Template talk:Infobox planet/Archive 9

Earliest precovery date item
It seems like a useful added parameter is Earliest precovery since that helps define how accurate an orbit is known, especially for distant new objects. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that would be a useful field. Such a parameter is also useful for near-Earth asteroids. -- Kheider (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * &, where would be the best place to put it? I'm thinking right after observation_arc.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was thinking earlier, after "discovery date", but maybe I'm wrong. Tom Ruen (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As it largely defines the observation arc, I think it makes more sense after observation arc. But either would make sense. -- Kheider (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that and the earliest precovery info wouldn't appear in the discovery_ref.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I presume that this parameter earliest_precovery (now implemented) refers to the date of the first recorded observation. If so, it should be renamed to something like earliest_observation_date. This might not be a serious problem for recent discoveries such as TNO's but for most low-numbered asteroids (i.e the majority of minor-planet articles which use this template), I fear a lot of confusion if the original parameter name is kept.

Here is why I think this might be the case: At least by Wiki's standards, a precovery observation is not just any observations with a date before the official discovery date (they are published after the discovery with a higher MPC/MPS-number and no new provisional designation). Also if the parameter contains a date as a value, it should say so, because a precovery (as any other observational record) contains more than just a date. In either case, the template's documentation needs a description as to what this new, not self-explanatory parameter refers to (it currently does not)  R fassbind  – talk  13:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I support changing earliest_precovery to earliest_precovery_date for removing ambiguity, and to keep the word  (since it's not just any ol' observation before the discovery date)., ?
 * Also remember that you don't need WP:TPE permissions to edit this doc; feel free to improve it at any time.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. -- Kheider (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * ✅, before adds too many earliest_precoverys! (I'll correct)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * All good now.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, this is not AOK. As there is no clear description of the parameter one can only speculate. If only redundancy to observation_arc and uncertainty parameter is sought (accuracy of the orbit), the correct parameter needs to be (i.e. first_obs_date_used, for short).

could you please explain from where/on what basis you fetch your earliest precovery date; and why you place it below the discovery date? Thank you... R fassbind – talk  15:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right. I'm using "first obs. used" parameter from JPL which may not be the earliest precovery date. Sometimes it is actually after the discovery date, but if older images are identified with known dates, they're surely going to be using them. Tom Ruen (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I've added #Other parameters section header and subsection #earliest_precovery_date to the /doc where we can put things like this. I recall, many years ago, there being an issue with someone putting last or first obs used somewhere without consensus. Would be good to include that eventually. Anyway, feel free to tweak that as much as necessary based on what we see in the wild.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

NEO section
I’ve added a section for NEOs (Near Earth Objects) to the sandbox. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;  Discuss  18:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Usage - place the parameters ,, in the infobox. Any one will generate the section (blank entries won't be shown).
 * Rationale - Put a place for Torino scale in the infobox. It is placed high up due to the fact that, for many NEOs, their notability comes from the threat they pose (or were believed to pose) to Earth.
 * Effect on existing uses - None


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: sounds interesting, but major additions like this probably need to be discussed. You could try at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciated the effort behind these proposed improvements (see posted testcase by ), but I don't think such changes are currently helpful. Is there another central source beside CNEOS' Impact Risk Data that I'm not aware of?  R fassbind  – talk  14:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Why isn't it helpful?  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I like it! Definitely useful. It would also need a neo_ref parameter, or similar, to match the other sections.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is why I think that these new parameters are not helpful without broad consent: Currently, the project needs to clear the backlog of work, not to increase it. It is hardly useful when users not involved in the project, propose new parameters that are not even mentioned in the body of the vast majority of articles. Good sources are required to amend/update the large number of existing NEO-articles. When new parameters are proposed, I think, it should be explained why they are needed, what sources exist, and how much this change affects the backlog. R fassbind – talk  15:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE: is to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. NEO-articles overwhelmingly do not contain such info.
 * New IB-section "Near Earth Object": redundant as IB is (colored as and mp_category should display NEO for all near-Earth objects. Also, there is no such dedicated section for other mp-categories such as MBAs, JTs, CENs or TNOs.
 * Several other parameters such as palermo_scale, could be added. It doesn't take much time to propose/add new parameters. However, integrating them into the body of all relevant articles and referencing and updating the corresponding values and citations takes much more time.
 * Torino Scale:
 * torino_scale with one exception, all of the 816 objects listed at CNEOS' Impact Risk Data give a "Torino scale" of 0 (what's the point of a non-distinctive value?).
 * max_torino For the above chosen demo-object, 99942 Apophis, the data at CNEOS shows "Torino Scale (maximum) = 0", while in the article (body) a value of "4" is cited. Tracking down correct historic values will significantly increase the backlog of work, if there is no unambiguous and easy-to-access source.


