Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Solar System/archive 3

Jupiter moons subtopic

What is the best way to expand this topic into a "Moons of Jupiter" one?

1. adding only an FL of Moons of Jupiter might be seen as overly skewed view on the Galilean moons
2. adding the next 10 biggest moons that have over 10km might be seen as cherry-picking since there is no clear reason why stop here; it will also take an annoyiing amount of work
3. adding the next 4 biggest moons that are at least around 100km might be even worse
4. adding the rest of the rest of the 5 groups (inner, and the 4 irregular ones) and perhaps the 2-4 isolated moons might require way too much work
5. adding only the inner, and one article related to the irregulars (including all the isolated ones) might be doable.

Opinions? Nergaal (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If all the moons of Jupiter were in one topic, this would be a huge topic. I think it could be broken into subtopics for each group. In other words, the "Moons of Jupiter" topic would contain the 10 articles Moons of Jupiter, Inner satellites of Jupiter, Galilean moons, Themisto (moon), Himalia group, Carpo (moon), S/2003 J 12, Ananke group, Carme group, Pasiphaë group and S/2003 J 2. And then each group gets its own topic. Very few GAs there but it seems to me to be far and away the most logical route to take, in terms of the resultant topic - rst20xx (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I would like to see the last 8 articles brought to GA... or not quite, since I believe the contributions would be worth more at other space objects that are much bigger than 100km. I just don't think it is really worth putting the energy into bringing all to GA, so I am still skewed towards including all these 8 articles into one big irregular satellites article. Nergaal (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible moons additions

• articles that are already GA: Amalthea (inner, 2nd next largest); Thebe (inner, 4th next largest)
• requiring some work to bring to GA: Adrastea (inner, easiest to get to GA); Metis (inner); Himalia (largest after Galileans)

Conclusion: Inner moons subtopic is more easily doable, but except for Inner satellites of Jupiter. Nergaal (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There can't be any more additions. The topic name, "Galilean Moons", are Galilean. At that time, Galileo did not know of any moons beyond the largest four, so only those four can be part of the Galilean Moons topic, because only those four are categorized as Galilean Moons. Perhaps a "moons of Jupiter" topic, like the one proposed above.--haha169 (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussions

I think for the sake of cleanness we should use this section as the talkpage.

Sorry for the major cleanup, but I think from this setup it will be easier to maintain an idea of where editors should/could focus their energies. Nergaal (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you guys need to get Centaur (minor planet) and Trojan asteroid included

Articles like those kinda look like gaps. Similarly, now that the topic has been restructured, I think you need to work on the lists, or at least set up an article that would form the main article of any "lists" topic, so you can defer any requirement to include a whole bunch of lists to there. Again, covering potential gaps - rst20xx (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe you could put Asteroid in the main topic, then make it the main article of a subtopic containing List of notable asteroids along with all the asteroid belts (and those already in the main topic would come out). How's that sound? - rst20xx (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I though I already did this in the #Subtopics/3. Anyways, trojans might or not go into the Jupiter subtopic too. Nergaal (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, so you did, sorry! I completely missed that! Well anyway, I think this is the last set of articles currently in the main topic which could potentially be "broken out" in the future. I'd see it done sooner, rather than later - rst20xx (talk) 01:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

subtopics

I would just like to let you know that a topic on the earth is not likely in the next three years, because of the sheer number of divergent high order subtopics. Zginder 2008-09-20T04:33Z (UTC)

why? what main subtopics are missing from the present list? Nergaal (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Let us look at the sub artilces of Earth: Earth science, Earth's orbit, Earth's rotation, and Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth. I could argue for more but I think that is enough. Zginder 2008-09-20T05:34Z (UTC)

Just because they contain the word, it doesn't mean they should be in the topic. 1st is covered within the geology article, rotation within the clime, risks-not essential; same for the orbit. imho Nergaal (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Besides Earth, what (necessary) articles do you guys think are still missing from the first 10 topics? Nergaal (talk) 05:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any moons should be in the Jupiter topic. I think these should be relegated to a "Moons of Jupiter" subtopic. Or, better yet, the "Moons of Jupiter" could contain a subtopic for each group of moons, and then the groups form their own subtopics too - rst20xx (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's pushing things WAY too far. The four Galileans are essentially the only moons of Jupiter. Everything else is just rocks. Your proposal places them on equal footing with the other moons, which is misleading, not to mention the fact that it would require bringing all 63 articles up to GA status, which would be, to put it bluntly, impossible. Serendi^podous 08:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well there's nothing saying you have to build the "Moons" subtopic any time soon. You could just build the main Jupiter topic to include the "Moons" article, and leave the existing "Galilean moons" topic as it is, and then don't connect the two for many moons (pardon the pun :P). There's no hurry to do this - rst20xx (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I still think that the Galilean moons belong in any Jupiter topic, but we'll let the FTC decide. Serendi^podous 18:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you can argue with citations that they're that much more notable then you may well be able to do this. But ultimately, I think the layout I proposed would be the best final resting place for all Jupiter moons articles - rst20xx (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Jupiter's 4 Galilean (spherical) planet-like moons should be included. Jupiter and Saturn are both like mini solar systems. -- Kheider (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, though it could form part of a Pluto subtopic (and so the insanity spreads...) Serendi^podous 08:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Charon is currently classified only as a moon. IF little Charon is ever treated like a dwarf planet I would hope the active, more planet like Galilean moons would be treated on the same level. -- Kheider (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not imply that Charon is a dwarf planet, but a moon of a dwarf planet with size comparable to some candidates to this status deserves to be in the topic. Ruslik (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Please help me understand a thing: why are moons of $PLANET not considered in the topic $PLANET? To me it is obvious that the moons of a given planet should be part of the topic of the planet, but maybe I am not that much into wikitopics to understand the contrary. --Cyclopia (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No one's ever done what we're doing before, so you needn't worry about lacking prior knowledge. The idea proposed by rs20xx was that the moons should instead be included in their own "Moons of Jupiter" sub-sub-topic. However, the four Galileans are such an integral part of the Jovian system I can't think why they should be excluded from the main article, especially considering that Jupiter's 59 other moons are basically flying rocks. Serendi^podous 15:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, there's no rush to build the "Moons" subtopic, you could just put Moons of Jupiter in the Jupiter topic and leave everything else in place - rst20xx (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Also I don't think you can add Charon to the dwarf planets topic until its status is clarified - rst20xx (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your answers. I respectfully disagree with rst20xx. In my opinion, moons (all moons of a given planet) should belong to each planet topic. That's because doing that we naturally respect the hierarchy: Solar system=Sun+bodies directly orbiting Sun; planet system=planet+moons orbiting planet. --Cyclopia (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I ask if a single article can belong to more than one topic: in this case, I'd vote for major satellites (Moon, Galileian moons, Titan, Triton, Charon) to belong also to the Solar System topic. --Cyclopia (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

