Talk:Solar System
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Solar System Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Script error: No such module "English variant notice". Template:Article history Template:WikiProject banner shell Template:Banner holder Template:Mbox
User:MiszaBot/config User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
Edit request
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. Serendipodous 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)
- How about "...accelerating during their flyby of planets..." and "...after a flyby of Venus..."? Praemonitus (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Not active
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:
- 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)
- Please go away, do I need to report you as a stalker? Aromatize (talk) 00:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Other page
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 Template:U, 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)
- 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)
- Since I'm not in my right mind, I'll take a crack at it. Hello Template:U, 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)
Invariable plane?
While the article discusses the ecliptic and the solar apex, it does not appear to cover the topic of Laplace's invariable plane for the Solar System. (There is a brief mention in the infobox.) This is a more natural reference plane, since it is defined in terms of the angular momentum of the entire system, rather than just the Earth. There are several references available on the topic. Praemonitus (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)