Template talk:Solar System/Archive 2

Reintroducing the question of dwarf planets in the image; other ring changes?

The only outstanding question for the footer, I think, is whether the dwarf planets ought to be in the image. There was such an image devised:

but it is slightly out of date as it doesn't have the ring-of-Jupiter fix. What does everyone think about having the dwarf planets noted in a different color?

Seeing that the only star and the planets are the same colour, I see no reason for dwarf planets to be differently marked - especially not with a more prominent colour than the planets. They should definitely be included in the diagram though. 70.225.183.120 09:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

A separate question -- what about the distinctive 90-degree rings of Uranus, or the partial rings of Neptune? Alba 18:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to Alba: File:Solar sys.png Here is a different version with the contrast bumped up a bit and Neptune given more breathing room. Included are the rings of Uranus and Neptune.

I've taken the liberty of adding this graphic to the template, as it is just an upgrade of the previous one. If anyone objects, please feel free to revert. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Upon the reclassification of the larger SSSB's to dwarf planets we will have crowding problems, and all the dwarf planets arre in the belts anyway so technically they are in the current image -- Nbound 10:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that one image - the EightPlanets.png - is enough for the footer. Each image is about 10 KB, so for those on slow connections it adds a second or two to the download of each page, and the templates are often used on graphically intensive pages as it is. It might be nice to include the inclined rings of Uranus or the ring arcs of Neptune; dwarf planets deserve about a pixel or two at most, and certainly not a different colour :-) Philip Legge _{phi1ip@netscape·net} 01:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Dwarf planets

I don't think the dwarf planets are important enough to merit their own row. It almost makes them look more important than the real planets (since there are less of them listed). I'm thinking a simple link to a list of dwarf planets under the "Others" section gives them the appropriate weight. --Cyde Weys 04:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit - let's discuss this first before making such a major change please. You deleted a lot of useful information. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ckatz - this template has already been at the stage of edit warring between the Pluto promoters/demoters recently. No substantial changes should be contemplated without first trying to reach a consensus on this discussion page (an exception only for vandalism reverts).

I find your argument - that there being few dwarf planets on their own line, makes them more important - to be somewhat fallacious. The number of items under a category does not signify relative importance; but the vertical ordering of lines Star -> Planets -> Dwarf planets -> Other clearly spells out a hierachy at a more intuitive level. Also a subcommittee of the IAU will no doubt be formed to consider other TNOs and asteroids as candidate dwarf planets in due course of time (when we will presumably have a similar debate as to whether "candidates" should be included in the template!).

To labour the concept of why such consensus is required, by example: if you look at the history of the template, there have usually been links to the Earth's moon, but none for any other of the Solar System's 200+ satellites (six of which are more massive than Pluto or Eris). On 7 September I floated the idea of a set of 7 links for satellites (one to Natural satellites, the other six to the respective planetary satellite pages); the consensus was that although an entire line was perhaps not warranted on reasons of conserving space, at least one link to the page Natural satellites was desirable. In other words, given the options of zero links, one link, or seven links to that topic, the consensus reached was for one link - not zero, and not seven.

Your relegation of Dwarf planets to the Other row also denies linkage to 1 Ceres, Pluto, and 136199 Eris, so I can't imagine it being a popular move on those grounds either :) Philip Legge _{phi1ip@netscape·net} 07:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

One trivial correction to the above - idea actually raised on 28 August, various discussions between then and 7 September arrived at preferred one link to be included: Satellites Philip Legge _{phi1ip@netscape·net} 08:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for a breather please

It's obvious that there are a lot of different opinions as to what to include in (or remove from) this template. Can I suggest that perhaps we discuss the changes, come to some sort of agreement, and then update? My concern is that the box is changing so frequently that it is becoming a distraction to casual readers. On several occasions, I've looked at the box, noticed several items I'd like to check out, linked to one of them, then gone to the instance of the template at the bottom of that page only to find that the other links weren't there any more. (I'm not talking about changes to reflect current events, like Eris. I'm talking about entire sections of the template being removed and re-added within minutes.) Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Pluto's moons deserve to be on the natural satellites page

