Template talk:Solar System/Archive 1

Introduction
Hi, Timwi. We had a discussion over in Talk:Solar system about the footer for the solar system articles. I've put the consensus footer into this msg page. I'm happy to discuss further what the footer should be. Can we talk about it before updating? Thanks! -- hike395 05:56, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, what he said. :) And I don't think it's a good idea to have two separate MediaWiki pages to do the exact same thing, so I'm going to delete MediaWiki:Solar system for now since this is the one that's linked everywhere. Bryan 07:55, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Font Size
I find the font "smaller" to be annoyingly small. I've attempted a compromise, which is 90%. --- hike395 14:46, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Centering
Cantus, why do you need 2em margins if the table is intended to be centered? I really don't want to rely on the center tag, since future browsers may not support it and it was an ugly hack on the HTML standards to begin with. (edit: there's nothing wrong IMO with having both CSS centering and the center tag, since if the center tag isn't understood by a browser it will simply be ignored) Bryan 03:09, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I need the side margins for cosmetic reasons. Maybe your monitor is too big and you can't notice the difference, but shrink the browser's window and you will see why I put those margins. Looks much better doesn't it? It doesn't go edge to edge, which is ugly. Try it on a BIG msg like Template:Commonwealth_of_Nations (click on any link in that msg to see that msg in action, usually at the bottom of the page).


 * PS: The first thing I tried was  <table align="center" , but that doesn't do anything, and I don't want to wrap the whole thing in a DIV box, because that gives unexpected results in many browsers, and it seems like unnecessary overhead.


 * --Cantus 03:31, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The "align" attribute is not a part of the table tag's specification, so that's not surprising. This was all discussed in detail over at Talk:Solar_system, perhaps I should import the full discussion here. I'll ruminate on ways to code this thing to accomplish everything that everyone wants, and hopefully more. :) Bryan 03:48, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Asteroid => Asteroid belt
I've changed Asteroid to Asteroid belt cuz from where it is in the template, it implies that asteroid is only between Mars & Jupiter. Also, the list being in order from Sun out, one would assume it should be about the belt, like the Kuiper belt & Oort cloud listed beyond Pluto. -- KTC 03:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Template:Solar System/test
Template:Solar System/test hasn't been edited since April 2004. Is it still needed, or can it be deleted. Blank Verse  ∅  12:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jupiter
I have no expertise in this area, but I have noticed that Jupiter is missing from this template. Is there a reason for that? HJKeats 19:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed expansion of template...
My motivation is that I feel having two templates on each of the outer planets (one of the planet's moons, one for the entire solar system) looks messy. So, I devised an expanded version which combines them all. Having seen the talk on this page, I was reluctant to dive in and make such a significant change, even though I always urge people to be bold. Feel free to edit the suggested layout below. Tompw 13:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That template is way to big--IAMTHETalkman 18:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all u should not attempt to write all objects in the same template. Jupiter with MANY moons will be out of the template anyway. Besides all this significance of the items explained there changes from person to person. To be short, it is too big, and for the future(as more discoveries made) it will become more and more uneastethic...Tendergluttony 08:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Any other comments? Tompw 13:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The template is rather big, however, I think that it could be used on the main Solar System page, and the other smaller template on the rest. --myselfalso 18:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Even though the template's big, it's very well organized. Maybe have it collapsable by section or by planet, and then show the moons on click? And you'd have to edit it with the upcoming vote and announcement. Tom Temprotran 01:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the template - but it would definitely need to be expandable. If you need help with that let me know and i will learn how to do it. I found this because I am considering how to do a template for the layers of the sun's influence, or the component parts of a stellar system. Meaning a good, simple table for Termination Shock, Heliosphere, Heliopause, Bow Shock, etc. I think a listing like that would be helpful, but i don't really know where to put it. Are these things something that might go well on the Solar System template, or should it more specifically be under Sun related articles? --Exodio 23:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Moon
Next to Earth, the whole Moon thingy, should be removed--IAMTHETalkman 18:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * seconded. Plough | talk to me 03:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Lesser expansion proposal
I have a second idea for a less major expansion of the template.


 * Subplanet is a neologism, no? The Tom 05:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you think? --Kitch 13:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Planemo is a term for "an object [rounded by self-gravity] that does not achieve core fusion during its lifetime", regardless of its orbit, might be better than subplanet.

Pluto
Surely with the discovery of 2003UB313 Pluto should be removed from this template? --Comment as of 06:42, 5 July 2006 by User:EamonnPKeane

Why should Pluto be remved?

