Template talk:Infobox planet/Archive 10

Star parameters and alternate names
I've noticed that the star parameters such as stellar type and all that aren't in this template compared to the other templates. I think they should be added since they give an idea of the info about the star. Also there should be a section in the template for alternate names of the planet as well. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

North Pole RA and DEC?
I plan on adding "distance", "RA" and "DEC" parameters, but I noticed there is a "north pole right ascension" and "north pole declination" under physical characteristics. I've searched high and low and cannot find much of a definition as to what these actually refer to, not even in right ascension and declination. I'm guessing it refers to the point on the celestial sphere that a planet's north pole points to? Can someone provide a definition so I know that RA/DEC won't duplicate these existing fields? — Huntster (t @ c) 07:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * See Report of the IAU Working Group on Cartographic Coordinates and Rotational Elements: 2009. "Recommended values for the direction of the north pole of rotation and the prime meridian" for all significant Solar System bodies are given in several tables. α$0$ is right ascension in degrees, δ$0$ is declination in degrees, and T is the number of Julian centuries since J2000. "North pole" is the pole that lies on north side of the invariable plane of the Solar System, whether the body has a direct or retrograde rotation. This direction is given by the sign in W with d in Earth days of 86,400 SI seconds. — Joe Kress (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * , so it's more a way to measure body orientation within a system? (Sorry, I'm being a bit dense today.) Regardless, it sounds like it would not conflict with the more common RA/DEC components. Thanks! — Huntster (t @ c) 02:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "the more common RA/DEC components." If you plan to restate the direction of the pole for retrograde bodies like Venus or Uranus in accordance with the right hand rule (thumb determines direction of north pole if curved fingers of right hand are in direction of rotation), so that it would have a direction in the southern hemisphere, that would be in direct violation of the intent of the IAU resolution and cannot be allowed. Earth's large axial tilt of 23.5° which determines the demarcation of north-south declinations might have some affect. — Joe Kress (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If your want to place the current position of the planet as viewed from Earth in its infobox, that would be useless without ready access to coordinates in the Astronomical Almanac or NASA's Heliocentric Trajectories or of approximate formulae such as those in Chapter 31 and Appemdix II of Jean Meeus's Astronomical Algorithms which could be buried in the infobox. — Joe Kress (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry if it was not apparent. My only interest is in the RA/DEC of exoplanets, not planets in our own Solar System. Our own planets have far too much motion for those fields to be of any value. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Longitude of perihelion
could we have a long_peri parameter to describe Longitude of perihelion/periapsis? The value is very important for describing the orbits of eccentric objects (e.g. comets or damocloids) as it essentially says which direction their elongated elliptic orbit "points". exoplanetaryscience (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If it is not listed, it can be computed by longitude of ascending node + argument of periapsis.  ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich  Talk  01:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Permanent designations of moons
I found a lot of moon articles with 'mpc_designation' used for the permanent Astron/Number designation. Since that's not appropriate for planetary moons (not sure about asteroid moons), I changed it to display simply 'Designation' if 'minor planet' is not invoked. That reads a little weird, as the first line under 'Designations' is 'Designation', but I didn't want to call it 'Planet/Number' because not all primaries are planets. We could make this a separate P/N param, and switch over all the planetary-moon articles, but thought I should check if people have other before making more drastic changes. — kwami (talk) 03:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 August 2020
In label43 and label44 change "astron" to "" to match other similar labels. Lasunncty (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 16:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The rotational period isn't a physical characteristic
The existing sections, in the side panel used in all articles on planets, have grown long. It is now hard to find a value under the existing categories.

We have these categories:


 * Designations
 * Orbital characteristics
 * Physical characteristics
 * Atmosphere

Perhaps we need these, instead:


 * Designations
 * Appearance (for albedo, apparent magnitude, angular diameter)
 * Orbit
 * Rotation
 * Physical characteristics (can we find a shorter term?)
 * Atmosphere
 * Temperature

&mdash; Black Walnut talk 00:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC).
 * Anyone? --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the list is a bit cluttered. But it can also be daunting if there are too many categories. We can wait for more replies, but I think only one or two new categories at most would be good.