I see no reason that person reverted my edit. You cannot be seriously saying that since Sylvia has 2 moons the size of my fist that Pluto doesn't deserve to be on the list?? Blasphemy. Whether you Pluto haters like it or not, Pluto's moons are very much more distinctive than the moons of those silly little asteroids. It deserves to be up there just as much as Earth, Mars, or any others. -- This unsigned post was made by 69.106.180.64 (Talk), 01:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Pluto is on the natural satellites page, and this is not a matter of people being "Pluto haters". Please refer to the discussion above.Philip Legge _{phi1ip@netscape·net} 03:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Eris also has a moon, and many of the KBO's do as well, they are all moons much bigger than that of sylvia's, please do not resort to name calling, it weakens your argument. -- Nbound 01:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• And Eris' moons don't have an article, do they? Again, you're saying that Charon, one of a double planet parternship is no more distintive than the little pebbles orbiting Eris and others??????? -- This unsigned post was made by 69.106.180.64 (Talk), 01:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

YES -- Nbound 01:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Eris' moon Dysnomia is actually in terms of absolute magnitude the fourteenth brighest TNO in its own right; so your stance to include Pluto's satellites in the template also necessitates including linkage for the other satellite belonging to dwarf planets. Thus we would have nine links instead of seven, when it was discussed above that for reasons of space one link was probably the better compromise. Philip Legge _{phi1ip@netscape·net} 03:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• And yet, you're the biased one. You cannot objectively say that. It is in all ways, WRONG. -- This unsigned post was made by 69.106.180.64 (Talk), 01:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No it isnt... please do not vandalise the footer again -- Nbound 01:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• I"m NOT vandalising it. How are you right and I'm wrong? You're ignorant. -- This unsigned post was made by 69.106.180.64 (Talk), 01:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Because we link to the satellites of the Planets not of dwarf-planets/asteroids, please do not edit it again... if u contine to insult me (which has been removed) i will have ur IP blocked from wikipedia -- Nbound 01:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Pluto is a nothing. It only merits any mention in anything other than its article because of its historical significance. If it was discovered today, nobody would give a damn. --Cyde Weys 04:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's only the eighteenth most massive body in the solar system, extremely reflective, the brightest TNO by apparent magnitude (second in absolute terms) and moreover a binary system (the barycentre with Charon being in free space) with two extra moons. Hardly of any importance at all. No one should even bother. (tongue firmly in cheek :)

However, it's a dwarf planet all the same; I certainly don't rate it as importantly as the eight de jure planets, but it deserves a place somewhere else in the template. Philip Legge _{phi1ip@netscape·net} 06:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Leaving aside the heated question of whether Pluto is a planet or not, the current design of the template has a striking defect: it names a category "satellites" (not "planetary satellites), linking to "natural satellites" which includes the moons of any kind of body; and the satellites of non-"planet" bodies are not listed anywhere on it -- a disturbing omission, since it leaves out the 12th largest satellite in the solar system, Charon. I think there should be at least a grab-bag reference, maybe at the end, for the moons of non-planetary objects. Unfortunately there is no accepted term now that includes both "dwarf planets" and smaller bodies. So for the following example I'm just going to suggest "other", as follows:

Unfortunately the article I picked for inclusion is not very satisfactory from this point of view as it does not really discuss the moons of Pluto and Eris (although they are mentioned in the secondarily linked List of asteroid moons. Perhaps it could be edited for more completeness; there is AFAIK no article dealing with "dwarf planet moons" and arguably the category is not coherent enough to require such an article. We do, however, have Pluto's natural satellites and Dysnomia. For my money it does no harm to include dwarf planet satellites with the other planetary satellites, as it says nothing about whether they are "planets" or not, thus:

Or it could be on its own line:

The Solar System
Star: The Sun
Planets: Mercury - Venus - Earth - Mars - Jupiter - Saturn - Uranus - Neptune
Dwarf Planets: Ceres - Pluto - Eris
Small Bodies: Asteroids - Centaurs - TNOs - Comets - Meteoroids
Planetary satellites: Terran - Martian - Jovian - Saturnian - Uranian - Neptunian
Other satellites: Plutonian - Eridian - Asteroidal
Populations: Asteroid belt - Kuiper belt - Scattered disc - Oort cloud
See also astronomical objects and the solar system's list of objects, sorted by radius or mass.

