Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Solar System/archive 1

The working definition appears to be, "the Sun's Solar System and its planets, dwarf planets and 'belts' of small bodies". The Moon, the only natural satellite included, is something of an outlier, and is justified presumably by its importance to humans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pharos (talk • contribs) 02:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Another possible definition could be "major bodies and regions of the Solar System". Most natural satellites would not qualify, but the Moon has so much historical significance that it has honorary "major" status, not to mention the fact that the Moon is huge relative to the size of its planet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arctic.gnome (talk • contribs) 07:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I like the second one because it covers the Moon, which I think belongs in this featured topic. The only big problem I see is that it doesn't include all regions that might be considered major so we'd need to also define "major" in the definition. I think article order could also be included in the definition (see #Article Order). I'd thus probably try to put it as: "The Solar System featured topic consists of the major bodies and significant regions of small bodies in the Solar System, in the order of... The major bodies are determined by..." — Pious7 16:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Order

One significant question is how the articles should be ordered. Should it be in order of distance from the Sun, as it is now? This leaves a dispute about objects that are actually in the region covered (e.g. Ceres is in the asteroid belt). We should decide on and include a clear definition of how the topics are ordered, especially if we are planning on adding new topics anytime soon. — Pious7 16:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When one sees a list of planets, they are almost always in order of their distance from the Sun, so I think that's a good way of listing them. As for objects in a region, I think we could do it either way as long as we are consistent. I would vote to put the small objects second, because the Earth should come before the Moon. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So a region, larger than a specific object, should come first (as it currently is)? Perhaps we should bold regions so they are clear and add regions that include the planets and dwarf plannets currently not in a region? — Pious7 02:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Topical split

I propose splitting this topic into three.

Lead Solar System

Sun

Asteroid belt

Kuiper belt

Scattered disc

Oort cloud

Planet

Dwarf planet

possibility Definition of planet

Lead Planet

Definition of planet

Mercury

Venus

Earth

Mars

Jupiter

Saturn

Uranus

Neptune

Lead : Dwarf planet

Ceres

Pluto

Eris

The only problem is where to put Moon. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 22:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planet applies just as much to extrasolar as to Solar System planets, so doesn't really belong in a "solar system" topic. A topic on Planet would also have to include the >200 extrasolar planets found to date, not just the Solar System planets. And a topic on the Solar System that does not include its planets (and >99 percent of its non-solar mass) seems a bit odd. Serendi^podous 22:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the

Featured topic criteria: "The topic is not overly large. There is no maximum number of articles, but as a rule-of-thumb, a topic with more than 20 entries is typically divisible into sub-topics. For example, science fiction films would be too large a topic, but Star Trek films would be of appropriate scope. This rule-of-thumb does not apply to items in a series (every article from 1st Canadian Parliament to 39th Canadian Parliament

could be included in one topic), or those dictated by geography (for example, states of the USA)." If we want to expand this topic it needs to be sub-divided. There has already been discussion above of organizing the topic in the template, which would set president while splinting a topic although never done before (as far as I know) is at least mentioned in the criteria.

