Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Solar System/archive 2

Working definition[edit]

The ultimate scope of this topic[edit]

This topic could go on forever, so it would help to delineate what will and will not eventually be included. Here's a list of possible candidates; please add or take away anything you feel is necessary:

Ruslik is doing a great job pushing the articles on planetary ring systems, and I think it's a good plan to get them included once they all get up to code.

The Solar System has 12 other spherical moons, and one moon (Proteus) that is large enough to be spherical but isn't.

2003 EL61 and 2005 FY9 have been pretty much accepted as dwarf planets, and will have to be included in the topic eventually.

There are at least 40 other objects in the outer Solar System that are large enough to be spherical, but are not likely to be classified as dwarf planets on the frankly idiotic pretext that we can't see them in enough detail to determine their sphericity 100 percent. After that, you're pretty much talking about rocks.

Besides the Kuiper belt, asteroid belt, scattered disc and Oort cloud, the Solar System has at least three other significant minor planet populations: the Centaurs, the Trojans and the Near-Earth asteroids.

Various molecular elements to the Solar System, including solar wind, interplanetary medium, heliosphere, interplanetary dust cloud, cosmic dust, meteoroids.

Historical articles; Timeline of solar system astronomy, Timeline of Solar System exploration, History of Solar System formation and evolution hypotheses, Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons, Heliocentrism, Vulcan, Planet X.

I would add Vesta to this list. Ruslik (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serendi ^pod ous 20:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider adding Terrestrial planet, Gas giant, and Plutoid too. Nergaal (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are more general, and apply to extrasolar planets too. They would be better placed in a Planet featured topic (which I will set up as soon as the whole "minor planet/asteroid" malarkey gets sorted out. Serendi ^pod ous 17:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term plutoid refers only to the SS? Nergaal (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's true. It can only apply to the SS, since it's a brightness-based definition. Serendi ^pod ous 06:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vital improvements[edit]

Makemake[edit]

2005 FY9 is now officially Makemake (dwarf planet), and according to the rules established for this topic, will now need to be pushed up to GA. Serendi ^pod ous 18:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here[reply]

13=8+5 dwarfs? Nergaal (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God, I am so bored of this. I love how each side is telling the other to "get over it." Serendi ^pod ous 08:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potential improvements[edit]

Scattered disc[edit]

This is the last GA-class article in this topic; if we get it up, we get a star of stars. Any takers? Serendi ^pod ous 15:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing on this article begins today, boys and girls. Would a peer review on this one be worthwhile? UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible additions[edit]

Suggestion[edit]

I'm really impressed with this, and hope you get Scattered disc to FT soon. Here's a suggestion: what if you added the "Moons of" and "Rings of" articles, linked in Template:Solar System table? I realise that most of the articles involved aren't even GAs, but it's a manageable number of articles to be working on improving, especially if you did one set of those articles and then the other, and it seems like a very logical direction for expansion to me - rst20xx (talk) 11:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the Rings articles getting up to FA, since there is already one Rings-related article at FA level. I'm not so sure about the Moons articles, since none are even GA, and I really don't know what a GA-quality moons-of.. article would look like. Serendi ^pod ous 13:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2005 FY9 and 2003 EL61[edit]

The IAU's announcement that these objects qualify as "plutoids" means they have been effectively given dwarf planet status. So should they be included in the topic? Serendi ^pod ous 09:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} :) Nergaal (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Kay then :-) Serendi ^pod ous 16:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An the official announcement may not come until at least one of them have a real name. Besides it might seem weird to the public to discover that astronomers believe that the Easterbunny may be bigger than Santa. Though it does seem Santa has a bigger set. -- Kheider (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let wait until they are given real names. I don't want to push objects with names like 'FY9' and 'EL61' through the assesement process. Ruslik (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons[edit]

I'd add this immediately! rst20xx (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...Well, maybe when some other related articles are up to scratch, so there's no obvious notable gaps and all that :P rst20xx (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What gaps are you thinking of? Nergaal (talk) 08:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was kind of a pseudo-reply to what I wrote on Serendipodous' wall, i.e. "I changed my mind because I thought it should probably be added with History of Solar System formation and evolution hypotheses and possibly Timeline of solar system astronomy, not by itself as I was suggesting - otherwise there'd be an obvious gap and all that" - rst20xx (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galilean Moons[edit]

If that is brought up to GA, then the FA moons of Jupiter will have a subtopic. --haha169 (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is better to create Jupiter subtopic: there are 6 FA articles and one GA article. Ruslik (talk) 08:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...oh yeah. That's better. Galilean Moons looks like it can pass GAN after one good copyedit or peer review. Who's up for it? --haha169 (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who? You, of course. Ruslik (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It needs lots of refs before anything else. Gary King (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about astronomy. The only peer review ideas I could give are refs, and I don't know which refs pass WP:V aside of NASA. And prose, I guess. I'll see what I can do. --haha169 (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a problem with the Jupiter subtopic would be the absence of many moons.--haha169 (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can write a summary style article based on Galilean moon's articles. You can take refs from those articles. Ruslik (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

??? What? Excuse me for my ignorance, but what's a summary style article? --haha169 (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It consists of short summaries of the Moon's article+a general summary. The moon's artilces are listed as {{main}} articles. See for instance Geology of solar terrestrial planets. Ruslik (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. The current article is already partially summary-style, anyway. The problem is, "Galilean Moons" seems to have a lot of history, especially revolving around who coined the term. Having two articles on the topic wouldn't work out so well. "List of Galilean Moons" sounds like a boring article. --haha169 (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I give you Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Galilean moons. Nergaal (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natural satellite[edit]