RandomCritic 10:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If i were to choose one it would be the last one (just above)...

my take on this type of redesign would be:

The linkage to each planet(oid)'s moons is not really needed. -- Nbound 11:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, how about this -- only list the link to the Natural satellite article on the Solar System footer, and add to the various satellite pages something like this:

RandomCritic 13:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Great idea, i see youve implemented it already... Good Work *thumb up* -- Nbound 23:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Nicely done, RandomCritic... Philip Legge _{phi1ip@netscape·net} 23:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Template Redesign?

Ive noticed recently people have been pushing for a template redesign (as in removing/adding links from it), any thoughts/opinions/etc. should go here and we'll all try and reach a consensus -- Nbound :

Here are my two takes on a condensed footer:

Draft 1

Draft 1A

Discussion

I just think that it shouldn't be too long. There's a balance to be struck between listing everything in the solar system and listing just the essentials. At some point adding lots more links (like various dwarf planets nobody cares about and the moons of each planet) just dilutes the quality of the information. The template should very prominently emphasize the Sun and the the eight planets, not give equal weight to a bunch of little nothing objects. --Cyde Weys 04:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, I respect your right to your own opinions, but try to be fair - don't claim to speak for "everyone". Obviously, as demonstrated by the activity here and elsewhere, a lot of people do care about the other objects. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, while I agree with you that the template shouldn't be too long, twice now you have completely removed the set of links to satellites instead of retaining the suggested single link elsewhere in the template - a compromise which has received virtually no objection in the discussion above, since being raised on 28 August.

I believe I've given fair justification as to why the single link satellites should be there: e.g. of the top 30 objects in the solar system by mass, half of that number are planetary satellites, seven of which are larger than any known dwarf planet (or potential candidate dwarf planet). If you look at the logarithmic scale, there is larger difference between the masses of Saturn and Jupiter, or Neptune and Saturn, than there is between Ganymede and Mercury. Could you please refrain from removing stuff that several editors (other than me!) think is worthy of inclusion, and discuss the matter here first?

For my part, I think neither of these drafts are as good as several other attempts at drafts on this page. In particular, I think it is useful to flesh out some of the different categories of Small Solar System Bodies into at least asteroids, cis/trans-Neptunians, comets, and finally meteoroids, as several of the other suggested templates do. May I also suggest that at some point the current line of seven links to planetary satellite pages be replaced by just satellites? (I will wait a day or so before intending to act on this.) Philip Legge _{phi1ip@netscape·net} 06:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, that was an oversight on my part. I don't believe they should be listed individually, but having a link to that page is a good idea. --Cyde Weys 13:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

While it still needs work, I'm leaning towards Draft 1 as a starting point. I do think the dwarf planets should have a reasonably prominent position in the table (#1 vs. #1A). The IAU saw fit to create them as a distinct classification, rather than lumping them in with the "other stuff" as SSSBs. Our presentation of the system should reflect that. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I like draft 1A. It is compact, and while there will not be more planets discovered, there may well be more dwarf planets named in the coming months. Rather than rework the template each time, it makes more sense in my mind to have a category for dwarf planets and leave it at that. The goal should be for a stable template that changes as little as possible, and i think draft 1a will do a good job of that for the foreseeable future. --Exodio 05:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Any ideas on possible new designs or criticisms on the ones above? or are we sticking with current one? -- Nbound 05:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Nbound, I've restored the version prior to your recent edit for two reasons: one, because we're still discussing the design, and towo, because I honestly think the older version looks better. I don't think we need to list the numbers of the dwarf planets. They aren't referred to as that publicly (the IAU stated that they were only added to the list because Ceres was already there), it clutters the layout, and it complicates things if (when) more are added to that class. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, no progress seems to be happening on design discussions though :( -- Nbound 07:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not as concerned about where you capitalized text, although it does look better with only the first letters in caps. (I'm not a big fan of having Every Word Capitalized...) --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