The article Planet is mostly about the solar system with only a little text about extrasolar plants. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 13:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While we are at it we can also add Comet and Asteroid to the solar system article. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 14:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The topic, right now, contains 18 articles. If the big seven moons are included, that would mean 24 articles. That is long, but it is not as long as other featured topics, such as Simpsons episodes Season 8 or National Hockey League Awards. The planet article actually has quite a lot about extrasolar planets; indeed its attributes section has been heavily modified over the last few months to include extrasolar planets. The inclusion of planet, comet and asteroid were all discussed on this page, and were rejected, since their remit is too broad to refer solely to the Solar System. Serendi^podous 14:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rule of size does not apply for series with those two, Simpson's episodes Season 8 and National Hockey League Awards, are. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 15:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also does not apply to the dicates of geography. And the Solar System, as a geographical entity, should contain all its relevant parts. Planet is not part of the Solar System topic, because it is very deliberately written to cover extrasolar as well as a solar system planets. I know this, because I'm currently writing it, and I'm making sure that's the case. Serendi^podous 17:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles on Planet and Dwarf planet do not belong in the FT. Everything listed is a named body or region specific to our Solar System and those two are not. I don't see that the current topic needs reorganizing. I doubt it will grow past 24 (unless we undertake all the spherical moons, which would be little nuts). Marskell (talk) 12:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Marskell. Planet and Dwarf planet are general astronomy subjects that could be abou any stelar system, they don't belong in a topic about the Solar System. If you want them to be in a topic, maybe a more general "types of astrometrical objects" topic would be good. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the topic would be a bad idea. First of all, the eight planets are definately a part of the topic Solar System. Secondly, it is easier to mainain all the articles if tey are grouped together within the same topic. Furthermore, articles can be a part of multiple topics, therefore if you think that there is an article that would not fall within the topic of Solar System, but would fall under the topic of say Planet, then you are welcome to start such a topic and see where will you get. In this case, there would be no problem to have the same article in two topics (Solar System & Planet).

Nergaal (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

You know, we could have a short topic on Planet: it, Dwarf planet, and Definition of planet. The only question would be if

2006 definition of planet would have to be included. Marskell (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Maybe it should. Then the topic could be Definition of planet if

Nergaal (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

A rule-of-thumb is just that— it's certainly not a strict cut-off at 20. I think it should be clear that the Solar System is a much more discrete topic than something like "science fiction films", and in any case the total would only be 24 if completed. As for an additional topic, I see a logical possibility of one centered on Planetary system.--Pharos (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Topic Critera

This topic does not meet current

Kuiper belt has been nominated for GA, to try to clear up any possible problems, and Uranus seems to be undergoing a GA push as well. --PresN 09:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kuiper belt is already A-class which is BETTER than GA so there is no point in nominating it for GA. Dalf | Talk 02:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there is no formal review process for A-class, nor is there a universal definition of it. The A-class status is arbitrary and unverifiable, GA-status has some weight behind the title and Kuiper belt could stand to have that formal review. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. A-class is unofficial, GA class is official. Thus, the only things marked should be GA and FA, the earned titles. A-class just means "this is a GA or should-be GA that is almost a FA" and is used by WikiProjects. I reverted the unprecedented check, let's wait until it makes GA to mark it as GA and if it's not, it's not really A-class in the first place... — Pious7 04:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a colboration by consensus, there is no offical or unofical beyond the core concepts. Additionally if you think the check is unprecedented then I suggest that you have a look at: Wikipedia:Featured_topics/Canadian_election_timelines and Talk:List of Nunavut general elections. If you think A-class should be done away with then I suggest you propose it at the appropate location. Dalf | Talk 05:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The List of Nunavut general elections has a check because the subject matter is too limited to produce a featured article. That is not the case with the Kuiper belt. The Nunavut page is marked as A-class because lists cannot be GA, but as the Nunavut list is referenced and well-organized, it is more than a start-class. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the others are capable of being FA but not this one? If it is A-class (which is it) then it CAN be FA. I think the check is fine, if A-class is not valid then why is it unsed in all of the rnking schems on wikipedia other than this one? Dalf | Talk 06:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other Canadian provinces are up to 140 years old and have had about 40 elections each; Nunavut is 8 years old and has had only two elections. A list of two items cannot be featured status, as per the article's FL nominations. It is impossible for the Nunavut list to meet FL criteria until it has had one or two more elections. It is in a unique position. As for A-class articles, the A-class status is used to signify an article that is nearly ready for an FA or FL nomination, just as B-class articles are ones that are nearly ready for a GA nomination. All articles with A-class status should be at least as good as a GA, but there is no formal review process to make sure that they are, so we have to either nominate it for FA or use the next level down that does have a formal review process: GA. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uranus is now a good article and Kuiper belt is a nominee and will probably soon be both a GA and an A-class article (though not GA-class, since A-class is better than GA-class). The topic is thus no longer in danger. Perhaps we should clarify in the FT criteria that A-class articles should also be recognized GAs so people don't rate their own articles A-class just to pass a FT candidacy? — Pious7 15:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now removed mention of 'A' Class in the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, following discussion here and on the criteria talk page, and the recent promotion of Kuiper belt to GA.--Pharos 13:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telling the related WikiProjects about the situation this featured topic is in as well as about this discussion might help expedite improving the topic. We might also be able to put something in Portal:Solar System's to do box. — Pious7 16:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I told

