Talk:Solar System/Archive 10

Because of one citation from 1986, the Solar System is sometimes called the Sol System? And where are all the citations saying that scifi concepts like Sol III are acceptable usage for planets? Or for that matter that the terms we use for exoplanets are valid usage for our system? Serendi^podous 16:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree. That seems pretty obtuse and is not in common usage. Praemonitus (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I dont understand the buzz, the idea of the chapter was to clarify that the proper use is "Solar System", and that is the case afterall since the IAU uses "Solar System".

I was merely giving the reader an overview which other terms they might come across and gave some examples. Yes, I realize that I couldnt provide any paper which discusses the history of nameing the Solar System (in science and fiction), but that was not what I attempted. Therefore I realize that my examples of incorrect uses, which were to invite discussion on how to write about it or provide better sources, might be taken out, but I dont understand why the whole chapter is scraped.

So I would argue to still have a typical etymology chapter, because I realy dont see a problem in that and maybe it allows us to give the reader an idea of what the correct term is, while stating that there is no name as such for the Solar System, and which terms are not.

Here the original text:

Name

"Solar System" is the name of the Sun and the astronomical objects gravitationally bound to it, and is not a general term for other such systems of other stars.

The name of the Solar System is derived from the Sun's Latin name Sol,^[1] and is because of that sometimes also called Sol System.^[2] Accordingly the Solar System's planets can be refered to by being numbered in combination with "Sol" using small letters (e.g. Sol c for Earth), as used for exoplanets, or Roman numerals (e.g. Sol I for Mercury). In fiction the Solar System is also sometimes called Terran System, refering to the Latin name for Earth Terra, though this use is ambiguouse since it is particularly used for the Earth-Moon satellite system.^[3]

The Solar System as a system of a star and its gravitationally bound objects does not have a standardized concept, being sometimes called a star system,^[1] stellar system or planetary system,^[4] though the first two terms refer particularly to systems of multiple stars and the latter to systems of planets. Therefore the Solar System has a planetary system, but comprises more than that, including the Sun and all other astronomical objects bound to the Sun.

Nsae Comp (talk) 09:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

perhaps the more incidental material could go on planetary system instead? I also think "Sol System" is very undue. Remsense留 09:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

it allows us to give the reader an idea of what the correct term is, Wikipedia is not a usage guide, and we are neither lexicologist or lexicographers. Oddly, no dictionarys are cited making this look cherry picked to support a point. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not trying to force any point or citation. I saw my proposed text and sources as a mere invitation to have a chapter that explains why Solar System means what it means. Not in a lexicological way, but to illustrate the difference to for example star system.

As I said I dont understand why it is such a buzz to have a short etymology/name chapter, its not like something uncommon to have, and I didnt claim that the content that I introduced needs to stay. Again, I just tried to give a chapter, which in more detail clarifies what Solar System means and get rid of any misconceptions of its scope. Nsae Comp (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the primary criticism is that it's WP:UNDUE, and its presence implies that the rare terminology is more widely used than it is. Remsense留 01:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I get that. So how about scraping that "undue" stuff then and have what was to be clarified in that chapter in my opinion:

Concept

"Solar System" is the name of the gravitationally bound system of the Sun and the objects that orbit it.^[5] As such it is not a general term for any gravitational system of other stars and objects bound to it. Sometimes called a star system,^[1] stellar system or planetary system,^[4] the first two terms refer particularly to systems of multiple stars and the latter to planets and the system they form. Therefore the Solar System has a planetary system, but comprises more than that, including the Sun and all other astronomical objects bound to the Sun.

The word solar means "pertaining to the Sun", which is derived from the Latin word sol, meaning Sun.^[6][1]

Nsae Comp (talk) 09:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I would omit the etymology at the end (as someone who loves etymology), but other than that it seems fine to me. Remsense留 09:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

As such it is not a general term for any gravitational system of other stars and objects bound to it. We can not claim there is a specific nomenclature and reference it to an anonymous source (uncited/unsigned National Geographic article), especially when its contradicted per WP:YESPOV. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, well then lets leave that sentence out, its stating the inherent anyway, since it is a name and not a category, but fine with me if we have to leave that conclusion out of the IAU definiton to the reader. Nsae Comp (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence simply repeats the lead definition. The third sentence is WP:SYNTH/Lexicology, combining multiple observations of word usage instead of citing a source that makes that overall statement. Forth sentence is a conclusion based on the first three sentences. Once we clean that up there isn't much left. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Since I can not find any source that expicitly discusses/name the cetogory that the Solar System is, I have to step back and leave it as so often to people out there to spell it out first. See you around everyone, and thanks for the input. Nsae Comp (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Note: there is a term for other such systems but it is circular in the case of the Solar System since it uses Solar System and calls them "Exosolar System", but also there I could only find the term being used but not defined. Nsae Comp (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• The slang term "Sol" should not be used at all on the page. The correct wording is 'Solar System' per the title and common usage. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, where is the citation saying that the Sun, which outmasses 95 percent of the stars in the galaxy, is a "low mass star"? Serendi^podous 17:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that a low-mass star undergoes a core helium flash while on the red-giant branch. Intermediate mass stars can start burning helium directly without undergoing a flash stage. E.g. The most common type is the very low-mass star; i.e. fully convective red dwarfs. Praemonitus (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