hmm a case of beauty is in the eye of the beholder, i believe headings that in each word is capitalised, look much better :P -- Nbound 07:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I personally prefer Draft 1, until such a time as the list of Dwarf Planets starts to overflow, at which point I would prefer Draft 2. I prefer both of them to the "Extended" footers which have been circulating recently. Bluap 13:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Nbound, you keep adding listings of the moons of each planet. Why do you feel this is necessary? The moons are overall a very minor part of the solar system, and can easily be read about in the respective articles on the planets themselves. To me, your way of doing it feels like making a template for all primate species, and besides including links to each primate species' article you also include a link to the article on their brains. --Cyde Weys 13:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit (moons/natural satellites)

Since I added the Template:SolarSatellites Footer to the various satellite pages, I think that a separate satellite section to the Solar System footer is redundant. I'm editing it as follows:

RandomCritic 15:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a much better solution. We might do something similar for dwarf planets, perhaps? --Cyde Weys 18:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

By that, do you mean we should remove the named dwarf planets, and only have a single reference? That would be a mistake, I think. Anyways, I have a proposed slight tweak as follows:

The Solar System
Star: The Sun
Planets: Mercury - Venus - Earth - Mars - Jupiter - Saturn - Uranus - Neptune
Dwarf Planets: Ceres - Pluto - Eris
Small Bodies: Asteroids - Centaurs - TNOs - Comets - Meteoroids
Populations: Moons - Asteroid belt - Kuiper belt - Scattered disc - Oort cloud
See also astronomical objects and the solar system's list of objects, sorted by radius or mass.

In this revision, the "Natural satellites" link is displayed as "Moons" for clarity - that is why the link is in the template, and it is a more recognizable name for the general public. (Plus, according to the article "Natural Satellites", we'd actually have to list everything in the box - incuding the Sun - under that heading.) I've also moved it to the first position because it is likely to be the first point of interest for readers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Many of these moons are huge objects - way bigger than the dwarf planets. If we were really being fair we would have direct links to each of them. I'm not advocating that, but if we're going to link to individual dwarf planets we should at least link to moon's planetary groupings. Right now they're being listed as insignificant as meteoroids.70.225.183.120 23:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Right now it seems like the important question is, are dwarf planets small solar system bodies? That is the only reason to put dwarf planet as a link without listing the actual dwarf planets. But then, if dwarf planets belong in a discrete group from small solar system bodies, what if 20 dwarf planets are named? Do we expand the template to include all of those? I think making dwarf planets a single link without listing what the dwarf planets are should be seriously considered. I am not 100% on it, because there are reasons to list them out also. So, I have no side at this point except to say i am leaning towards a single link. --Exodio 00:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The dwarf planets are seperate from SSSB's according to the IAU resolution, if there becomes too many dwarf planets, we should do what we've done with the moons, (add dwarf planets to the "populations" section and give them their own footer). -- Nbound

The dwarf planets are separate from small bodies, as are moons - according to the resolution small bodies must orbit the Sun. It seems silly to include "moons" in "populations" as they are not one population but exist in separate groups all over the system. They should be listed as such. I don't see how one extra line is enough of a drawback when they are such significant objects.70.225.183.120 02:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The word "Populations" seems to be the problem here, which is silly, because it's unnecessary -- it's the one header that's not also a hyperlink. Why keep it? And the "Moons" line works a lot better if it's not given the same precedence, i.e. size, as the lines for other groups. Try these proposals:

Draft 4A

Draft 4B:

Option A is clearer, but option B is more compact. Alba 04:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

We dont need linkage to each systems moons:

The Solar System
Star: The Sun
Planets: Mercury - Venus - Earth - Mars - Jupiter - Saturn - Uranus - Neptune
Dwarf Planets: Ceres - Pluto - Eris
Small Bodies: Asteroids - Centaurs - TNOs - Comets - Meteoroids
Populations: Asteroid belt - Kuiper belt - Scattered disc - Oort cloud
Other: Moons
See also astronomical objects and the solar system's list of objects, sorted by radius or mass.

