Wikijunior talk:Solar System

Test
On the Dutch Wikibooks is test about the Solar System, including solutions. Could you make an English version?

Ischa1 (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Additions needed?
Just wondering, should not we have some dwarf planets, such as Ceres, and some of the largest asteroids in the asteroid belt also? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Воображение (discuss • contribs) 00:26, 9 June 2013


 * Interesting thought, imho. What we have now:
 * A small section of Asteroid belt describes Ceres, and the naming and discovery of Ceres are already covered elsewhere on that page. The intro lists the top four, and the table on the right lists the top five.
 * There's Pluto.
 * I'm wondering how we might organize these expansions.
 * Would we want separate top-level sections for particular dwarf planets, or a single top-level page /Dwarf planets? Would it go after Oort Cloud, or perhaps before Comets?  Somewhere between?  We could put Dwarf planets right after Neptune, making Pluto a subpage.
 * We could have sections for more of the big asteroids, but other than Ceres, would there be enough to say about them to justify a whole page for each?
 * At this moment, I think I favor leaving Pluto where it is and creating a page for Dwarf planets, maybe after Oort Cloud, with a link to the page on Pluto. I'd try adding sections on the Asteroid belt page for some more of the larger asteroids, and I'd experiment with creating a separate page for Ceres.  But that's just my thoughts at this moment.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I think that the book should be rearranged so that Pluto would be under Dwarf Planets, Ceres redirected to the dwarf planet sections (but a link to Ceres should be left for the asteroid belt, in case someone wants to know more), and maybe you are correct about individual asteroids, but under the asteroid belt, we could include other asteroid belts in the solar system, i.e. the Trojans or Greeks. Also, the universe is about 2/3 dark matter/energy, so could we have a page explaining the basics of dark matter/energy, maybe next to gravity, mass and weight? How do you think of this? --Воображение


 * Hm. The status of Pluto is, of course, a subject on which to employ great tact.  It is traditionally viewed as one of the most significant individual bodies in the solar system, which favors listing it at the top level; that decision doesn't require us to consult the technical or political esoterica of "planet" status.  If, on the other hand, one doesn't list it at the top level, that comes across as making a strong political statement.  So if we don't want to make a strong political statement about the status of Pluto, it'd be good to choose an organization that keeps Pluto at the top level.  I'll have to give this some more thought.


 * Re dark matter/energy, there's all sorts of controversy surrounding those. And I was under the impression it doesn't much come into discussion of the solar system.  Hm.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 16:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, tell me when you reach a neutral conclusion regarding Pluto. You did not mention any of my other ideas, and I would like to know your thoughts. About dark matter/energy, there are multiple controversies, but the basics must be explained, since most of the universe is composed of it. Just the biggest need-to-know facts like the universe is 2/3 dark matter, and all sorts of facts that I am too novice to know. Also, I had a small epiphany; about your comment starting with "Hm". I do not think that it would be actually that politically offensive to anybody, as this does not really involve politics. Sure, it is traditional to think Pluto as important as a planet, but this association, in my opinion, will eventually drop until Pluto is regarded as an inconsequential dwarf planet in the farthest reaches of the solar system. However, that is my opinion and it may be wrong, but would it really be a political statement to say that Pluto is a dwarf planet and should be regarded as such? Воображение


 * Perhaps I wasn't clear. I don't agree that the basics of dark matter/energy have to be explained.  This is a book about the solar system, not a book about the universe, cosmology, or physics.  It doesn't matter how much of the universe is dark matter if dark matter doesn't factor into describing the solar system, and my impression from what I've heard is, it doesn't factor into describing the solar system.  It's therefore something of a digression to note that the "2/3" proportion is subject to controversy, or that, personally, I'd give about 30% odds that dark matter/energy are fictions we've imagined due to something seriously wrong with our understanding of physics.


 * I've already explained why I believe Pluto should occur at the top level. I thought I was quite clear that it's got nothing to do with the definition of planet versus dwarf planet, though I get the feeling you're missing the politics behind those definitions.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 03:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, dark energy/matter could be omitted since it is highly controversial. About Pluto, your explanation is saying that Pluto is traditionally held at the top level. Why would it be held at the top level? Because it is traditionally a planet. What would be so politically biased about classifying it as what it is, a dwarf planet? Maybe it would go against traditions, but I would rather be correct and organised rather than keep the nostalgia of Pluto being a planet.
 * Again, your thoughts on the asteroid families? Воображение