 * I have to agree that I am not sure this information is useful as very few asteroids EVER get to Torino scale 1. The ones that do almost never stay there more than 3 weeks. Listing the Palermo Technical Impact Hazard Scale would make more sense. But most readers simply do not understand the Palermo scale without explaining it in the article. -- Kheider (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Those are all really good points. Just to play devil's advocate though, what would you say about restricting Torino/Palermo placement to only non-0 values, and only after it has spent some minimum amount of time as non-0 (as the more hazardous it is, faster/more effort is made to refine the orbit)? Of course, these restrictions are "soft"-restrictions, since they'd only be text in the doc. We could suppress the NEO section if all scales = 0, but the text would still be in the infobox to work around and/or discard. The point would be to not allow many MPs to have this section, unless they really deserve it, not to back-populate.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good scheme. The asteroids where such information is of interest are the non-zero ones. Probably should rename the NEO section to Potentially Hazardous Object as well. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  17:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Add param: mean_diameter
Please add missing parameter mean_diameter, corresponding to the already existing mean_radius. The label should display a plain "Mean diameter", with no link to any Wikipedia article (as it is also the case for "Mean radius"). This new parameter should be placed right before (or after) mean_radius: Thx for the effort,  R fassbind  – talk  17:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Scope: this new parameter should be available for all minor planets (MPs), where yes is given. I presume it would also be useful for non-MPs articles, but that's not within my expertise.
 * Reason: MP-sources overwhelmingly use diameter rather than radius. Also, a conversion from (sourced) diameter to (displayed) radius is, in my view, not a good solution, as it makes source verification more difficult. It is also prone to conversion errors and possibly suggests a non-existing precision (e.g. diameter: $3$ km → radius: $0 m/s2$ km).
 * Current status:Currently, most MP-object articles display their mean diameter value(s) with parameter dimension, which should only be used for tri-axial dimensions, not for mean values.
 * Follow-up: As soon as mean_diameter is added to the template, I'll start to change dimension to mean_diameter in all MP-object articles where appropriate.


 * , I just noticed this uncontroversial request. Someone would have answered it a whole lot sooner if you used the standard template edit request feature!  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thx Tom, much appreciated.  R fassbind  – talk  12:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I was until a few seconds ago unaware there was any such thing as a "standard template edit request feature", and as yet I have no idea how to go about accessing or using it. Any clues please? 146.199.0.203 (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Followup: I've found how to make an infobox, a style guide on how to make a good one, how to propose a new one, how to request that one is added to a page, how to edit it yourself, and how to propose its deletion or merging, but not any WP Help/FAQ/meta etc info on how to request changes be made to an existing infobox template. So, my query still stands, I'm afraid :-/
 * Additionally I'm now going to look and see if the "diameter" parameter has been added yet because, OMG, SRSly, like, *SO* many minor planet (and indeed dwarf and major planet, as well as moon) articles in dire need of having their "dimensions" and "size" infobox fields corrected to either radius or preferably diameter... I didn't know it was actually an option, if it is then I'll be changing quite a few articles... 146.199.0.203 (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

How do we deal with binary/trinary/etc (minor) planet systems?
OK, apparently there's a template edit request feature somewhere, but as I literally only saw mention of it thirty seconds ago and have no idea where it is or how to use it (or if you need to be a registered rather than IP user to submit a request), I'm going to drop this question here anyway.