Solar

-- Nbound 04:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC) --

Here's an idea for refining it a bit more:

--Ckatzchatspy 05:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I like that very much -- Nbound 05:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

We're getting there, but if we're going to mix those last two lines together, there are more logical ways of grouping the populations and their members together:

The Solar System
Star: The Sun
Planets
Mercury - Venus - Earth - Mars - Jupiter - Saturn - Uranus - Neptune
Dwarf planets
Ceres - Pluto - Eris
Satellites and Small Bodies
Moons - Meteoroids - Asteroids (Asteroid belt) - Centaurs
TNOs (Kuiper belt - Scattered disc) - Comets (Oort cloud)
See also astronomical objects and the solar system's list of objects, sorted by radius or mass.

Everything is now in association with related objects, populations and their inhabitants are linked, and items are listed in approximate order of their appearance in the Solar System from inner to outer (the way the other two lists are arranged). Alba 12:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact, do we even need the headers?

The Solar System
The Sun
Mercury - Venus - Earth - Mars - Jupiter - Saturn - Uranus - Neptune - (Ceres - Pluto - Eris)
Moons - Meteoroids - Asteroids (Asteroid belt) - Centaurs - TNOs (Kuiper belt - Scattered disc) - Comets (Oort cloud)
See also astronomical objects and the solar system's list of objects, sorted by radius or mass.

There is something to be said for simplicity Alba 12:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Current proposal

Quite liking the update - it's cleaner, simpler, and easy to read. With this model, the dwarf planets can easily be moved to a separate line if the population increases. One tweak:

My only concern was that the previous version implied that Ceres is farther out than Neptune. The italics do a good job of suggesting a different status than the planets. (I've also tried it with bullets rather than hyphens as I prefer the look, and it saves a bit of space.) Over all, well done. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, and I like the substitution of bullets as well. Can we get a rough consensus on this design? Alba 23:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Since the debate has stalled a bit, I'm going to "be bold" and implement the above version, which seems to be meeting with general acceptance. That doesn't have to mean an end to this discussion, however - let's try and keep the "talk, resolve, then replace" approach going as it seems to really help stabilize the template. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see why the dwarf planets should be listed. For matters of expansion later, they should be treated like every other non-planet set of objects in the SS, and simply have a single link. --Exodio 21:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

We can discuss that if the list of dwarf planets gets too long -- if we want to keep a dozen dwarf planets in the template, that is. But since it costs us nothing right now, I say keep 'em. Alba 23:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Objection; new proposal

All right, Cyde has an objection. Here's yet another version:

Now it's grouped the way the IAU has done - planets, dwarf planets, and everything else. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

With the "Cyde fix" its much better (it also allows for a limited number of new dwarves in future too) -- Nbound 07:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

How about this? Saves a line. RandomCritic 10:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No offence, but i definately prefer the one prevous to this... -- Nbound 10:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not offended that easily :) RandomCritic 11:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Draft 4A is by far the best. Populations of Moons *do* need to be listed as many of these moons are more significant (in mass, size, atmosphere, possibility of life etc) than dwarf planets. Perhaps a better words for the last line is "regions".The Enlightened 15:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Dwarf planets and small bodies on the same line

How's this for a slim-looking, info-full box:

The Enlightened 15:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Slight variation on the above (Moons -> Planetary Moons, RM dwarf planet moons [i believe these moons are for the most pretty insignifant - though if consensus is for, then add], Populations -> Regions, Bullet point -> double minus sign) -- Nbound 15:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The box isn't any wider having the dwarf planet moons, it costs us nothing to include them.70.225.161.247 01:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

At least 2 of the candidate dwarf planets do... (136108) 2003 EL61 and (55637) 2002 UX25... and chances are there are going to be many more dwarf planets in the future... but the real reason is all these moons (with the possible exception of Charon) are pretty darn small, of course the same could be argued for Mars' moons though. but do we really need to link to all of them? but as i said above, im flexible and would happily have them in the template if people wish it so -- Nbound 01:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that you need to have satellites represented other than as a single class on this page. The satellites, being gravitationally bound to primary bodies other than the Sun, aren't really part of the Solar system -- they're part of Jovian, Saturnian, Uranian, or Neptunian systems, and should be classified under their respective planets. If the must be represented on the template, then maybe a small clickable symbol near the name of the planet would work just as well. Cf. the ideas Alba and I have been tossing around at Template_talk:Solar_system_table. RandomCritic 02:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That's like saying the Earth isn't really part of the galaxy because it orbits the Sun rather than the galatic core.