Does this really deserve 4 green squares?
I made an average of the whole book on how many squares were complete in the whole article. It was about 2.3, so this book obviously has a long way to go, and if my suggestions above are taken, it will bring down the average even lower. Don't be pessimist, though! The longer this book takes to type, the more experienced and more proud all of us contributors will be. I am just asking for the OK to downgrade it to 2 squares. Воображение


 * My instinct is that downgrading to two squares would be too much; and I'd want to think carefully about downgrading before doing it, to understand the principles followed in general and in this particular case. I hope to take a closer look at these things when I get a chance.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 03:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, at least a 3 square would be more true than calling it a 4 square book. When you will take a closer look at things, you will see for yourself that there is a lot under development, even if we omit the 6 additional sections. Most of the moons have very limited information. Воображение

Could we rename this...
...to Solar System: It, Its Properties, and Its contents? That sounds much more interesting than just the solar system. Does anybody concur? Воображение


 * Wikijunior books (and books in general, but especially Wikijunior ones) should have short, simply, pithy titles. Imo the current title is excellent; there's no reason to change it.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 03:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * What does Imo mean? Otherwise, I have nothing more to say. Воображение

Confusion exclusion/inclusion?
Since Pluto is deemed as a dwarf planet, could someone do some advanced photoshopping to either include the other 3 dwarf planets or to exclude Pluto? This may seem quite trivial, but here is my way of thinking in the mind of an 8-12 year-old.


 * Ooh, a cool picture. Let's make it full size. Ok, there's the Uranus, Neptune, wait, huh? I thought Pluto was a dwarf planet? I suppose I was incorrect.

First I want a confirmation before any photoshoppers step up that this is a good idea. Воображение


 * Is this the picture you're talking about? Because if this's the picture you're talking about, I see no rational reason to change it.  Perhaps you're talking about some other picture?  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 03:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Look closely at it. There are 9 planets. Воображение


 * I did look closely at it. There is the sun, nine discrete things within frame that are orbiting it, an asteroid belt, and a comet.  Its inclusion in the picture (like its position in the outline of the book, above) has nothing to do with technical labels like "planet" or "dwarf planet".  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, perhaps to be thorough I should mention it also shows the Moon, and the rings of Saturn. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, what I meant was that it should only include the 8 planets, the moon of the Earth, and the rings of every planet.Воображение


 * The asteroid belt is an interesting thing. Pluto is an interesting thing.  I don't see a reason to exclude either.  Nor do I see a reason to awkwardly add dwarf planets that are much further out &mdash; though I'd be interested to hear if you have a notion how to do that unawkwardly.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 23:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The picture is already vastly out of proportion; what would 3 more orbits outside Pluto do? Ceres is not actually that far out; it is in the asteroid belt, and I prefer the removal of Pluto anyway. Anyhow, the reason I want Pluto removed (or have its friends added) is to avoid confusion as labeling it as an actual planet. Agreed, Pluto is an interesting thing, but the last thing I want is confusion. However, since I am the only one working on this project as of now (as stated by my survey of who is working on this project), it could not matter as I have poor photoshop skills. --Воображение (discuss • contribs) 23:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This may sound like a silly question but...
who is still working on this besides me? It seems to me that everyone got bored of contributing to this book around 2008. If there are as much people working on this in 2013 as I think there are(2-4 people) then we are in need of serious collaboration. Воображение


 * It's not a matter of "still" working on it. Wikibook contributors come and go, over time.  Often one finds oneself collaborating with others who aren't around at the moment.  I'm glad to see you working on it, since it can use some upgrading, and I'm happy to provide a second perspective to help things come out better.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 03:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, it just seems like Wikibooks promotes teamwork, yet it seems that I am working alone here. Also, look at the entire review log. You will see that the book is practically the same as it was in 2008. I am not sure that coming and going takes five years. Воображение


 * Oh, I am sorry. I depreciated you.I didn't see your offer for a second perspective. Well, if you are willing, could you brush up Deimos so that it would be 4-square worthy? It seems like right now its a 3.8 square. But before you do that, could you please answer my multiple questions? Merci beaucoup. --Воображение (discuss • contribs) 01:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Blurb?
I saw a discussion in 2005 which supported having a blurb for this book. I think that is a good idea, so I want to make sure that everyone else agrees, before I make a page for that. Воображение

Going off a previous conversation...
...in Jupiter's discussion, Pi zero, could we actually have an exploration section for all the planets? P.S., I moved the discussion to here since it is now more relevant to the entire book.