I've run across a problem with trying to enter full data for a binary asteroid, in that there doesn't seem to be any provision made for such objects, or indeed binary/etc planets of any kind. Even for planetary moons, there's just a pair of headings/keywords - "satellites" and "satellite of", which I presume are supposed to include a WP article link for a page dedicated to the satellite(s) or the subject satellite's parent, which of course is entirely useless on an article that treats the two partners of a binary system equally, or at least considers them as "primary" and "secondary" members of a double planet, with neither being a moon or satellite of the other (it also means every tiny little moon needs its own stubby article, unless it's seen as acceptable to put an anchor link to a later section on the same page with an all-new infobox for each moon?). On top of which, there are binaries with moons that orbit around the larger, central, co-orbital bodies themselves, which could be properly listed using the satellite feature if the binary partners could be notarised correctly, but at this point would end up being considered as another satellite of the primary alone (if we consider the larger partner, even if it's only 1% larger and very marginally closer to the external barycentre, as the "planet", and the almost identical secondary as merely one of several "moons") without any consideration given to it also orbiting the secondary as if it were a planet.

For dimensions / diameter / mass / density / rotation etc you have to make two or three entries with inline subheadings to differentiate the size measurements for each partner and, if the data exists, the system as a whole (particularly, individual rotation of non-tidally-locked partners, plus their rotation around each other/the system barycentre), and there's actually no way I can see at the moment of noting their mutual/co-orbital semi-major axis (i.e. their separation distance). There's literally no heading that can be accurately used to put that under. "semimajor" exists, but that's used for the system orbital parameters around either a more massive parent planet, or the system's central star(s), and once it's been used for that cannot appear a second time.

So, if a specific multiple-planet-system infobox exists, can you please point me towards it so I can replace the one that's currently in that article (and any other binary planet/dwarf planet/asteroid articles I come across with the same issues)? If not, is there any chance that suitable additional headings specific to n-ary planetary bodies could be added to this one?

After all, there's a nonzero chance that the IAU may see fit, sometime in the future, to reclassify Pluto-Charon as a binary (they're fairly close in terms of diameter, orbit close together around a barycentre external to both bodies, and the other four, much smaller moons follow an orbital path encompassing both of them together rather than there being Pluto at the centre then five concentric paths), and we'd then be a bit stuffed for properly recording the characteristics of a binary-plus-moons system that would on aggregate very definitely count as the largest dwarf planet orbiting Sol (narrowly displacing Eris in terms of mass as well as diameter) and close the gap up a bit more between the dwarves and the rocky macroplanets. Besides which, there's a nontrivial number (several dozen at the least) of other minor planet/asteroid systems already considered as binary or trinary, amongst the TNOs, main-belt, trojans, centaurs, and other in-system bodies, so it can't be ignored even without that potential future reclassification. 146.199.0.203 (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: No template edit request made. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 19:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Anchors
It would be nice to have the section headers be anchors, so for example I could link to something like Earth from Circumference of the Earth. Does anyone know how to do that? -- Beland (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * , Is this diff what you're after? Template:Infobox planet/testcases. Cabayi (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Ooo, yes; that works perfectly! -- Beland (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * , glad it works for you. There's a whole bunch of other changes in the sandbox so I'll step back and let you take it forward how you want. Cabayi (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I made the change to the template and the redirects and it's all working great. Thank you so much for your help! -- Beland (talk) 06:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Remove fixed lead image size
Under the  parameter for Infobox, change   to   to allow for user preference on image thumbnail size, per MOS:IMGSIZE. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 01:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. I removed the sizedefault parameter, since infobox images default to frameless. Let me know if my edit causes any problems by pinging me here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Merger of templates
So the decision has been made to merge Planetbox begin and that whole series into this template (see the TFD). Wanted to get he ball rolling by asking people what parameters from the planetbox series do we need to get added to this template? I'm far from an expert when it comes to planets so need some subject experts here. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Discovery should be at the bottom of the template except for planets of the Solar system. Christian75 (talk) 10:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Surprised that there haven't been any other resonses to this... I'm getting back to work on this and would love some feedback. Do we need to add a section regarding stars? For example PSR B1620-26 b has a lengthy usage of Planetbox star... -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Escape velocity
The escape velocity parameter does not specify the distance at which the velocity is calculated. I assume it's implied to be at the surface of solid planets, though it's unclear whether that's at the equator it elsewhere, or what it means for gas giants. Beland (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Unused Parameters?
There are multiple pages using apoastron & periastron. Those parameters are also in the template's documentation... Yet they don't actually appear in the template and are causing the pages to populate Category:Pages using infobox planet with unknown parameters. Is there a reason that those parameters were removed? -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)