Severity: Notice
Message: Undefined offset: 1
Filename: infosekolah/leftmenudasboard.php
Line Number: 33
Line Number: 34
User:70.225.171.73 changed the footer to the three line proposal. I think this is the way it should stay. Can we agree to not change it any more? --myselfalso 18:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have any idea why the footer is coming up with the first line in small print on the planet page? The Enlightened 03:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how to do it but could someone else space out the planets on the image more evenly? Jupiter and Saturn look very close together compared to the rest. Mercury and Venus look very distant (and they are the closest two planets to each other!) We should have the same distance between the edges of the planets, not the centres. Also, how about including the dwarf planets with small white dots, a similar size to the Moon dot perhaps? The Enlightened 14:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not to scale... it is just to show the order... also the dwarf planets are already technically shown as they inhabit the system's belts. -- Nbound 04:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are there... Asteroid Belt = Ceres, Kuiper Belt = Pluto, Scattered Disk = Eris, all are shown on the image... There was an image put forward for the dwarf planets... but consensus was against it. (I actually created that image). And in hindsight I believe the current option is best anyway -- Nbound 00:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "natural satellites of:" is just clumsy. What was wrong with the adjective forms? I also think the adjectives are better as you don't have two links with the same name for each planet (even if one is listed with "natural satellites" at the beginning of the line). The Enlightened 02:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have broken the image apart to create a more interactive style. I am not too happy with the existing image since it does not feature notable objects such as pluto and etc. --Cat out 11:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm including a copy of the template with interactive image (above), because I think it's an interesting approach and worth discussing. Perhaps a way could be found of integrating the image and the text. RandomCritic 23:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the code for the interactive version here so that we can discuss it properly: --Ckatzchatspy 17:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebody post the link to the template picture that had the Pluto silhouette in it still? I found it before but lost it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Something14 (talk • contribs)
Hope its what your after, someone asked me for it a few days back but i was on holiday -- Nbound 08:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Im bored and on a caffeine high... I created the new image... hope y'all like it -- Nbound 16:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New stuff:
Here is a slighty modified version:
I added the rings of Uranus and Neptune, evened out the spacing, and made the sun's roundness less rough.
I'm adding it for the time being, if you have a problem with it please feel free to remove it.
In response to RandomCritic:
I've made Earth and the Moon slightly larger, and moved Mercury further from the sun and closer to Venus. As it is a very minor modifcation, I'm adding this new version to the template. --BlytheG 23:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These last two versions seemed to have caused slight image degradation... people who are changing them if possible save them at the highest quality... else the picture will slowly degrade... either that or its some slight optical illusion-- Nbound 02:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems its version 4 that has lost quality (and thus someone has gone back to version 3 on the footer)... perhaps enlargening of earth again without the quality loss? -- Nbound 04:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following changes could be made:
Thoughts? -- Nbound 06:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly oppose the idea of removing Mars' moons. Right now, the image clearly suggests that Mars has moons. Conversely, it suggests that Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune don't. The casual reader will look at the image and presume that planets with moons on the image actually have moons, while planets without moons on the image, actually don't have moons. (Remember, our audience isn't just those of us who already know this stuff...) I also think that the outer belts need to be softened, or darkened, or otherwise treated, as it is very difficult to find the dwarf planets in there. --Ckatzchatspy 08:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True... perhaps less visible (yet still easily seeable) would be better...to give the impression: theres moons... but they arent anything to write home about -- Nbound 08:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I am in favor of the current image being used. I support this over the use of the interactive image. --myselfalso 20:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I support the use of the non-interactive image. --BlytheG 20:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The plan is actually to make this interactive... though of course if against consensus... it can be left as now -- Nbound 02:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - although my preference right now is for non-interactive. --Ckatzchatspy 04:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The new image is outstanding, and the detail within each planet makes the case for interactivity a lot stronger as each planet is so identifiable. I think there's still a lot of tweaks to be done (as should be expected with a new image) but we should all give a round of applause to Nbound for his hard work. PS. The new belts look great too! The Enlightened 05:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It looks great, however I would rather this image not be turned into a block of images when it's a lot easier just to use text links. Ryūlóng 06:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support with one caveat: Pluto's color should be slightly exaggerated so that it can be seen to be pink (and provide a slight contrast with the orbit lines). I would support spacing the planets out further to match the text links. Alba 15:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the existance of a vote and refuse to make a valid vote. :P This is a poll and not a discussion. I have relabeled it accordingly. --Cat out 13:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe a colorful image would make more sense than a Blue & White one. I however feel the planets should have a greater amount of distance between them so that the images can be properly labeled. Oh and btw Nbound earns a round of applouse. :) --Cat out 13:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it time to start archiving this talk page? It's getting really long. Alba 17:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I felt a little unfair with all my demands on the previous image. So I went ahead and made one myself:
The terrestrial planets are to scale with each other, the dwarf planets are roughly to scale, and the gas giants and the Sun are roughly to scale. I've included all the moons for terrestrial planets and dwarf planets, and the major ones for the gas giants. I've made the spacing uniform and, subject to this constraint, lined up the celestial bodies with the text. I've also changed the heavily populated regions into dotted areas rather than lines, and I've merged the Kuiper belt with the scatted disc. I've also partially rearranged the box. Thoughts? Suggestions? Comments? The Enlightened 00:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Holy shit! I love it... this should replace my attempt for sure :) though our moon is way to big... and so is charon, also venus is coloured wrong... perhaps use an image with its clouds, perhaps the main belt a little bigger -- Nbound 02:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
with fixes -- Nbound 03:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One thought for both versions - try making the edges of the asteroid belt a little bit more irregular, as with the outer belts. Right now, it looks a bit too much like a sharply defined "edge", whereas I suspect that the belt actually thins out as it ends. --Ckatzchatspy 03:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
belts fixed =) -- Nbound 10:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope noone minds... Ive updated the template with the new picture -- Nbound 10:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC) also lined up links by removing "the" from "the sun" -- Nbound[reply]
Changes:
The Enlightened 14:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, a few thoughts before I go to work on another version.