I searched NASA's various pages that list these quantities, and some other names they use besides "physical characteristics" are "geophysical data", "physical properties", and "bulk parameters". In reference to the section heading of this discussion, rotational period is sometimes listed under the physical category and sometimes under the orbital category, so I have no problem with breaking it out into its own category.

--Lasunncty (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Synodic day
Hi everyone!

Working on the Moon article I realized that there is no part in the template for the synodic day, only the sidreal day. Why is that? Nsae Comp (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Rogue planet coordinates
There doesn't seem to be a way to add coordinates. This is necessary for rogue planets, for exmample see Talk:PSO J318.5−22. 93.136.147.244 (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Can't you just add Infobox astronomical object as well as infobox planet? Modest Genius talk 16:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

discussion

 * " " and " " are missing from this template and need to be added. Otherwise this produces an error for my edit on Mercury: " ."  Nicole Sharp (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * To ping someone, you must add a new block of content and a new signature. You cannot simply "add" a ping as you did in your last edit. Izno (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I wasn't aware that the ping didn't work.  I sent you a test ping from my sandbox page.  I only pinged Beland because they were the most recent active Wikipedia admin listed in the page edit history.  If you can make the requested change, that would be appreciated.  The change to the template should be simple and uncontroversial.  Knowing the minimum and maximum speeds of the orbit is useful information, and is included in the NASA fact sheets for planets.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You making an edit which is not supported by the template is not sufficient reason alone, certainly, to add the parameters. You think it will be uncontroversial, but it is well established that where given, parameters will be filled, whether representative or not. If you believe this is a change that should be made, you may consult the relevant WikiProjects (which I believe is WT:ASTRO or WT:PLANETS?) to see if there is a consensus. Izno (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Cross-posted to " ." Nicole Sharp (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest you also inform WT:SOLAR. I'm not fundamentally opposed, but would the min and max values see much use? We already have the average value in the infobox. Why would general readers want to know the extreme values as well? Modest Genius talk 16:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The same reason why aphelion and perihelion are given, in addition to semimajor axis. Including the speeds (either average, minimum, or maximum) is redundant, since you can calculate the distances if you know the speeds, and vice versa.  But if maxima and minima are given for distance, then it is consistent to give them for speed as well.  The range of possible values is always useful to know.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Otherwise it could be argued to remove  from the template as redundant, since that value can be computed directly using the distance and eccentricity information already provided (i.e. it doesn't actually provide any new information to the infobox).  If the goal is to keep the infobox as concise as possible, then I would say to remove   instead since it is not necessary to have with the other data already included.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * However, the orbital parameters for Mercury require general relativity, and more complicated math. So it is still of benefit to the reader to have the additional data available, even if some of it is redundant.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I checked The Facts on File Dictionary of Astronomy and the National Audubon Society Field Guide to the Night Sky, and neither of these books provide the average speed as part of their planetary data (though a dictionary and a field guide is not the same as an encyclopedia). So I would say to either include maximum speed, minimum speed, and average speed, or none of the speeds, if consistency was desired in comparison to perhihelion, aphelion, and semimajor axis.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

poll
Poll on whether to add " " and " " to this template.