2003 UB313
Should really be in the list of planets? I don't recall that it has officially been accepted as one. Chaos syndrome 20:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Quite right, I've removed it. 2003 UB313 says its status is currently undecided. Bryan 06:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We should have a proposed template if 2003 UB313 were designated as a planet. Also we should have one if Pluto is determined NOT to be a planet.  --myselfalso 18:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * To clear things up- 2003UB313, Charon, and Ceres are still not as of yet considered planets. However, if the motion is passed,then we will have the aforementioned as Planets. I'm protecting the template from being edited until this 12 planet system debate is over. If you disagree, feel free to put comments here.The pointer outer 21:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If and when the proposal does pass, I'd suggest putting a Major Planets section (naturally excluding Pluto and its new compatriots), and another list for Minor Planets which would list the four decided on and allow room for more as they're approved. Thoughts? Radagast 22:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Right now, I've got a section for the three new planets under consideration, with a link to 2006 redefinition of planet. This seems to make both sides happy. - Kookykman| (t) e 23:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Redefinition
How about this if the solar system redefinition is passed? The graphic would just show the non-Plutons, because showing all the plutons would be impractical once more and more objects get adopted as such. Pluto and Charon are listed as one and separated by an ampersand to show their status as a double planet.
 * +Hexagon1 (t) 06:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait, so is that no contest or no comment? :) +Hexagon1 (t) 10:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should put a partition between 'planets' and 'plutons', as plutons would be planets. Perhaps we should do it as you suggest, but amend the first line to "Classical Planets"; we can add a link as well.  Apart from that, I agree with your suggestion, comme ca:

--Ross UK 22:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Based on the proposed definitions, I believe that Ceres does not qualify as a pluton. --thirty-seven 23:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Woops, missed that. We can't call them "Classical Planets" then, unless a third category was introduced. --Ross UK 00:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The IAU needs to be clear about what they're calling what now, what is Ceres under the new scheme? A planet, pluton, minor body, dwarf planet, etc. ? +Hexagon1 (t) 09:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * According to the original proposal Ceres would be a planet and not a pluton. Informally, it would be a 'dwarf planet' (owing to being smaller than Mercury) and not a 'classical planet'. --Ross UK 21:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This issue will now be addressed directly in the IAU votes tomorrow. --Ross UK 22:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems it might not get passed now, let's just wait for the final tally and definition, if it's passed we'll sort this out. +Hexagon1 (t) 10:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have made another image which excludes Pluto but includes the Kuiper belt, then the template should look like the following:

219.78.220.23 18:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Currently, the only recognised dwarf planets are Ceres, Pluto and 2003 UB313. The others are candidate dwarf planets (as might be Charon), but we should not jump the gun on this issue.

"Xena" nickname
The Xena nickname is largely avoided whenever possible on the article itself, will never be applied to the object, and hasn't been uttered by Brown in recent interviews at all. It does not belong on this template. The Tom 21:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should mention the nickname simply because it is, for the moment, the name in common use. --JesseBHolmes 22:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The nickname should not be used. It is completely unofficial, and every article I have seen recently regarding the dwarf planet call it UB313. I feel we should not propagate a common use name that every official source says is in fact an unofficial name. --Exodio 22:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Also should not be used for the reason that nicknames are not unique - another article cites the nickname "Rupert" (in tribute to Douglas Adams). Philip Legge @ 01:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sun (and other image inclusions)
Surely the Sun should get a more noticeable place given that it is the centre of the solar system, and gives us life and all? --Midnighttonight Procrastinating on uni work... 22:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, and think there should be something like this. --Exodio 23:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I also like it... but perhaps a different picture above the sun section, one above the planets... and possibly one above the dwarf planets... kinda giving a map of each group Nbound 07:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