Thanks for the input guys! The Enlightened 17:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts
hope that helps -- Nbound 00:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support in some areas. Regarding your two complaints:
Both good reasons... you have my full backing -- Nbound 04:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do we think about leaving the smaller moons (non-round ones) off the image? Roundness is already a criterion for objects orbiting the Sun and the gas giants, so why should tiny things orbiting Mars and Eris get in? Some have said this will lead people to conclude those objects don't have moons, but the links in the template should mean they come to the conclusion those objects do have moons, just insignificant ones. Seems crazy for Phobos to get in the image but Sedna, Quaoar, Varuna, Ixion, etc etc to be left off. The Enlightened 18:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
File:Solar System X.PNG
1) There was significant image degradation on last image. In particular there were visible off-clour areas of space around Venus and the Sun. 2) The gas giant moons have already been made a lot more visible. As long as people are working with monitors with decent contrast they should all now be seen. Also, there seems to be colour loss of such moons compared to last edit. 3) Earth should not be larger than Venus. It's more important that they are about the same size - this shows the difference location from the Sun can cause. Venus is 0.93 Earths - very, very similar. 4) The new spacing means planets do not line up with text. 5) If anything is needed, its more aliasing, not less. If objects stand out too much they look more pixelated than spherical. The Enlightened 22:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a linux user id say its far more browser dependant than anything else... But firefox in windows or linux looks the same -- Nbound 03:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly... I prefer the planets from version X... also space doesnt seem black in XI... as well as the other graphical areas already mentioned :S... stick with X I reckon =) -- Nbound 05:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've addressed all of the problems with v. XI and am adding v. XII to the template.--BlytheG 07:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most problems seem solved.. my only qualm is that the original saturn looked better, the current one looks washed out -- Nbound 12:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone reverted it back to v. X, but for the time being I'm adding v. XIII.--BlytheG 01:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
but the moons are not scaled to their planets either... esp. the martiant moons which are only 10 and 20km across -- Nbound 13:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At this link there's an image that shows the positions of a large number of asteroids at one particular point in time. As you can see, the near-Mars boundary is fairly sharp, but the boundary towards Jupiter is a good deal fuzzier, even not taking the Jupiter trojans into consideration. And here is another such plot (even busier). RandomCritic 05:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can we keep this on topic rather than anti-IAU propaganda -- Nbound 13:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Archived to the end of September because the talk was getting too long. RandomCritic 05:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed this to Erisian. I can see nowhere that states that "Eridian" would be the proper adjective, and since "Erisian" is in very common use in regards to the goddess (at least the Discordian Eris, if not the Greek Eris), I would guess it to be correct. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 15:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that I queried the IAU's Committee for Small Body Nomenclature on this subject, and they disclaimed both intent and competence to adjudicate this question. So the determination is going to be a matter of usage and not of prescription. But we can't assume that an adjective applied to a figure of counterculture myth applies equally well to an astronomical body -- as one of the CSBN members pointed out, there's an even older term derived from ἔρις, eristic -- which nowadays means "characterized by disputatious and often subtle and specious reasoning"!RandomCritic 16:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that there is no clear evidence which should be used, can we all agree just to abide by whatever majority comes out in a straw poll? Perhaps on the Eris talk page? The Enlightened 23:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How was the v-d-e added to the top right corner of the template? --myselfalso 04:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's it. The Enlightened 21:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may have started out with a better image, but I still think the method of scaling has resulted in detrimental loss of information around the edges. Here's a better scaled image, but the colours are weak again, as I used the image in Saturn's infobox and haven't corrected for colour:
└ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 13:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Colour-corrected (although not as distinct banding as on your version):
└ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 13:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to the lovely Eridian/Erisian debate, there are inconsistencies between this footer and the natural satellites footer. This one uses "Erisian," while the satellites one uses "Eridian." This causes a problem when viewing, say Phobos or Dysnomia and you have both on the same page. Either change this footer to Eridian, or change the satellites footer to Erisian. Werothegreat 13:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