An article can belong to more than one topic if it does not cause the topics to "overly overlap" - that's vague, but intentionally so, as it is up to the voters to decide what is excessive overlap. Now, in this particular case though, well (most of) the articles you suggest were actually removed from the solar system topic recently because people felt it did constitute excessive overlap, so there you go, that's a no-starter - rst20xx (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I accept it, but I don't really understand it. What is overlap? To me it's not only vague, it is meaningless. It is a word without definition, in this context. I have no particolar interest in this "featured topic" stuff (unless it is a way to make articles better, it looks much like navel gazing), but how can major solar system bodies be outside the "solar system topic", conceptually, baffles me. --Cyclopia (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately they will not be outside though, as they will be included in subtopics - rst20xx (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the archive #2 in the top-right part of this page, and you will find the relevant discussion there. Nergaal (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand your viewpoint, but I must admit I disagree with the consensus there reached, so I quit the discussion *smile*. However, you can always call me in for help to make articles GA (and to let me know what you think of the list discussed above, and if someone wants to help me put data in it). --Cyclopia (talk) 13:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point people seem to be focusing on Haumea and the Atmosphere of Jupiter articles. But you are welcome to contribute in whichever other article listed on this age that you feel most interested. Nergaal (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

additions

• Addition of List of Solar System objects — alternatively by mass?; see Template:Solar System table Nergaal (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I am also prototyping a sortable table of solar system objects that could be worthwile to complete and include in the topic. What do you think? --Cyclopia (talk) 09:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think

List of Solar System objects

List of Solar System objects by mass

List of Solar System objects by radius

List of Solar System objects by surface gravity

could all be merged into one expanded version of your list. Serendi^podous 10:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Side issues

I've noticed a number of things as a result of scouting for this topic. One, there is no article on the Exploration of the Earth, which seems like a big gap. Also, the articles solar radiation and sunlight appear to be discussing the same thing. Serendi^podous 18:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Exploration of the Earth is not very related to the astronomy (under which this topic I believe it is). I bet there are articles though that pretty much discuss the main points, and those points could be brought together into such an article. Nergaal (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

logical subtopic?

Main page	Articles
Trans-Neptunian objects	Kuiper belt, Scattered disk, Detached object (astronomy), Oort cloud, Planets beyond Neptune

Does this split make an sense to anybody else? Nergaal (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Planets beyond Neptune is not about TNOs. Its best place is probably in some future Pluto sub-subtopic. I've been pondering whether or not to make minor planet an FA and collecting together all of the minor planet populations (including the trojans, centaurs and NEAs, which will have to be added to the topic eventually) and placing them in a topic with dwarf planets, which would become the main article of a sub-subtopic. Serendi^podous 03:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Archived. Nergaal (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Minor planets subtopic

would have to include anything else than minor planet, asteroid, centaur, Trans-Neptunian objectand dwarf planet?Nergaal (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The Sun will be delisted soon, then the main topic will cease to exit, so this proposal is meaningless. Ruslik_Zero 10:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think that? There are only four or five things on the review page that are still causing problems. Fix them and we should be fine. Serendi^podous 15:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

moons subtopic?

There are two ways to do this (with the list of moons as a header):

1. include the lists of moons for each planet (Earth, Uranus, Jupiter and Haumea ok, so 4 of 8 ready)
2. include only the 19 round ones (10/19 ready)

any thoughts? Nergaal (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the way this topic is going is that the large moons of each planet will be included in their planet's respective subtopic, as with Jupiter and (soon) Uranus. Serendi^podous 14:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Haumea

For those who still follow this page: I think a Good Topic is possible if Haumea family is expanded sufficiently. Unfortunately, I don't have the expertise to add much to the article. If anyone is willing to give it a try I would be happy to help with stuff like copyediting and touchups. Nergaal (talk) 06:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes...there's current research that should be included, but it's writing an article on a moving target, no pun intended. I can do the lit overview, there's three papers that need to be mentioned, but I won't have time to do it in the near future, certainly not before the new year.Iridia (talk) 12:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)