My attempt above :) When many dwarf planets are in a single place a yellow line would suffice (like what we currently have for the asteroid belt, but smaller) also any other colour may suffice (red would probably be better to see now that i think of it)Nbound 07:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the last version very much (the one with three images). &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 13:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the version with the sun bar, but I think I prefer only one planetary bar. --Exodio 13:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice... we could put the dwarf planets in the plain planets pic as another colour (and for distinction change the links that colour?), though im perfectly happy with the last option (Exidio's), or my 3 level option Nbound 13:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Another 3 tier variation... as i must say my above version looks squished, but yeah, discuss options n stuff! :P Nbound 13:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Three tiers looks cool, but may be too much. The triple dash in between is silly (IMHO), but a full horizontal line might work. Mdotley 15:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the second version. --myselfalso 20:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am in favor of it, except for one part- the dwarf planet part. Since Dwarf Planets are under the classification of TNOs (Trans-Neptunian Objects) They should be excluded from the template. Either that, or list all of the TNOs (Which is a very large list) I would think the more practical way is to entierly exclude Pluto from this. Don't get me wrong, I like Pluto too, but you have to be fair to all...The pointer outer 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Dwarf planet isn't a subset of TNO, but an intersecting set; at least one DP isn't a TNO (1 Ceres) and most TNOs, of course, aren't DPs. RandomCritic 20:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ceres isn't a TNO. And I think the extra planet bar makes it too busy overall. Maybe just a "---"? --Exodio 21:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * as stated above im quite happy with Exidio's :) Nbound 00:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So what's the process for actually trying out the new one? Do we just do it, and see if anyone screams, or do we put it to a vote somewhere and let other people make their opinions known? --Exodio 01:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah we just test and see if anyone screams AFAIK :).. ill put yours up now Nbound 01:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently Cyde has a problem with the inclusion of the Sun line. His edit says "A template on the entire solar system shouldn't have a whole row of stuff just about the Sun.". While I agree with the statement, I disagree with the idea that the Solar Wind, Heliosphere, etc are part of the Sun. They are part of the Solar System as a bubble within the Insterstellar Medium. They are not objects in orbit around the Sun, however. So perhaps some further discussion is needed regarding what the exact purpose of the Solar System Footer is to be used for, and what exact types of articles the footer will be used on. If it is to be used only on articles that have to do with Astronomical Objects, that is fine by me, we can create another box for use on the non-object components of the Solar System. But if the aim is to use the least number of boxes on the most articles, then I think we should include the discrete parts of the Solar System including non-objects. Thoughts? --Exodio 17:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This new version gives way too much space to esoteric properties of the Sun that are covered much better in the Sun article. Everything else on the template is about an object or whole classifications of objects; devoting that much room to the Sun is bad form. It'd be like taking a classical music nav template and listing all composers by name, except for Beethoven, for which we have links to five of his most famous symphonies. -- Cyde Weys 21:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Im for the Sun inclusion, after all Sol is the main part of the Sol-ar system. It seems weird to have the planets in such high esteem on the footer but the sun being relegated to the level of the moon and asteroids. In its previous form it was like having an article on Skittles with a link to each colour, but nothing on the bag! Basically... the Sun is the most important part of the Solar System... it deserves a bit better than previous :) Nbound 23:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Think of it as an exercise in frugality, then. By incorporating the different zones of the Solar System, that adds a whole class of articles that the footer can be used on. Each portion of the Sun's line is a discrete part of the solar system. And your composer analogy is not valid - Beethoven is not the Sun. The template name is "Solar System", which the center of, the whole reason it exists, is the Sun. I don't think its bad form to give the Sun its own line, since that is the reason for the template in the first place. Maybe this should be put to a vote to encourage further debate? --Exodio 00:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with a vote if the issue cant be resolved. Cyde, using ur beethoven analogy, imagine beethoven as a planet... classical music would be the sun :) Nbound 01:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Vote FOR or AGAINST inclusion of expanded Sun line
Im putting the Sun issue to a vote (if thats ok with everyone), basically whether the sun deserves its own picture and line rather than its current location (the other line), reasons for and against are in the above discussion (any more reasons should also be added there)Nbound 23:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OPTION A:
 * 1) -RETRACTED- The Sun is the most important part of our solar system, it should not be relegated to the status of "Other", Though ill also support Exodio's idea below Nbound 02:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC) (Updated)