the Solar System WikiProject. Hopefully that will help, but it looks like this featured topci is safe. — Pious7 15:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

We cool. We hip. We slick. etc. The Solar System series is now officially and uniquivocally featured. Looks nice, doesn't it? Kuiper belt has been recommended for FA, so I'll press ahead with that, but I think the next priority for this topic should be to get Uranus, Neptune and Saturn up to FA level. Serendipodous 05:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. That's some truly excellent work there.--Pharos 13:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) Though in truth I probably should have put it up for scientific peer review before submitting it. Serendipodous 21:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is desirable that more GAs be promoted to FAs, but see above for the priority work to be done.--Pharos 02:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All planets should be able to be brought up to featured status at the very least. There's only 3 left below FA, I think, so it shouldn't be that hard. — Pious7 16:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

I think that this topic should be re-named something like "Bodies of the Solar System" so that we don't need to add articles like

In that case, wouldn't we have to replace Solar System with some sort of superlist?--Pharos 00:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why. The Solar System article does a better job of introducing and summarizing the major bodies of the Solar System than any list would. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have a problem with renaming it, but the name is always the lead article. I would object to removing Solar System from being the lead article as I agree that it is the best summary article. Can't we just keep the name and just make it clear in the definition that it has to do with specific bodies and regions? I don't think it's too confusing. — Pious7 01:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name isn't always the lead article; there are slight differences like with timeline of Canadian elections versus the topic Canadian election timelines, and in the case of the topic Star Wars episodes the proposed lead is Star Wars. The lead article is the one that best summerized the topic while the topic name is a description of the topic's contents. Most of the time the names are the same, but they do not have to be. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I think

FT criteria point 2 requires a lead article. As for slight differences between the titles of featured topics and their lead article, it is usually removing "List of..." or something similar that wouldn't make sense in a non-list. A Major Bodies and Regions in the Solar System link and title wouldn't make much sense as there is probably a more specific article that someone would expect to go to. The Solar System FT obviously cannot go into too great of detail just as Solar System does not describe every single thing in the Solar System. — Pious7 02:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Now that the topic is no longer at risk for removal, I think that the next major task for this topic should be to get the remaining GA planets (Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune) to featured article status. That would be a good first step to getting every article featured and probably should not be too difficult. — Pious7 05:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saturn's up. Next job!K14 01:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uranus has been promoted. :) Serendi^podous 12:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now asteroid belt is up Serendi^podous 11:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now Ceres is up. :) Serendi^podous 13:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now, at last, Neptune is up. Serendi^podous 07:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classes of Solar System bodies

It would probably be desirable to extend this to "classes of solar system bodies" as well (asteroid, comet, etc.).--Pharos 02:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that articles like asteroid and comet are too general for this topic. The topic is about objects in the Solar System, not objects that could be found in any stellar system. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 07:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agreee. Anything added should be specific objects or regions. — Pious7 16:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you read

Centaur (planetoid)?--Pharos 00:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The first, however, is the problem of our lack of observations of such classes of objects. They still theoretically exist around other star systems. As for specific classifications that are Solar System only, you cannot cherry pick - you'd have to include them all. Almost any topic can become very in-depth, the question is how specific you want to make it. More than 99% of the articles on Wikipedia are probably on things exclusively located in this Solar System (or probably Earth), such as the Internet, or something that we have no way of telling if they exist elsewhere (have you ever observed an extrasolar mountain?). I think just general bodies and regions is the widest scope this topic needs to be or this topic will keep adding things onto it until it is too bloated and impossible to maintain. — Pious7 02:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what about