That article ignores all stars with a mass lower than 0.8 solar; a somewhat selective definition of "low mass". Within that sample, yes the Sun is low-mass, but not all stars have died in the age of the universe. Serendi^podous 21:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I was merely clarifying why some astronomers categorize the Sun and similar stars as "low mass". It has nothing to do with the initial mass function. This topic is covered in the star article, so perhaps you can find a suitable citation there. Praemonitus (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Apparently the distinction is between "low mass stars" and "very low mass stars". I still think this is confusing to the layman. Would a note be apropos? Serendi^podous 20:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, a clarifying note would make sense. Praemonitus (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Before such a change is made, I'll comment that in physics, "low" and "high" are always very context-dependent qualifiers. E.g., "high temperature" can mean liquid-nitrogen temperatures (in context of superconductors), and "low mass" can mean more than solar mass when referring to black holes. So a phrase "low mass star" is not itself meaningful outside of the context of which stars are being referred to. The sun is "low mass" when referring to the median mass (stars can range from 0.07 to over 100 solar masses), but "high mass" when referring to the average of all stars. There is no absolute meaning to "low mass" or "very low mass" qualifiers without specifying which population of stars and what form of comparison. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The article says The furthest known objects, such as Comet West, have aphelia around 70,000 AU from the Sun. with reference to BBC. I can't find this number, and the article for Comet West says The comet has been more than 50 AU (7.5 billion km) from the Sun since 2003. and gives its aphelion in the infobox as 1,500 au (unsourced). Any thoughts? Artem.G (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

It was possibly based on outdated information. There are some other candidates on list of Solar System objects by greatest aphelion. Praemonitus (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Système solaire has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 9 § Système solaire until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I’ve been reverted in my edit (rather harshly labeled in the revert summary as “awkward,” which I dispute) by an editor, and I’d like some other views, thanks. I believe it is helpful to briefly mention Pluto’s former status in the lede, since most people only read the lede and Pluto has only been demoted for the last couple decades after over 70 years of official planethood. Jusdafax (talk) 05:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

No. Lots of things we once believed are no longer recognised as true. This is just one of them. No need. HiLo48 (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

This, and the additional controversy surrounding the 2006 reclassification, are already discussed on Pluto's main article and the article on dwarf planets, both of which are relatively high-traffic articles. The Solar System article itself already mentions this as well (see Notes), though it is relatively obscure and inserting the information into a section could be helpful; however, leads alone aren't meant to be exhaustive. ArkHyena (talk) 08:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

There are plenty of planets no longer considered planets, including the Sun, the Moon, and four asteroids. Should we mention them too? Serendi^podous 09:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, Pluto is a planet in the traditional sense, as are all the other dwarf planets. However, the lead doesn't discuss the discovery history, so there's no need to single out Pluto for that reason. I prefer the current wording which has the planets segregated by class. It aligns with the current IAU definition, as do, for example, the modern constellation boundaries. Praemonitus (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

it links to a card game, i assume it is not talking about a danish card game. TheT.N.T.BOOM! (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks for pointing this out. Pointed it to Chaos theory, which was probably the intended destination. Remsense诉 17:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

This article has been lacking critical info about the Solar System. That is an image which presents both the sizes and distances to scale. Nearly everyone has a gross misunderstanding, because all of the images which taught this were grossly misrepresenting one or the other.

THIS edit today added the image shown here which was intended to rectify this situation, but was repeatedly deleted by Remsense (talk). The essence of the criticism is this:

- An American football field is unrelatable to most of the world ("not everyone has the cultural anchor of a football field"),

- This image has an unprofessional look ("it seems unencyclopedic compared to the rest of the article"),

- This image is not as novel as I seem to believe (I am "overselling the novelty").

I will address the third criticism first:

3) I do not care about this particular image. What I care about is the info it presents. Absolutely nothing in this article conveys visually to scale how vast the distances are between objects likewise shown to scale. Not novel? Again, I do not care. Find one you like, and then show that image here. The point was, and remains, that nowhere does this article show this. It has been one full DECADE since this image was published to Wikipedia, yet this article persists without showing anything to the public. Not in any single image at all.