 * 2) If we were talking about the core of the sun, the chromosphere, etc, I would 100% agree with you. I think we need to decide if the box really is just for the physical objects of the Solar System, or if there should be another one for the Sun and its parts separately. After going into the worklist for the Sun under Astroobjects, I can see the need for a new footer specifically for the Sun including the physical parts of the sun and the secondary effects (i.e. the ejection of particles and matter into the Heliosphere). --Exodio 00:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well that's fine, you can be for a separate Sun template that includes all of the layers of the Sun, but why are you voicing your support here in favor of including all of the Sun's layers in the template about the entire solar system? -- Cyde Weys  02:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Cyde, I guess because as i stated in my vote, The sun is left in the other section, when it is the most important object in the solar system, If you have any other ideas on how this can be addressed ill probably gladly support them (even if the link is just moved to somewhere else in the template). Just as long as its given some status! :P -- Nbound 02:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC) (If your happy with that... ill gladly retract my vote)
 * 1) Support. The solar system is a part of the sun.  Without the sun, there are no planets.  Besides, each part that is included in the Footer describes a boundary for the star.  The only one that isn't a boundary is Solar Wind, which I don't think should be included because it isn't a boundary.  --myselfalso 02:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand what's going on here. Nobody is saying that the template shouldn't mention the Sun at all, just that the Sun shouldn't have such an inordinately large amount of space dedicated to its esoteric features that most people have never heard of.  -- Cyde Weys  02:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm...excuse me, but I do understand what's going on here. And I am saying that I support this option.  I don't think that it is an "inordinately large amount of space", as you put it.  And these aren't "esoteric features"; these are the boundaries of what effects the sun has on the local Medium.  My thought is that if you're going to include objects such as the asteroid belt and Kuiper belt, why not include the heliopause, etc.?  --myselfalso 03:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * They are most certainly esoteric features. Go look up what esoteric means ... it may not mean what you seem to think it means.  Everyone knows about the eight planets, very few know about the various layers of the Sun.  I'm an astronomy student and I've never even heard of Termination Shock and Bow Shock, or at least not in those terms.  These listings seem inappropiate on the template alongside of the various planets and objects that everyone is familiar with.  -- Cyde Weys  04:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've heard of Termination Shock and Bow Shock. And I'm not an astronomy student.  But that's aside from the point.  How many people are familiar with the Oort Cloud or the Kuiper belt?  Does that make them "esoteric"?  No.  --myselfalso 04:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. 1ne 20:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OPTION B:
 * 1) This is the template for the entire solar system, giving information on each layer of the Sun is going into depth too much. By that logic each planetary body should have a whole row ... for the Earth we could have core, mantle, crust, then the layers of the atmosphere, etc.  -- Cyde Weys  00:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Against. By that reasoning, we would need to include Jupiter's and possibly even Saturn's magnetospheres in the Solar System footer too. After all, they are bigger than the sun proper, and the effect of Jupiter's magnetosphere is quite significant in the solar system. By this reasoning it makes sense to draw the line somewhere.Derek Balsam 00:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * COMMENTS:
 * Can someone please put up the two versions of the template we're polling on? I don't think some of the people here understand what they're voting for.  This is how the poll should've been done in the first place.  Hell, for that matter, I'm not sure what we're voting for.  -- Cyde Weys  02:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nbound beat me to adding the options. --Exodio 02:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Compromise?
How does this look? Opinions? Other Ideas? Nbound 02:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ya know, I think that compromise might be best. It opens the way for new boxes for when other planetary systems are defined. Under Star it could list the star names, and the name of the box could be the system "Alpha Centauri System". I like it, and I think I have changed my mind - a new Sun Footer should be made that has the physical parts of the Sun and the emissions/other influences. --Exodio 02:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I fully agree, my vote above is retracted Nbound 02:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree as well; physical parts of the Sun, including the solar wind sections that extend into the planetary space, belong on a Sun-related template. However, the central portion of any star system are the stars themselves, and they (or it, in this case) must go first. Alba 00:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I prefer this version to either of Options A or B in the section immediately above; however, I personally would be inclined to add another line on the grounds that the (major) planet's retinue of natural satellites are also of intrinsic interest: if no one wants this level of detail, at the very least, a link to Natural satellites should be included in the Other: line, along with the Moon, asteroids, Oort cloud, et cetera...