Nergaal (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

If I could get Halley up to GA status (not likely at this point, but I'm working on it), could it be included on notability grounds? Serendipodous 12:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. I would have to say no, because there are tonnes of comets, and we can't add all of them. However, there is a fairly strong argument that

the Moon. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I would have to say that Halley's Comet as a major component of the Solar System would be going rather too far. It might be a good idea to work toward a featured topic for the

Great Comets instead.--Pharos 00:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

You cannot cherry-pick. Every major comet would have to be included. And if we're including major comets, why not other major objects such as asteroids and large moons around gas giants? I think that the Solar System topic should be general and, as Pharos said, there should be more specific topics for more specific things in the Solar System. — Pious7 02:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm not going to win this one but...

I think I should put the idea out into the air anyway. 2 Pallas, 3 Juno and 4 Vesta are all GA class, were all once considered planets, and could very well become dwarf planets should the IAU rule on the issue in future. Serendipodous 11:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe with some research it should be possible be write at least a GA article on the first four asteroids as a group, given their historical importance. I have a bit of a knack for finding obscure sources, so I might be able to help you with that. So, if you could then bring Ceres and Vesta, say, up to FA, you have yourself a whole new featured topic.--Pharos 06:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps

former planet could be made so that it includes other objects formerly classified as planets? I think people would find that more useful than first four asteroids, which would obviously be created specifically for a featured topic. On the other hand, that might have too much of an overlap with this topic since the Sun, the Moon, Ceres, and Pluto were all at one point considered planets... — Pious7 13:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

"Former-planet asteroids" then? Circeus

That still might be too narrow. Perhaps early asteroids, split off and expanded from Asteroid#Asteroid_discovery? — Pious7 19:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on future inclusions

I've been going through the Solar System article to see which objects or things it mentions have yet to be included. Here are a few ideas:

Comet is an FA and Asteroid is a GA. They could be included now, though I see from the above discussion that they have been ruled out.

Solar wind/Heliosphere/interplanetary medium: Unsure which of these would make the cut, as they all deal with different aspects of the same thing. None of them are GA or higher right now though.

Formation and evolution of the Solar System: good article suffering from a severe lack of citation in its early stages. With a little work, might be worthy of inclusion

Interplanetary dust cloud: barely above stub class right now, but it is still an interesting topic.

90377 Sedna: I know this was turned down, but Sedna could very well be the prototype for a new population of objects. I don't know why it hasn't received Dwarf planet status yet

Anyway, just some ideas. Serendipodous 08:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't cherry-pick, those selections of articles cannot be included without others to balance them out, which could easily make the topic too large. Perhaps it would be better if there were more astronomy-related featured topics instead of one huge one? — Pious7 05:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say I was cherry-picking; that's pretty much every body and structure mentioned in the Solar System article but not in the Solar System topic. Serendipodous 06:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (though I suggested some of the same ones before), these are "the parts" of the solarsystem. The only possible problem I see is that Comet and Asteroid are not specific bodies and if they were included then Definition of planet (also a FA) would have to be included. There is the danger that allowing the three abstract articles (not refering to specific parts of the the solar system) would merit the inclusion of others in which case we woudl be cherry picking but I can't think of many (any) others off hand. There might be one or two other articles on asteroid popultions that shoudl be included but for the most part I think if we limit it to actual bodies and zones then its very complete and not too large. Infact I Think it would be the best example of a featured topic. Dalf | Talk 09:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the moons down to Triton

Serendip referred to these as the "Great moons". I'm not sure if this is a term in formal use, but the division makes sense, as the size differential between Triton and Titania is the most significant on