 * I think an exploration section as a standard question/section would be a great idea. On pages where there is also a discovery section, perhaps exploration would go after discovery.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 02:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Excellente! I shall start on that immediately. C: Большое спасибо! --Воображение (discuss • contribs) 02:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Where to put a funny fact?
Did you know that people can not burp in space? In the stomach, gravity is needed to separate the gases (the cause of the burp) and liquid. I can not find a good home for this fact though. This would go in a miscellaneous section, but gravity, mass, and weight has no funboxes, same with Solar System. В о о б р а ж е н и е —Preceding undated comment added 16:46, 20 June 2013‎.
 * Perhaps a subsection that doesn't have a fun-facts box might have one added to it. It's nice to have more than one fun fact for such a box; can we come up with a second?  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 20:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Main image
The image was discussed in a less direct way in another section, above, but since a specific proposal has been floated for a replacement, I'm starting this thread explicitly addressing the matter.

I don't like the proposed replacement, for two reasons &mdash; one about presentation, and one about content. My presentation concern is that the proposed replacement seems to me less dynamic, drier, than the long-established one; this is Wikijunior, we want exciting pictures. The content problem is that it's a picture of the planets. This book isn't Wikijunior:Planets, it's Wikijunior:Solar System. The objection raised to the current picture was that it shows Pluto, and honestly this objection doesn't scan for me. The existing image also shows the asteroid belt &mdash;which the proposed replacement does not (to me, that's a fatal flaw for the proposed replacement regardless of the issue of Pluto). It also shows a comet. That's what the solar system is &mdash; not just the planets, but all the interesting objects in local space surrounding Sol. I wouldn't be opposed to an image that also somehow incorporates the Oort cloud, though that seems artistically difficult and I see no great need for it.

That said, as a less overriding concern, I have a preference to include Pluto, which is, to quote the current revision on Wikipedia, "the second-most-massive known dwarf planet in the Solar System (after Eris) and the tenth-most-massive body observed directly orbiting the Sun." Eris is further out than Pluto (most of the time, though its perihelion is apparently closer than Pluto's aphelion), making it more challenging to incorporate – though, as with the Oort cloud, I wouldn't oppose doing so. I don't think Haumea or Makemake are worth bothering with, and Ceres (the smallest of the five) is already covered since the picture includes the asteroid belt. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, you provide good points. I shall not argue about the cover any more. В о о б р а ж е н и е

solar system
"Klanti" (ক্লান্তি; "Weariness"):

ক্লান্তি আমার ক্ষমা করো প্রভু, পথে যদি পিছিয়ে পড়ি কভু॥ এই-যে হিয়া থরোথরো কাঁপে আজি এমনতরো এই বেদনা ক্ষমা করো, ক্ষমা করো, ক্ষমা করো প্রভু॥ এই দীনতা ক্ষমা করো প্রভু, পিছন-পানে তাকাই যদি কভু। দিনের তাপে রৌদ্রজ্বালায় শুকায় মালা পূজার থালায়, সেই ম্লানতা ক্ষমা করো, ক্ষমা করো, ক্ষমা করো প্রভু॥

Klanti amar khôma kôro probhu, Pôthe jodi pichhie poŗi kobhu. Ei je hia thôro thôro kãpe aji êmontôro, Ei bedona khôma kôro khôma kôro probhu. Ei dinota khôma kôro probhu, Pichhon-pane takai jodi kobhu. Diner tape roudrojalae shukae mala pujar thalae, Shei mlanota khôma kôro khôma kôro, probhu.

The PDF format of this article is poorly formatted
Lol.

What about Planet Nine?
Should this book include a section about Planets beyond Neptune? ShakespeareFan00 (discuss • contribs) 10:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Probably yes, imho. That aspect of our understanding of the solar system has changed significantly since this book was first organized.  Looking at our current outline, do you have a specific suggestion on how to modify it?  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 13:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Probably somewhere between Pluto and the stuff about the Kupier Belt. ShakespeareFan00 (discuss • contribs) 11:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * There would be some logic to putting them after comets, because comets, though living mostly in the Kuiper Belt, do sometimes visit us down here closer to the Sun. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 17:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Main image rethink
The main image has been, on grounds that the link to the NASA site from which it was taken doesn't work anymore, so how can one know it's really from NASA. Whatever the outcome of the particular proposal, it does raise again the question of whether we might want a different image. Perhaps something created specially for the purpose and donated to Commons, which might discourage nuisance deletion proposals. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The image was kept on Commons. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 18:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)