1) The entire world is familiar with soccer. And the vast majority of people all around the world have some understanding that this peculiar sport of American football (which shares its evolution with Association Football) is a field /pitch of roughly the same size. The goal line to goal line distance of an American football field to a soccer pitch is quite comparable. And this plain fact is literally spelled out right here on Wikipedia, in exact terms: List_of_unusual_units_of_measurement#Football_field_(length)

There it explains that the FIFA World Cup recommended goalline-to-goalline distance is 105m (115yds). The NFL American football field distance shown in this image is 100yds (91.44m). It is a difference that is within 15%. Look closely at the image, and you can see that the game being played is soccer. None of the players seem to be bothered by the hash marks. And the obvious advantage of the hash marks is that it helps to give an extremely precise correlation to planet distances. This does not happen on soccer fields around the rest of the world (as far as I'm aware).

2) As for the image seeming to be "unencyclopedic", I would argue that it is a tragic disservice to the typical reader to withhold vital info because certain editors wish to value style over substance.

And the entire concept of Wikipedia is along the lines of 'Stone Soup'. Ok, maybe you find this particular image to be not to your taste at this point in time, but what it DOES DO is serve as a call to editors around the entire planet to come up with a BETTER image.

This is how Wikipedia has become the best source of info for everyone in the world. Not by chopping down efforts toward progress, but by building on top of it. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Dude, uncool. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Also also...

- "visuals should ideally be legible at thumbnail size, which this certainly is not".

4) This fourth criticism is regarding legibility. The way most thumbnail images work on Wikipedia is that the small image conveys the essence of the info being presented. And readers who wish to gather more detailed info have the option to click on the image to get the full-sized presentation. It seems clear to me that the essential info IS conveyed with the thumb. Just a cursory reading of the image description makes it clear that the Sun-Neptune distance has been scaled down to the length of this field. This seems perfectly clear, once that basic premise has been understood. The exact details are unimportant to most. But the fundamental concept is not presented anywhere else in this article, except in words.

My persistence here has been based on the notion that a picture is worth a thousand words. This is why Wikipedia included the capability to present images from its very inception. Of course the thumbnail does not present all of the image's info in full. That is actually the very purpose of thumbnails. To give the essence. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a featured article. If you accept that this image is not encyclopedic, then it shouldn't be on a featured article, because this is meant to be example of Wikipedia's best work. A discussion of the merits of an illustration of this kind is fine, but I'm still skeptical of the depth of the revelation it provides as you describe. Remsense诉 18:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

To sacrifice vital info for the purpose of maintaining 'featured article' status is exactly the criticism which was conveyed by upholding style over substance.

But more importantly, the argument can be made that including this edit makes it an even better featured article. That is my personal view. Nowhere did I express my personal view that this image is not encyclopedic. What I did was acknowledge that it is your view, and might be shared by certain other editors. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Also also also...
I am just now noticing that these words look to have long been in stable form here at the end of this Distances and scales section:

If the Sun–Neptune distance is scaled to 100 metres (330 ft), then the Sun would be about 3 cm (1.2 in) in diameter (roughly two-thirds the diameter of a golf ball), the giant planets would be all smaller than about 3 mm (0.12 in), and Earth's diameter along with that of the other terrestrial planets would be smaller than a flea (0.3 mm or 0.012 in) at this scale.

Here is the NASA school education page which was offered in reference: NASA for educators

So one option would be to add this old NASA image which goes a long way toward explaining the text. But then again, that cartoon does not show any of the sizes to scale. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

All your points hinge on the novelty and importance of the content in question—as do all content discussions—and I apologize, we have to agree to disagree here. I think it's a neat idea that could possibly be a net positive to the article in some form, but not in this form for the reasons I've stated. I think the NASA image gets us part of the way there, but I'm curious what other contributors think, since I've added comparably very little to this article. Remsense诉 18:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

A "realistic" image of sizes and distances would be meaningless. We would have the sun and then some tiny and indistinguishable points at very long distances. And unless the image is incredibly big, the rocky planets would be so small that should very well be invisible to the naked eye. The Solar system is a case where the image (any image, in Wikipedia or elsewhere) is unrealistic by necessity, and the truth must be explained in text because an image would not work. Cambalachero (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Jeez, Tdadamemd19, did you think that by waiting long enough you could restart your war? [For the record, he tried this back in 2014]. This article has already been modified as far as it can be in response to his complaints. Serendi^podous 20:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

God almighty. I mean—I guess yes, that could work, since he last tried this a month after I first made my account, and years before I became a contributor. The theory of patience is sound. Remsense诉 20:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Also for the record, in a truly accurate size and distance map of the Solar System in which the Sun's diameter is 2 inches, Mercury would be seven feet away and less than 0.2 mm wide. Serendi^podous 20:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• I thought that "Americans measuring everything in football fields" is a meme, but here we are... Artem.G (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• Sorry but I don't find that image to be particularly useful as an example of Solar System scale, especially when it requires an exceedingly long caption to explain what it means. Plus it looks amateurish. There are better examples out there. Praemonitus (talk) 05:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd reckon that at least one people see this talk page every day. If that person is you, please tell me:

• What do you like about this article?
• What do you don't like about this article?
• What is something that you wish this article would talk more about?