In a sense it is and in a sense it isn't. For this sort of purpose I think it wouldn't be. Say you were to create a navigation template for the local group of stars -- you'd have links to the Sun, α Cen, α CMa, ε Eri, τ Cet and so on; but you wouldn't have a link to Jupiter or Earth. I think it's the same way with the satellites. They're like sublessors in an apartment building; they live there, but they're not on the list of tenants. RandomCritic 16:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a fair point. However, I think that as some of the moons are larger than some of the dwarf planets they should be listed. Regardless of whether or not they directly orbit the Sun, they are certainly more significant than "meteoroids" and the rest of the small bodies. The Enlightened 19:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The solar system includes everything that orbits the Sun, whether or not it orbits as part of its own sub-system. It's a shame there isn't a word for "planemo moons" or something. Anyway, I think the dwarf planetary moons should be listed as Charon is actually larger than Ceres. How's this for a three line box:

Three line

If the Sun and the planets are considered alike enough to be on the same line, the dwarf planets can be there also. This can be changed if more dwarf planets are added. That event will likely be months away and thats a long time on wikipedia. The Enlightened 15:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Seeing that there have been no further suggested improvements, I'm changing the footer to this.The Enlightened 23:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer Cyde's proposal further up, there is also a combined "megatemplate" in progress below which may be an even better option -- Nbound 00:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the "Cyde fix" version I did a while back? --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops yeah thats the one I meant -- Nbound 01:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

People seemed to prefer the Sun being moved to the top left. As Cyde's objection was a different line between dwarf planets and planets, now the Sun was on the same line I thought the objection would have been invalidated.The Enlightened 06:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I still think Dwarf planets should be on their own line -- Nbound 06:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Draft 6C

I still think we need to leave space for the additional dwarf planets that will almost certainly be identified, but I support the movement of the Sun to the upper left and I have no problem with the idea of linking "natural satellites" alone. Alba 15:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

For comparison

Here's an idea I had for a larger Solar system navbox. I'm not suggesting this as a replacement for the footer -- it's not compact enough and has other issues -- but I'm wondering whether it would be possible to work in the same sort of use of the vertical element to organize the material in the footer. RandomCritic 07:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Replaced with a tweaked version, with help from Alba and Nbound. RandomCritic 17:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually like this too, as it does a very nice job of presenting lots of relevant information. Is it possible, I wonder, to develop a compact box as per what we're doing above, and have the more complete one as a "pop-out" box? (Darn... can't recall where I saw it, but there's an infobox out there somewhere which initially presents as a thin header - you click on a part of it to open up the full box. ) I'll keep looking for an example. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw one like that over at the Polish Wikipedia:

• pl:Szablon:Układ_Słoneczny

Unfortunately I don't know enough Polish to be able to figure out how it works. RandomCritic 01:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Pop-out boxes aren't a good idea. They break under lots of situations (including some alternative browsers and Wikipedia skins). Plus, 90% of people simply wouldn't even realize that the information is there, just hidden. --Cyde Weys 04:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the way this looks; I think it should replace what we use on the main solar system page. --myselfalso 20:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the kind of template that might be good to use on one article (e.g. Solar system). It's too big to be used on many articles as a nav template. --Cyde Weys 03:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You know what - this is turning into a really nice template - it's clean, very informative, and the size shouldn't really be an issue. (Compared to the size of a typical article, it's not out of place. Plus, it can replace having several templates - which often looks cluttered.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The latest version of the footer template is beginning to approach this in size :/ RandomCritic 07:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)