After this line would follow the line of dwarf planets, and quite appropriately so in my opinion: afterall the moon, the Galilean satellites of Jupiter, and two other satellites (Titan &amp; Triton) are more substantial bodies in both size and mass than any of the "official" or "candidate" "dwarf planets" - if you List of solar system objects by mass these occupy items 10 through to 16, before we reach at number 17. Any opinions on this suggestion? Philip Legge phi1ip@netscape&middot;net 03:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I like your idea, but mainly for the reason of keeping it brief add the Natural satellites link to the Other: line. Nbound 05:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

(Template removed by Nbound) The box gets a tad wider with "Natural satellites", so I changed it to "moons". Everyone OK with this? Feel free to change it back if not. Alba 01:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not at the moment... in future in another debate... yes... but right now... its more to give the sun some better recognition - (removed above template for cleanliness) -- Nbound 01:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK - so what's the plan? Are we updating the template to include the Sun on its own line? --Exodio 01:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This compromise has been up for 24 hours now and no one's complained. I'd say go ahead.... Nbound, I see what you mean about keeping votes separated, but let me go ahead and mention the further changes that could/should be considered:
 * * Changing the image to use the version with the dwarf planets labeled in yellow
 * * Changing "Moon" to "Moons", "Satellites", or "Natural satellites", per you and Philip.
 * Other than these minor alterations I think we have a consensus design. Alba 03:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Alterations added -- Nbound 04:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've noticed several edit wars appear to have successively dropped any link in the template referring to "Natural satellites" - which by the way, I am more than happy for it to be abbreviated for the sake of keeping the overall width tidy, so long as it is present. So I've added Satellites, and have given The Moon back its definite article for typographical parity with "The Sun" (I know that the same should probably apply to "The Earth" itself, but that's getting way too fussy...) Philip Legge phi1ip@netscape&middot;net 06:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I like it -- Nbound 07:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Reinsertion of "Classical"
The reinsertion of "(classical)" to "planet" makes better etymological and linguistic sense than the IAU redefinition of the term "planet" and creation of the term "dwarf planet" did. &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 01:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I also took the liberty of qualifying the term "dwarf planets" as "Famous" dwarf planets, because those are now more widely known than the others. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 01:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There are no others "Famous" should be removed, also Classical planet was specifically voted against by the IAU it should also be removed Nbound 01:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If the dwarf planet list ever becomes too long... then perhaps "notable dwarf planets" would be a better option as well Nbound 01:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't like it. First of all, the IAU explicitly rejected the label "classical", and while I don't assign the IAU an absolute right to govern what categories Wikipedia uses, the fact is that the current design is (mostly) based on the IAU's recent vote.  Second, the DPs in question aren't "famous" -- very few people have heard of 2003 UB313, I'm sure.  They are, however, the only objects at this point that have been labeled DPs.  Others may be added but that is in the future.  At present, these are all of the DPs.  I strongly recommend returning to the earlier format.RandomCritic 01:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ive removed the insertions :) Nbound 01:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * They are all of the officially recognized DPs; however, the entire reason for coining the term DP was the existence of numerous similar worlds out in the Kuiper Belt. (Note: I do not agree with the vote against making a qualifier to the word "planet" because, linguistically, it's a bad idea. "Dwarf", in my understanding, does not mean vice or semi-, it means small. Therefore, a "dwarf planet" is a small planet. And here comes the IAU, saying that small planets aren't planets! What are those scientists smoking? &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 21:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Moreover, the footer (or the article) does not have to follow the IAU definition or the IAU classification. It is not necessary to adhere to how experts define things in order to present knowledge. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 21:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * They arent bad insertions, but "classical" was specifically voted against by the IAU, anyone who has been following the news knows this, the 8 planets listed are defined as "planets" not big planets, large planets, classical planets, etc. The insertion of "Famous" to the dwarf planets was kinda pointless because as u state they are the only currently recognized dwarf planets. It seems you have qualms with the IAU's new definitions (or im reading ur posts wrong), but in a public encyclopedia, information presented should be whats recognized by the major bodies in the field, in this case the IAU. on the articles involving the redefinition, it goes into detail about any disagreements, but that is where they should stay, at most id agree with a link to the planet redefinition article, but unless youve been living under a rock, the public is aware of the IAU decision Nbound 22:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Until this issue has been addressed please do not change the footer from its original form Nbound 22:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No include
Category:Science navigational boxes

eu:Txantiloi:Eguzki sistema aurkibidea mk:Шаблон:Сончев систем nn:Mal:Solsystem


 * Done.--HereToHelp 02:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Header color
No offense, but that green with yellow look s really bad. Any ideas on changing it? Either the old sun yellow, or maybe a bluish-purplish-black to match space itself?--HereToHelp 02:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

What Green? :S Nbound 02:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Weird: in Firefox it looks fine but in Safari it's green with a yellow border.--HereToHelp 14:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Crazy, perhaps it goes that colour in Safari as a visited link? Nbound 20:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The green thing was because the background colour for Template:Tnavbar-header wasn't given it should... the last bit needs to be "bgcolor=#ffff11" (note six-digit hexadecimal) rather than "background:#FF1". This is the second time I've fixed this error. Tompw 17:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've also corrected all the various proposed revisions, to make sure the error doesn't get copied across again. 17:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Header image (Jupiter's rings)
I noticed that in the image, the rings of Jupiter are highly inclined like those of Saturn. This is inaccurate as Jupiter's axial eccentricity is quite low. I think the rings should be shown more horizontal in the image (Image:Eight Planets.png ). Most iconic images of Jupiter (that show its rings), show them nearly horizontal. --Britcom 08:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The header images are purely symobolic... -- Nbound 10:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, Uranus doesn't have any rings on the header. Just food for thought. --myselfalso 12:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Neither does yours. ;) --Britcom 16:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed Jupiter was fixed, it looks great! --Britcom 20:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)