I want to get some ideas for improvement, because the Mars article as it is right now is great, but not amazing. I want to turn this into an amazing article. Readers, anonymous editors and registered editors, feel free to make a comment.

P.S. you might notice that I made the same thread at Talk:Mars. That's because I don't want to improve an article, I want to improve 2 articles. :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, both this article and the one for Mars are featured articles. Of course that there may still be room for improvement if we find out ways to improve them even further, but "great but not amazing" is not exactly specific. Cambalachero (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Both Mars and the Solar System have passed FAC in 2007, which I was 1 year old at the time and when Wikipedia's FAC standard was still relatively low. If both of these articles must go through FAC again, then it would certainly don't pass. But I feel that there's another problem at play here which is that these articles are simply not interesting enough. I want to have an article that...

• a teacher could copy the lead and give it to student to read in an assignment,
• a person could skim this article for facts to argue on the internet,
• a reader who's interested in astronomy could read as a comprehensive introduction to the topic, and
• an astronomer could read these articles as a refresher.

You know what I mean. I feel that Wikipedia right now is neglecting its readers and I want to reverse that trend. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The page is a feature article and has been edited by scientists, astronomers, and other professionals in their fields. Can you point to an instance in the lead in which an edit would improve the page per the bullet points above, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that the biggest improvement to move towards this direction is to reorganize the content and make it easier to navigate. I can attest to that via my prior revisions to the article. Before, the article's planets and dwarf planets sections are a bit hard to digest. I removed the sub-subsections, turn them into bullet points and move individual images into small galleries at the top of the section. Virtually none of the content has been removed, except for unit conversions. Now, I think that the article is easier to skim compared to before. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Just looked at the page history and see you've done one of your multi-edit runs over the last few days (lot of edits to a featured and well-edited article). I hope page watchers take note and check your edits. Maybe better, maybe worse, but lots of edits on a well-known page, hopefully you know what you are doing. I'm not going to check for awhile but might end up reverting some again, hopefully not too many bad edits to dig out and spend time fixing but maybe a long-time page editor will come by to check. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I did a comparison and most of it seemed okay. I don't think there is a need to expand 'AU' and 'ly' in the infobox; the box should be kept succinct without additional word padding. Expanded definitions are best left to the article body. Praemonitus (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Actually, per the MoS: "Where space is limited (such as tables, infoboxes, parenthetical notes, and mathematical formulas) unit symbols are preferred." Hence they should be reverted. Praemonitus (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Praemonitus, that's encouraging news. Can you please keep further track of the edits as CactiStaccingCrane is continuing the days-long edit run and I don't have the before-and-after mental pattern of the changes. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't need someone to babysit, thank you. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Don't take it personally, but you can expect featured articles to be watched closely. They have already passed a difficult edit review process to get where they are, and nobody wants to have to repeat that process unless they have to. Praemonitus (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that the asteroid belt and kuiper belt section needs some work. I think that the dwarf planets descriptions should be shortened significantly and content summarizing different minor planet populations should be further developed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The article is written Wikipedia:Summary style. There will obviously be differences in content preferences between different editors, but one decent paragraph for each of the dwarf planets seems about right. Praemonitus (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Praemonitus, why do you think that galleries disrupt the flow of text? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

They create a block of space that directly interrupts the text. Where possible, the reader should be given the option of when to view the images. Praemonitus (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Make sense. Let me adjust picture placement accordingly. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that a lot of readers care about stuff in the general characteristics section and would much prefer read about the things that is inside the Solar System. Should I put that section below "Boundary area and uncertainties" section? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Starting with a high level overview makes more sense to me. Praemonitus (talk) 04:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmm... what do you think this article needs work on? I have a feeling that I have to rewrite descriptions about the dwarf planets and expand Solar_System#Centaurs,_trojans_and_resonant_bodies and Solar_System#Asteroids a little bit. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

What is the justification of the new lead image? Small text is practically useless, and previous image (without the text, but with a caption) in the infobox was imho a better choice. Artem.G (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I'm using an average sized laptop, AND using my reading glasses. I cannot read the smaller text. On any smaller screen that image would be quite useless. HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I would disagree. The text helps match the name of the planets with the planet pictures. I find it pretty helpful to show that to the students. 113.160.44.130 (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations on completely ignoring the concerns expressed in the previous two comments. I suspect that when you show it to students, you display it on a somewhat larger screen than my phone. HiLo48 (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

hey, CactiStaccingCrane, Praemonitus, Randy Kryn, any thoughts on this? Artem.G (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. The present image presents more information than the previous image (seen here). Even without reading the smaller print it presents large-enough useful printed data, and the smaller print is available by one or two clicks on the image. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

