Template talk:Solar System moons (compact)

And (other) TNOs?
Interesting navigator! I hope we will have an article on TNO binaries (moons) in the future. You could consider adding a link to irregular satellite as it handles an interesting class of beasts. BTW, I’m not partial to the outer sats; small inner moons deserve also and article (and a link here). Eurocommuter 15:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Luna?
My impression was that the use of "Luna" was frowned upon in favor of "(The) Moon" in wiki articles. "Moon" appears in most Solar system templates that I've seen. RandomCritic 04:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Its a template of moons so it saves a little confusion (and is slightly informative in the process) -- Nbound 09:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Test
Just trying to see how this would look with extra satellites added:

RandomCritic 21:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The template
I'm thinking that this template needs an overhaul. While Earth's moon is listed under the "largest" section, it does not appear on the top line with the other planets. This is confusing for the average reader, and we should not presume that everyone who reads the template will already understand that "planetary systems" refers to planets with more than one moon. It's similar to the discussion about the Solar System graphic, and whether or not to include moons for Mars and Eris. I've acknowledged RandomCritic's concerns about duplication in my edit summary, but I have restored the Moon in the interim while we discuss possible changes. I've taken these steps to avoid maintaining the template in a potentially confusing state. Thoughts? --Ckatz chat spy  17:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, how about this?:

Obvious objections: It suggests that Earth's Moon isn't one of the "largest satellites"; it might be confusing to some people as to what "Martian" etc. means in this context.RandomCritic 18:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't have a problem with repeating "The Moon", since the groups reflect different categorisations (one is by location, the other is by size) and they can be labelled differently. For consistency, I feel we should settle on a similar approach for labelling, as it is confusing to have mostly "Martian" (and other planetary terms) mixed in with "Dysnomia" and "The Moon". Here's a rough idea for a slightly different approach:


 * It might need tweaking, but it avoids some of the previous problems and reduces the size of the box as well. Thoughts? --Ckatz chat spy  23:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Autocollapse?
Why not autocollapse? That is the standard for navboxes across WP. For example, Navbox generic is autocollapse by default. It keeps pages much neater. hike395 14:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Who made it "standard"? The point of navigation boxes is to be aids in navigating between pages.  Their use as such is diminished, if not destroyed, by setting them to autocollapse.  The "neatness" element is a non-issue. RandomCritic 16:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetized listed names better?
Seems "alphabetizing" the listed names in the template (see below) may be better: easier to locate names of interest and more useful to most readers - a "logical" listing may be more difficult for most readers to navigate I would think - especially those not familiar with the particulars (ie, sizes, distances, etc) of listed items - after all => Readability of Wikipedia Articles (BEST? => Score of 60/"9th grade/14yo" level) - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I still think size ordering makes sense for the moons, though it should be probably stated clearly. This is because the list is cut off at 100 km radius, a round number enough to put in everything that was probably once in hydrostatic equilibrium. As for distance – the order of planets is, I think, sufficiently well known to not need exposition. Double sharp (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Better? Double sharp (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * - Thank you for your interest and efforts - added alphabetized subgroup listing - and - mean radius of "largest moons" (to verify/sort - but hidden) - maybe even better? - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, Namaka is 85 km in some sources. That figure would force the inclusion of more satellites. So I removed Namaka from both lists: any irregulars apart from the largest have sizes too inaccurate to really order, so the cut-off should probably be at Phoebe (smallest satellite that has been visited by a probe). Double sharp (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you think we could mark out the moons on the list that are not approximately spherical (not large enough to gravitationally round themselves)? These are Proteus, Nereid, Hyperion, and Phoebe. (Dysnomia and Hi'iaka may be in HE, but it is not known because they have not been observed close up; could they be marked out too?) Double sharp (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * - yes - afaik, your suggestion seems *entirely* ok with me atm - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. Italicized moons are not close to being HE; bracketed moons may be close to HE (but we don't know). I added a note to this effect. (We have to say close, because Mimas, Enceladus, Tethys, Dione, and Iapetus were probably once in HE but aren't anymore, although they are still very close to it. Phoebe was also probably once in HE but isn't very round anymore.) Double sharp (talk) 04:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments - and efforts - seems Excellent - Thanks again - and Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

listing SSSB moons
For TNOs, I added named bodies as well as unnamed bodies in the same size range. Lots more smaller ones, of course, but these should have the highest traffic. — kwami (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)