzy in the new image.The Enlightened 02:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose Mars is a little fuzzy around the edges (I think the existence of clearly visible ice caps in the original is causing some of that). The Moon can be touched up no problem (I already have, but won't bother to upload until I've looked at fixing Mars. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 02:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the evenly spaced high quality version. Which image did we agree up on viewing on the template?

I have one reservation though. Can we distribute natural satelites of planets a bit differently. It would be better for instance to perhaps display them orbiting the planets (like how planets are orbitting the sun)?

Also I would like similar diagrams for the Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto systems.

That infact gave me an idea. Why dont we link to Planet systems rather than planets? Someone clicking on Jupiter should perhaps be taken to the Jupiter system as they likely need general information about jupiter and her natural satelites.

I don't think there is such a thing; there's just Jupiter, which links also to Jupiter's natural satellites and Rings of Jupiter. RandomCritic 01:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Also can the image be overal larger (taller: twice the height; wider: as much as 650px)?

--Cat out 01:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It's already quite large. I don't think increasing the size would be a good idea. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 01:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Could we add nix and hydra to pluto? Yes, the gas giants only have their planemo moons for the sake of space, but Mars's moons are definitely not planemos, yet we see them. Pluto only has 3 moons, why not include all of them?Werothegreat 18:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

A minor quibble -- the image of Venus used is, I think, a false-color image which gives an unrealistic orange-red cast to the planet. According to this site (see bottom of the page), Venus would appear to the naked eye with a creamy whitish color. RandomCritic 19:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hard-refresh and take a look. A bit bluer Earth, whiter Venus, less-blurry Mars, rounder Moon. No Nix or Hydra. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 21:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Good work. Nix & Hydra was one of the changes I was waiting to make. The Enlightened 11:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I just closely compared the latest edition with the one a few back. Firstly, I have to say that excellent work has been done by yourself on Neptune particularly, and the Saturn colouring is a lot better. However, two issues stuck out to me. The new Earth, although looking a lot rounder and less pixelated, looks significantly less like the Earth we all know from satellite pictures. The land masses are noticeably lacking - I tried to combine the images but it didnt look too good. Any thoughts? Also, the size of Mars and Earth has crept up by two pixels in width in both of them. This isn't too noticeable in Earth as the "white" look of the new one does make it optically look smaller, but Mars is definitely bigger and looks out of scale. The Enlightened 14:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not paricularly like "earth" image as well. Again I request image to be larger (Taller/roughly same width perhaps slightly larger). It should ocupy 80% - 90% of the lowest screen resolution (800x600). 650px width would work. --Cat out 06:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Contrast with Natural Satellites footer

Going back to the lovely Eridian/Erisian debate, there are inconsistencies between this footer and the natural satellites footer. This one uses "Erisian," while the satellites one uses "Eridian." This causes a problem when viewing, say Phobos or Dysnomia and you have both on the same page. Either change this footer to Eridian, or change the satellites footer to Erisian. Werothegreat 13:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)