From my perspective, it's too cluttered with information for such a small image. I don't find it attractive, artistically. Less is more. Praemonitus (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

well, there was no discussion for the infobox image change, and though some editors like it, some (myself included) prefer the cleaner version without any (poorly readable) text. I'm replacing the image with the previous one, please discuss this change here if you strongly disagree and prefer image with text. Artem.G (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

That works for me. Praemonitus (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Over the last month, this article has been completely rewritten from the ground up, without discussion or peer review. I think we need to take stock of what has happened. Perhaps bring in a disinterested party. Serendi^podous 12:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree that it has been completely rewritten, but there have been a significant number of changes. I've been making another pass through and trying to tweak the results. It mostly seems to be in decent shape, FA-wise. The one glaring omission I see is there is no mention of planetary migration in the "Formation and evolution" section, but the migration of Neptune is mentioned twice. Praemonitus (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I've attempted to address the last. Praemonitus (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I just made some major changes to the article. The most notable of which are:

• Convert small headers listing individual bodies into bullet points, conserving the links using {{visible anchor}}
• Merge oddball sections "Comparison with extrasolar systems" and "Location", create a new section for a general overview (which is basically a repackaged version of "Comparison with extrasolar systems" with some irrelevant information transferred to other parts of the article). Move "General characteristics" down for readability.
• Remove AU to kilometers and miles conversion, strictly only use AU. Also replaced "approximately X AU from the Sun" with clear aphelion and perihelion data.

There are a few parts of this article that I still feel lacking, such as the description of individual bodies or some subsections in "General characteristics". What do you think about the article as it is? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the comparison with extrasolar systems section. It made no sense to take a perfectly good descriptive title and rename it withe the meaningless "overview".

I've also restored the location section. Celestial neighbourhood does not belong in a section called general characteristics of the solar system. Fdfexoex (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Made sense, but I always feel like it is an odd-ball thing... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I merged the "extrasolar systems" section to the general characteristics of the solar system. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

My dear, @Fdfexoex, what exactly would it be "overview" for you? Just a asking. 45.233.183.235 (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Also I just fixed picture placement. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2024 and 2 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jgleana (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jgleana (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jgleana Hey! Do you want some help? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed you commented this 1 month ago, what'sup? 45.233.183.235 (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The infobox for this article has an atrociously poor level of citation, and is utterly inadequate for an FA-class article. I think it should be draftified until the citation issue is resolved. Praemonitus (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Praemonitus Cited most of them except for the galactic inclination info. I have no idea where it came from. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Same for the Hill sphere. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I just made a to-do box on top, feel free to add anything more into it – CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that a few uncited numbers in such article justify draftification. Artem.G (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Could you tell me where the problem is? I ain't any FA-class specialist, but I can't found the mistake here, maybe I could be wrong, but it is not clearly wrong. 45.233.183.235 (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Overall, many things need to be clarified here, so that in the future this article will become so unreliable, that it's gonna be almost impossible to redeem this later, It is always good to avoid this kind of referential stagnation—referential, in this sense, of reference sources. 45.233.183.235 (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Asteroids within the asteroid belt are not covered. Serendi^podous 22:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

There's some discussion at the end of the section. Praemonitus (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Never mind. I'll do it. Serendi^podous 16:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

In some spots, distances in AU are presented without conversion, while others convert it to miles and km. It's inconsistent. The size of an AU is well defined at the start of the "Distances and scales" section. Do you think we can use AU thereafter without the intermittent conversions? An example is the Asteroid belt section, where the inner and outer radius from the Sun is converted, then AU is used for orbital distances without conversion. The benefit of the AU in this context is that it provides a convenient scale. There shouldn't be a need to keep converting it; that just adds clutter. Praemonitus (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

agree, AUs should be enough. there is no way anyone can imagine what (15 billion km; 9.3 billion mi) is, 100 AU does the same job and is more concise. Artem.G (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Support removing conversions. The distances in kilometers are simply too large, astronomical units are more appropriate to such large scales. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

As a note, a lot of other prominent astronomy articles employ this too (e.g. Pluto); should we remove conversions there as well? ArkHyena (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Well the pluto article just jumps in and starts using AU without defining it, so I'm not sure. Perhaps that's a more general discussion for WP:AST? If there's a consensus, it could go in the astronomy style guide. Praemonitus (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm unclear why this section is needed. It discusses spaceflight maneuvering, rather than the properties of the Solar System. The previous section already mentions the history of exploration via spacecraft. This discussion can be better handled via a link in the "See also" section. Praemonitus (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I support removing most of the content; some of the info relevant to major missions could also be merged w/ the above subsection. ArkHyena (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

A factual issue: this article states the Solar System creates a bow shock within the surrounding ISM, whereas the Heliosphere#Bow_shock article-section states this has been determined to be not the case. The Heliosphere page's applicable reference is more recent than that of this article. 98.1.3.105 (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. However, I don't think a bow shock has been completely ruled out. Praemonitus (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia! I find that the first section right now only focus on individual objects and didn't talk about the Solar System as a whole. I don't know if this first section is suitable for Wikipedia, so please give me feedback if you are a wikipedia veteran.