support

 * As the initial proposer, I support this. My primary argument is that the information is important enough to be included in the NASA Fact Sheet for each planet, which is hardly comprehensive and only lists the most important parameters.  I would further argue that any other parameters in the NASA Fact Sheets not currently available in the template should also be added (with the possible exception of some atmospheric data, which can be poorly defined).  Additionally, having the minimum and maximum speeds of an orbit readily available is both useful and interesting, especially for eccentric orbits.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

alternatives
An alternative to expanding the template would be to create data pages for each planet (or a single data page for all the planets of the Solar System), similar to the NASA Fact Sheets (which are all in the public domain and can be copied to Wikipedia). That way scientific data can be included for planets that might be too cumbersome or esoteric to be included on the main article page. Nicole Sharp (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Rounding off proper orbital period
Can we restrict sig figs here? If I put in 3-fig values, the period is still calculated out to 6 figs. — kwami (talk) 10:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Proper orbital period is calculated by  (line 125) for the record. I see zero reason why we need that many decimals, so I agree that 3 is probably a better rounding depth. Primefac (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 November 2021
Please replace all code Infobox planet with sandbox code from 19 November 2021

Change: added fields for equivalent and absorbed radiation dose rates at the surface. Fernando Trebien (talk) 11:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ User:GKFXtalk 14:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Surface radiation dose rate
I think it would be interesting to include the radiation dose rate for some planets and moons of the solar system, so I added a field for that in the sandbox. The change is pretty straightforward. What do you think? --Fernando Trebien (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I like the idea very much, since its quite the crucial factor. Nsae Comp (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit request: Please change labels to "Synodic rotation period" and "Sidereal rotation period"
Currently ambiguously labeled "Rotation period" and partially linked "Sidereal rotation period". Please see testcases for Earth for differences. Sandbox code diff from January 4, 2022

Thanks, Facts707 (talk) 09:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 03:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Awesome! Giant thanks! Nsae Comp (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's my pleasure!  Paine  19:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

"Sidereal" orbital period?
Hi there, thanks to the above sidereal and synodic rotation period is now differentiated; but how about allowing this logic also for the category "Orbital period"? At the moment it is not clear which orbital period the numbers refer to. In most cases it is probably trivial, but in the case of Earth for example people might be confused why the orbital period is not the exact length of a year, and only have to investigate if it is the sidereal time for all astronomical objects that use the template. Nsae Comp (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * okay, not an astronomer so I'm confused by your statement, . I think the orbital period actually is the exact length of a year, that being for Earth 365.25... days. Are you saying that you want to differentiate between the sidereal year and the tropical year?  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 15:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, basically. Nsae Comp (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * See Template:Infobox planet/testcases, where there is already a parameter for synodic (tropical or solar) period (not used in the Earth article). How would you change the wording?  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 16:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Big thanks. If I get it right what you did is just enter the values of tropical/solar year at syndoic year? Well if I understand the concept of synodic orbital period right then it is not the same as the tropical and mainly for planet observation. So I would suggest first and formost change the displayed title of the "period" option from "orbital period" to "Sidereal period" or even better "Sidereal orbital period" then it is not anymore mistakeable, as was my original reason for raising the issue. And of course a new option next to sidereal and synodic as "Tropical orbital period" could be added. Nsae Comp (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! Think you're right about synodic vs. tropical for other celestials like the Moon or Mars. However, it appears that they are the same period for the Earth wrt the Sun. I think that to add or change these, which adds a bit of complexity, a consensus might need to be garnered.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 05:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Went ahead and added "sidereal" to "orbital period" for now. Let's see if other editors deem it helpful as we do.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 05:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I am fine with leaving the synodical option as it is, tropical is worth considering as a third option if you ask me. But I am totaly fine with your solution now, thats the main thing that I was suggesting. Thank you! PS: that said I have one more thing; what do you think of Writing "Orbital period (sidereal)" because it might help the reader to find it if there is not a second type of orbital period in the infobox used. Well I am fine, the thought just came up. Thank yoj again. Nsae Comp (talk) 09:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Aah,well maybe to be consistent changing the displayed title of "Synodic period" to "Synodic orbital period" to reduce confusion? Nsae Comp (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

...or "Orbital period (synodic)" respectively Nsae Comp (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ...and ✅, and thank you 'n Happy New Year to You and Yours!  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 09:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * To you and yours too! Thank you! ♡ Nsae Comp (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)