Io's done too. No it's not a formal term; it's just something I call them because I can't think of anything else. Not only is this grouping obvious on the list of moons, but on a graph plotting the masses of all objects, moon or not, you'll notice they form their own club. Triton is sort of on the boundary between being a great moon and being the same club as Pluto and Eris, but since Triton was probably originally a KBO, that would make sense. Serendi^podous 12:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what do we do? Add the three done? Add all seven and say "one more every three months or they get removed"? Not sure how this works. Marskell 18:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a special page for featured topic inclusions.I don't think we'd be able to make a case there until all seven articles are GA class or higher. Serendi^podous 19:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually tried to research this a while back, in anticipation of this question coming up. Planetary scientist John S. Lewis has called them the "big seven" and astronomer J. Scott Shaw has used the same terminology in a course outline.--Pharos 23:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think if we get five it would be acceptable to have them listed. But I don't know; I just

nominated a group and it seems to be more rules-lawyering than content improvement. Marskell 14:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Formation and evolution of the Solar System

This article is in desparate need of work and citations, but it is in many ways as important to this topic as Solar System itself. I'm planning on launching a GA drive for it in future, but was wondering if I had the topic's permission to include it once it reaches the required standards. Serendi^podous 12:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Since the project at this stage is close to completion, I believe that in order to keep it alive (once Neptune becomes and FA too) there needs to be some sword of expansion. The most democratic would be some kind of a voting system, where say there are ~5 candidates, and every once in a while one of the candidates is 'promoted'. I am not saying that it is going to be completely fair with all the objects in the solar system, but at least this way there are more chances that people will continue gathering around to improve articles related to the solar system. what do people think? (ps: even now, maybe some editors might not really care about Neptune, but say they might care about Titan or Vesta. this system would help those usesrs stick around this project)

There already is such a system in place. Anyone can list any inclusions they wish to add on this page, and if they feel brave enough, they can try to make their case at the

Featured Topics page. Wikipedia is not a democracy; it relies solely on the ability of the submitter to make his case. There is still plenty of work to do on this topic. Neptune needs serious attention. Venus requires a complete overhaul now that Venus Express data is in. I'm hoping that the next expansion will comprise the seven "big moons" (Moon, Ganymede, Io, Callisto, Europa, Titan, Triton) but for that to happen three articles (Europa, Ganymede and Triton) will have to be pushed to GA or higher. Serendi^podous 14:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Or should this be brought up at the FA topics itself as it would be a first? Marskell (talk) 07:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not jump the gun; we haven't got the big seven approved yet. Still, I think if we do it might be a good idea to adopt a similar form of organisation to TOC lists: each moon listed below its planet, and each dwarf planet listed below its population, but indented. Serendi^podous 13:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The indent idea makes sense. It would allow us to continue to set it up in sequence. Where do we have to go to get the moons approved? If we finish, can't we just add them? I've started in on Ganymede; if someone else (nudge, nudge) got busy on Triton, we can do it in no time. Marskell (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you go here. It's a rather cumbersome process. You have to essentially renominate the entire topic with your additions included, but list it as a supplementary nomination. Then you have to make your case. I have a number of ideas on how to persuade the FT mods that this disparate list of moons comprises a viable distinct category, but I have no idea if any of them will be accepted. In many ways, the nomination process is even more brutal than an FAC, which is why I won't even countenance the idea of a nomination until all essential pages are up to standard.Serendi^podous 16:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renominated FT

I just added the six new moons to the Featured Topic nomination page.

Enceladus is not one of the

7 major moons (diameter>2000km) that have been visited by spacecraft. There are also 9 additional moons (2000>diameter>1000) larger than Enceladus. Until more small spherical moons acquire FA status it would be bizarre to include Enceladus. The large 7 are special and all 7 are FA. -- Kheider (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Enceladus might be included if the Solar System's 12 other "mini-moons" can also be promoted, but that would be a fairly huge project. Serendi^podous 06:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

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^podous 13:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renominated FT

I renominated the FT to include Formation and evolution of the Solar System. Serendi^podous 07:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]