The Solar System^[a] is the gravitationally bound system of the Sun and the objects that orbit it, like planets, dwarf planets, asteroids, moons and comets.^[1] It is home to many astronomical objects that can be seen in the night sky.

At the center of the Solar System is the Sun. The Sun is a main-sequence star that fuse hydrogen into helium at its core, releasing this energy from its outer photosphere. The Solar System can be divided into three regions. The inner Solar System is the closest to the Sun, containing four terrestrial planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars) and the asteroids, which includes the asteroid belt between Mars's and Jupiter's orbit. The outer Solar System contains two gas giants (Jupiter and Saturn), two ice giants (Uranus and Neptune), and the Kuiper belt just outside of Neptune's orbit. The trans-Neptunian region is still largely unexplored, theorized to contain dwarf planets and many more smaller icy bodies. Going further away, the gravitational influence and solar wind effect from the Sun gradually fade, eventually becoming indistinguishable from interstellar space. However, many objects by their nature do not strictly belong into one region, such as comets.

In the 16th century, Copernican heliocentrism proposed that the Sun is motionless and revolved around by celestial objects. Over centuries of astronomy and decades of spaceflight, this model evolved into a modern understanding of the Solar System. It is now known that the Solar System is one of many planetary systems with their own gravitational spheres of influence and motion around the Milky Way galaxy. Empirical evidence suggests that the Solar System formed about 4.6 billion years ago, when a region of a molecular cloud collapsed into the early Sun and a protoplanetary disk. As subfields of astronomy, planetary science and space weather heavily depend on the study of the Solar System Logusmonkey (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section is intended as a summary of the article as a whole, so yes there is a heavy focus on the individual components. The "Discovery and exploration" section only forms a small part of that. But yes, a brief mention would be appropriate. Praemonitus (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

For some reason, even though my account is autoconfirmed, I cannot initiate an edit. I was reading this sentence: "To save on fuel, some space missions make use of gravity assist maneuvers, such as the two Voyager probes accelerating when flyby planets in the outer Solar System and the Parker Solar Probe decelerating closer towards the Sun after flyby with Venus." The phrase "accelerating when flyby planets" does not sound correct. Perhaps "when flying by planets" would work better? Dogman15 (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Apparently, "flybying" is a word with precidence in journals, but the writer in me refuses to accept it. Serendi^podous 14:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

How about "...accelerating during their flyby of planets..." and "...after a flyby of Venus..."? Praemonitus (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

That sounds good. Dogman15 (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The MOS talk page is not checked very often. It's possible that Earth, the Moon, and the Sun could continue to be capitalized and we could change it so that the solar system is not. The points or lack of them illustrate why that should occur. Aromatize (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Wonder of wonders, there's even more prior explanation freely available in these archives too:

• Talk:Solar System/Archive 9 § Requested move 23 May 2018

Tempting to at least try putting in some effort when asking others to do the same, isn't it? Remsense ‥ 论 23:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Is this talk page a bit more active?Aromatize (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

It was certainly active in 2018. Remsense ‥ 论 23:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Please go away, do I need to report you as a stalker? Aromatize (talk) 00:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Please stop endeavoring to waste others' time as much as you possibly can because you refuse to understand at all why things are as they are. "I don't like being told" isn't a magic spell to circumvent engaging with what you're doing wrong. Remsense ‥ 论 00:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I opened a discussion on the MOS page. If this talk page and article and the commensurate ones are not even viewed very often it could be some time before there are additional comments. Aromatize (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Last time I'll reply to you since I've made my point thoroughly: this talk page has roughly 2,000 editors watching it and 600 editor views a month. If you don't get replies, it's for the reason I told you multiple times, i.e. no one wants to spoonfeed the same points to someone who feels entitled to that, while somehow oblivious to any possibility of being wrong. Who in their right mind would see your replies and think you'll accept a counterargument if they spell it out for you? Remsense ‥ 论 01:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Since I'm not in my right mind, I'll take a crack at it. Hello Aromatize, and I admire your persistness and notice you need a bit of work on WP:CIVILITY. But, that said, Wikipedia's astronomical objects guideline covers Solar System because it is an astronomical object. That has been further proven since even the last requested move discussions took place. A Wikipedia article, List of artificial objects leaving the Solar System, covers five amazing space missions, each of which has mapped or is mapping the shape of the Solar System. Its boundries. It's a definable astronomical object, as are the planetary systems of other stars. Wikipedia recognizes the Solar System as a unique name which pertains to the Sun and its reach before entering interstellar space. Maybe this will do? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Here's enough for me. time.com/author/michael-d-lemonick