How come this is not a part of the topic, while 8 satellites are? The article refers explicitly to the SS moons only, so it should definately be in there to cover all the bodies in SS. Nergaal (talk) 09:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because while it may only refer to SS moons, the topic itself doesn't necessarily apply only to our own Solar System. Right now we don't have the capability to view extrasolar natural satellites, but it's only a matter of time. Serendi ^pod ous 09:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then what about Moons in the Solar System? Nergaal (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would probably be its own topic. But I'm pretty sure that the future of this topic is to be subdivided into topics by planet. Serendi ^pod ous 07:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just think that if the name of the topic is to remain SS, then "Moon in SS" has more right to be in this topic than the 8 articles on the biggest moons. I would prefer having the main article in here and move the 8 moons in the subtopic... Nergaal (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Are you sure you want to bring 166 articles to FA status? Serendi ^pod ous 07:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subtopic would have to include only the greatest bodies, at least in the first stage. Nergaal (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a better idea would be to move the moons to planetary subtopics. Jupiter needs only two promotions (Great Red Spot and Trojan asteroid) to be ready to break away. Serendi ^pod ous 15:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most important moons are the Great 7 (Ganymede through Triton). Only ~19 of them are large enough to be spherical. (I would probably include Proteus simply to demonstrate that not all 400km objects are round.) The other (minor) moons are not nearly as important. -- Kheider (talk) 12:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heliosphere, Solar wind or interplanetary medium[edit]

Which should be targeted for inclusion in this topic? Serendi ^pod ous 10:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moons articles[edit]

If we're going to start breaking this topic up into subtopics, then the moons articles will have to be pushed up to GA or higher. But because none of them are currently at GA, it's difficult to determine what a GA quality article would look like.

Any ideas on how to bring them up? Serendi ^pod ous 14:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amalthea (moon) is a GA. Thebe (moon), Adrastea (moon) and Metis (moon) can be brought upto GA standarts fairly quickly. I actually wrote all four in the same time I was writing Rings of Jupiter. Ruslik (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean individual moon articles, but those specific articles. Serendi ^pod ous 09:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misunderstood you. However the above articles are more lists than articles. So I don't know what can be done. The inclusion of long lists is usually frowned upon. Ruslik (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Featured lists instead of good articles? rst20xx (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to cleanup the mess in Moons of Jupiter. Anybody care to take a look? Nergaal (talk) 05:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody care to take a look at the PR? Nergaal (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planets beyond Neptune[edit]

? Nergaal (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible splits[edit]

I don't know how many others feel the same, but this topic is approaching its limit for two reasons: (1) future possible additions might not be truly necessary fro the topic (if someone thinks of the SS he might not necessarily think of say "moons of x"); (2) it is going to be extremely hard to add new articles to the topic without having several gaps, even if they might be small. The main problem with this is that if there are no good plans for future additions, users might possibly be less interested to contribute to the topic in general.

Therefore I think it would be apropiate to lay down a plan for breaking up the topic such that (1) is consistent and completely includes subtopics of the SS topic, (2) will allow for easy creation and expansion of subtopics.

My suggestion is to have 13 or so main articles that can be expanded into subtopics:

(1) Sun: subtopic could include among others Heliosphere, Solar wind.

(2-9) the 8 planets: the Jupiter subtopic could be nominated fairly soon;^{take a look} the others - I am not sure

(10) Dwarf planets: Done. Nergaal (talk) 06:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(11) Asteroids/minor planets: would include Asteroid belt^FLC, Kuiper belt, Scattered disc, and so on

(12) Oort cloud: ?

(13) "history of SS": would include Formation and evolution of the Solar System, Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons, Nebular hypothesis, exploration of SS, etc.

Nergaal (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(14) interplanetary medium???

I don't think such a major breakup is necessary. The Sun is the most important thing in the Solar System, and so belongs in a Solar System topic. I think a reasonable case could be made for a Solar System FT that included the Sun, the eight planets, the major minor planet populations (if you follow), and maybe the historical articles as well, though that's perhaps negotiable. Serendi ^pod ous 21:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't I propose almost the same thing? Sun=#1, the 8 planets=#2-9, major minor populations=#10& #11; historical articles =#13. Nergaal (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm not directly involved in this, but I would support the dwarf planets/moons part of Nergaal's splitting plan, it sounds sensible to me. I think you could pull the dwarf planets and moons (apart from The Moon) out immediately to be replaced by the two FTCs (OK, 2 moons would lose out completely but you'd be still moving in the right direction logistically. You can't pull out the dwarf planets and not the moons because then you'd have a notable gap, and I think leaving the SS topic as is whilst promoting two new FTs with so many of the same articles in them is very cheeky). Then if a Jupiter FT is formed, the Galilean Moons FT could be folded into that.

So in conclusion, I would immediately pull out the moons and dwarf planets, and replace the dwarf planets with Dwarf planet. The rest, such as history and step (11), can comfortably be decided and sorted out later I think - rst20xx (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: by (x) I meant to count the articles (i.o.w. future subtopics) that should remain, not as steps. Nergaal (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, yes, but you could also think of them as steps in that not everything needs to be broken off the main topic at once. Just so long as any break-offs don't create notable gaps (such as minor planets going before moons), then you could certainly see each bit as a completely autonomous step - rst20xx (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so first step would be that once Jupiter and Dwarf planets are set up, the moons and dwarfs be removed? Nergaal (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the setup above as it pertains to the Dwarf planet article. The main Solar System topic only needs the Dwarf planet article, which itself can continue to be the lead of its own topic. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]