Severity: Notice
Message: Undefined offset: 1
Filename: infosekolah/leftmenudasboard.php
Line Number: 33
Line Number: 34
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)
I find the font "smaller" to be annoyingly small. I've attempted a compromise, which is 90%. --- hike395 14:46, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
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'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)[reply]
Template:Solar System/test hasn't been edited since April 2004. Is it still needed, or can it be deleted. BlankVerse ∅ 12:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Pan | Daphnis | Atlas | Prometheus | S/2004 S 6 | S/2004 S 4 | S/2004 S 3 | Pandora | Epimetheus and Janus | Mimas | Methone | Pallene | Enceladus | Telesto, Tethys, and Calypso | Polydeuces, Dione, and Helene | Rhea | Titan | Hyperion | Iapetus | Kiviuq | Ijiraq | Phoebe | Paaliaq | Skathi | Albiorix | S/2004 S 11 | Erriapo | Siarnaq | S/2004 S 13 | Tarvos | Mundilfari | S/2004 S 17 | Narvi | S/2004 S 15 | S/2004 S 10 | Suttungr | S/2004 S 12 | S/2004 S 18 | S/2004 S 9 | S/2004 S 14 | S/2004 S 7 | Thrymr | S/2004 S 16 | Ymir | S/2004 S 8 see also: Rings of Saturn | Cassini-Huygens | Themis
Next to Earth, the whole Moon thingy, should be removed--IAMTHETalkman 18:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a second idea for a less major expansion of the template.
What do you think? --Kitch 13:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Surely with the discovery of 2003UB313 Pluto should be removed from this template? [1] --Comment as of 06:42, 5 July 2006 by User:EamonnPKeane
Why should Pluto be remved?
Should 2003 UB313 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)[reply]
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.
--Ross UK 22:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
How does this look? Opinions? Other Ideas? Nbound 02:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 & 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 2003 UB313 at number 17. Any opinions on this suggestion? Philip Legge phi1ip@netscape·net 03:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
Alterations added -- Nbound 04:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like it -- Nbound 07:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Until this issue has been addressed please do not change the footer from its original form Nbound 22:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Solar System/Archive 1
eu:Txantiloi:Eguzki sistema aurkibidea mk:Шаблон:Сончев систем nn:Mal:Solsystem
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)[reply]
What Green? :S Nbound 02:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The header images are purely symobolic... -- Nbound 10:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Uranus doesn't have any rings on the header. Just food for thought. --myselfalso 12:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed Jupiter was fixed, it looks great! --Britcom 20:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