He uses solar system, not Solar System. The New York Times has Solar System. I would say it's being debated. Aromatize (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm unsure what you want us to do here. As others pointed out, whether or not to capitalize "Solar System" has been discussed quite thoroughly and consensus for around two decades has been to capitalize. As you bring up here, in wider usage both "solar system" and "Solar System" are commonly used, meaning that either case would be acceptable here on Wikipedia. As consensus is evidently on the latter though, there is little reason to change it to the former. ArkHyena (they/any) 03:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I think it could be something that is in progress. Even if it isn't right now it may be in the near future. Leaving it how it is seems alright. You can understand it was confusing. There are other items to do on Wikipedia which aren't as much in flux. Maybe you and I will be doing some of those. Aromatize (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The image at the start of the section labeled "Edge of the heliosphere" is actually a picture of the earth's magnetic field Not a kitsune (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Good point. Subbed. Serendi^podous 18:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Please see discussion at Talk:Planetary system#Generic use of 'solar_system' DiscreetParrot (talk) 03:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

DiscreetParrot, this would require a change at MOS:ASTRONOMICALBODIES and not at an article talk page. It has been discussed numerous times. On Wikipedia there is only one Solar System, the recognized and definable astronomical body. It is always rendered as a proper name, uppercased (Solar System is the correct redirect for solar system). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

On Wikipedia there is only one Solar System So actually, no. That would be a violation of WP:NOTDICTIONARY --> Wikipedia is not a usage guide. The only rfc's on this established capitalization and the discouragement of the phrase "our Solar System". There is no other implied or forcible usage. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello Fountains of Bryn Mawr. My point is that Solar System is uppercased on Wikipedia per being a proper name, a definable astronomical object. Lowercase 'solar system' redirects here, as sun and moon redirect to their uppercased proper names. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The MOS stuff only discusses capitalisation, I don't see any need for anything there to change. The capitalisation aspect has indeed been discussed many times, and I agree that capitalising where used as a proper noun is sensible, as current required by MOS. The changes I've argued for in the other linked talk page however have not been discussed all that much, if specifically at all, having skimmed through many archives to look for such discussion.

There may be some misunderstanding here however. I'm not arguing for a change in capitalisation. I agree that 'Solar System', capitalised, can and should be restricted to proper noun references to our Solar System only, as currently used. That was never in question. However, as discussed on the previous page, 'the Solar System' very specifically refers to our system, while 'solar system' can more broadly refer to others, thus per point 2 of Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(definite_or_indefinite_article_at_beginning_of_name), and since it feels very strange for an article about our Solar system to have a link and title without the definite article 'the', I'm arguing that we should include the 'the' here in the title and link, and allow (lower case) 'solar system' to redirect to planetary system. I appreciate that the article link and title here are fully capitalised, indicating proper noun interpretation, however while that helps within general text, that really isn't conveyed very well when it comes to links and titles. Consider Moon for instance, which similarly discusses our Moon specifically, it's just weird for it to just say 'Moon' in the link and title rather than 'The Moon'. (Moon should be moved to The Moon, and then either Moon should be a redirect to it and moon a redirect to Natural satellite, or Natural satellite should then be moved to Moon if wanting to prefer the more common term). DiscreetParrot (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

(mostly copied from a response at Planetary system, there seems to be two "main" discussions) The Moon too? Note that major dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc., at least in a quick online search (I'm not going to link things right now, this topic has been tediously discussed at Wikipedia) define Solar System as Wikipedia does. Unlike Wikipedia, which accepts it as a proper name per MOS:ASTRONOMICALBODIES, many lowercase it, but they seem to all define "solar system" as pertaining to the Sun and its orbiting companions. As do Britannica and other encyclopedias. Recall that "our" is not an option, per MOS:OUR. Anyway, it's great that you have put your attention on this as you have done some very good edits at the Solar System page, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Just to note something here: MOS:OUR is a Manual of Style point based on WP:NPOV so it does not preclude the use of "our". There is just a RfC that brought us to not using "our" in this instance. When referring to the Solar System "our Solar System" always passes Wikipedia's standard for neutrality, we all live here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello Fountains of Bryn Mawr. MOS:OUR earns its salt with things like Solar System, because by saying 'our' we are implying that other 'Solar Systems' (uppercased) exist. There is only one with that proper name, and 'the' instead of 'our' (per MOS:OUR) gives an exact encyclopedic descriptor. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

We don't rely on readers understanding the minutia of Wikipedia capitalization schemes. its not universal and it just leads to confusion. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Uppercased words are understood to be proper names, not Wikipedia-centric minutia. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The same words, capped and not capped, would go right past the average reader, and that is who we write for. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

• Apparently the term 'solar system' appeared around 1704, which is the same time as when Isaac Newton demonstrated that comets followed the law of gravitation. Perhaps the two events are related? I couldn't find an originating source. Praemonitus (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi there! I keep being confused by the description of Solar System here on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Is it now only the planetary system or also including the star/Sun?

It has been pointed out that there is no general term for a planetary systems and their stars, and it is not our place to establish one.

But it seems to me that our WP article isnt clear on if it is including the Sun. Afterall the first sentence says it is only the planetary system? But as far as I understand it, that isnt correct.

So can someone clarify?

PS: sorry if I missed some obvious reasons. Nsae Comp (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

A planetary system (either the Solar System or another) is composed by a star and all the objects that orbit around it. Planets are the most obvious ones, but everything else hanging around (dwarf planets, satellites, satellites of satellites if applicable, asteroids, planetesimals, dyson spheres and whatnot) is part of it too. Cambalachero (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

No. A planetary system is just the material in orbit around a star. It does not include the star itself. I don't know why this argument is exploding everywhere; it's a basic, established scientific definition and it is rather terrifying that Wikipedia may be about to ditch it for no reason. Serendi^podous 10:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

We have a definition from the IAU Office of Astronomy Education:

• Planetary System - A planetary system is a system where one or more planets orbit one or more stars, brown dwarfs, and/or stellar remnants. Our Solar System is a planetary system with the Sun at its center.
• Solar System - All objects that are under the gravitational influence of the Sun are members of the Solar System. Apart from the Sun at the center, the Solar System includes the eight planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune), their moons, dwarf planets, asteroids, comets, meteoroids, and other objects in the Kuiper Belt and beyond, as well as artificial satellites and space probes.

So our Solar System = planetary system. They both have the same definition. A planetary system is the things that go around.and they are not technically including the Sun or central star. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, affirming that the Solar System is a planetary system which has a proper name. The uppercasing of Solar System by the IAU is one more factoid to present to those who wish to lowercase it. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

The Sun absolutely is part of the Solar System. The Solar System article has a section about the Sun in which the Sun is described as the most massive component of the Solar System. Show me a book about the Solar System which doesn't have a chapter about the Sun. It's ridiculous to suggest the Sun is not part of the Solar System. Fdfexoex (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• I don't see a need to mention 'planetary system' in the first sentence. This wording doesn't appear to be used in the definition of Solar System by other sources, including online dictionaries. It is unnecessarily introducing a new technical term requiring further explanation into what should be a clean, clear explanation. The definition of sol should be moved to the second sentence, per WP:LEADCLUTTER. Praemonitus (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

  Per IAU above our "Solar System" is an example of a planetary system. A lead sentence would normally explain that set/subset as part of the basic definition. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the references to the IAU site.

Now, I do not care which definition is the one we have to go with. But I have a problem with contradictions to these references within our text (e.g.:"The principal component of the Solar System is the Sun, a G-type main-sequence star that contains 99.86% of the system's known mass and dominates it gravitationally.") and even more so that the IAU reference contradicts references like the following from NASA (which contradicts it self if "planetary system" is understood without the Sun; , contradicting source text:"Our solar system includes the Sun, eight planets, five officially named dwarf planets, hundreds of moons, and thousands of asteroids and comets. [...] Our planetary system is called “the solar system”"). The latter is for me an example for why this keeps popping up and why imho so many claim both defintions.

So what I see a big need for is a "definition" chapter (btw which could also include a para about its naming, allowing the naming history statement from the intro to be moved here, but thats now trivial). This chapter would allow to gather the references and especially people who are cought in this contradiction to find clarity, and for us to not have such discussions again.

Now, I haven't yet found a source which discusses these different definitions, which would be a reference to elaborate this issue/chapter with. Most helpful would be a refernce of the IAU where it discusses its decision to define Solar System as all objects around the Sun, excluding the Sun.

Furthermore I think we will need to have the same for planetary system. Because that article does neither have such a chapter and it is often unclear if it includes non-plantary objects (as in the IAU reference VS the ones used in the article planetary system or the mentioned NASA text).

I hope this approach can bring more structure and clarity. Nsae Comp (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I have added the suggested chapters, trying to respectfully reference the different understandings. Nsae Comp (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

PS: the IAU source says "Apart of the Sun in the center, the Solar System includes [...]", which would mean to me, that the IAU afterall include the Sun aswell. PPS: the phrasing "All objects that are under the gravitational influence of the Sun are members of the Solar System." is unlucky, because that would mean to me all objects in the universe, since gravity fields extend without end, as far as I as a lay person understand physics. Nsae Comp (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Nsae Comp, you make so many edits in a row and change the long-term and long agreed to text so quickly, that I can't catch up without a lot of time. I edited your new definition section, can someone take a look at all the edits to see if the language is clearer and more accurate? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

The churn of the Solar System lead has been going on for many years. Every so often somebody comes along to rewrite it, only to see it rewritten again and again. The current rewrite includes redundancies, which will eventually be fixed. As long as it remains correct, retains key facts, and doesn't get unnecessarily bloated, I think it'll be okay. Praemonitus (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)