This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Infobox planet. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Could we please have "Alternate name(s)" changed to "Alternative name(s)"? Here in Britain "alternate" means something completely different.
(I'd also say we should have separate parameters alt_name and alt_names rather than this "(s)" ugliness, but that's another matter.) — Smjg (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
"pronounce" is an awkward parameter name. Can we add "pronounced" or "pronunciation" as an alt? The latter would match the display. (just embed one within the other.) Maybe add both; I'll convert them over w AWB and then we can remove the original name. — kwami (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
It was present in this form only: <noinclude>paleturquoise</noinclude>, which means it was not functioning as a default, it was just for when viewing the template itself. Cluttering up infoboxes with arbitrary colour is something for pop culture crap, not serious articles. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. Disabling for now: there is no need for a noincluded header colour now that the template is hidden by default on its own template page. That could be reversed, but the "fake template floated down the right-hand-side of the documentation" look that was in vogue in 2008 is used basically nowhere else now. There's been no change to how the headers are actually presented on articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I made some minor edits to fix the temperature table. In the old version, the labels for the temperature table were disconnected from the values, since the labels were in a <br> delimited list, while the values were in a actual html table. I fixed this by merging them into a single table. I guess a bit on the widths, but I believe it should look very similar to what it was before. The upside of the change is now everything is aligned. Before the labels on the left would appear have larger space between them then the data, so the lines didn't line up. Let me know if there is a problem, and I am sure we can tweak it a bit to make it work. Thanks! Plastikspork―Œ(talk)03:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi! There seems to be a teeensy little glitch; when "apsis = esh*t" (or "gee" or "helion" if you must) is specified then "Apesh*t ..." appears as it should.
But if it's just "apsis =" then you get "Ap" and "Peri", which look goofy.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
If the template includes an entry of the form '| apsis =' with no value, then the infobox displays Aphelion as 'Ap' and Perihelion as 'Peri'. For an example, see 4055 Magellan. Please address this bug. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
We only know the number of satellites for the terrestrial planets and some of the asteroids. Everything else should be 'known satellites', don't you think? We make that clear at Saturn, but not elsewhere; even at Jupiter, where the number changes frequently, we simply state that there are 67, which is almost certainly wrong. Could we maybe change the default wording of the heading to 'known satellites', with an option for 'satellites' when we actually mean that, as at Earth and Saturn? — kwami (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, it works, apart from the caps being off. But the name of the param "noknown_satellites" is confusing to me, as it sounds like "no known satellites". Also, people might put a number into it, which doesn't do anything. Maybe "all satellites" or s.t.? — kwami (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Code is often confusing to me; however, in this case the "no" refers to the word "known". In other words, the word "known" will not be visible if this parameter is set to equal "yes". And if that is the case, the word "Satellites" will need to begin with uppercase "S". One suggestion might be to arrange the wording so that "Satellites" is always at the beginning, and if "known" is needed just enclose it in parens and let it follow "Satellites". – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX!02:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I understand the rational, but IMO it's too counter-intuitive to be a good parameter name.
peripheral note: Also curious is that the "Satellites" link is to Natural satellites, and yet the Earth ibox contains (dated) info on artificial satellites. I linked it on the testcases page. Perhaps it should also be linked in the "live" ibox at Earth? The param seems to be just for naturals, and the artificial info in the Earth ibox looks a bit ancient – should it even be there? – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX!02:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
If we only wanted natural, we should probably call it "moons". I don't see a problem as long as we link appropriately. — kwami (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
|label13 = No. of {{#if: {{{noknown_stars|}}} | | known }} stars
|label14 = No. of {{#if: {{{noknown_planets|}}} | | known }} planets
Both of these test merely for the presence of any non-blank value in |noknown_stars= and |noknown_planets= - it doesn't matter whether you put |noknown_planets=yes, |noknown_planets=no or |noknown_planets=Rupert - the effect is the same. I therefore thought that |noknown_satellites= would be a consistent name; also, that by allowing any non-blank value to mean
Consistent, but needing some improvement in the details. "No" doesn't mean "yes", and "no known" doesn't mean "all known". IMO the other template should be changed to match this one. — kwami (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Have you all decided on parameters to edit, as I am willing to make the edit, but I am not sure if there is consensus here on what to change. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Please update the template with this version from the sandbox. It makes only cosmetic improvements to the template (primarily as to how label names may linewrap) and does not change what, how or where data supplied by template is given. The differences it does make can be seen on the test page (as long as the sandbox version linked above is (made) the most recent). Thank you,
Sardanaphalus (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
the diff shows the |width= parameter has been broken? there may be other problems, but due to the changes in code indentation, it's hard to tell what has been changed. also, why do we need |titlestyle= and |captionstyle=? Frietjes (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
the diff shows the |width= parameter has been broken?
Which diff..?
there may be other problems,
How do the testcases look to you?
but due to the changes in code indentation,
You mean, for example, the loss of the odd surplus space after equals-signs and the improved nesting alignment?
also, why do we need |titlestyle= and |captionstyle=?
this diff shows that |width= has been broken, and the testcases show some typos in the labels for Mercury (search for }), which was probably missed due to the fact that the diffs are nearly completely unreadable. it would be great if you could separate code indentation from content changes to make it easier to read what has been changed when going through the edit history for the template. I, personally, don't think we need to change the titlestyle and captionstyle on a per-article basis per WP:DEVIATIONS. Frietjes (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The second most important parameter (after bulk density) that describes the interior structure of a planet is the moment of inertia factor or normalized polar moment of inertia.
The normalized polar moment of inertia quantifies the distribution of mass inside a planet. It is dimensionless.
It has been measured for Mercury, Earth, and Mars.
It has been inferred for the giant planets and several large satellites.
This is a proposal to add this quantity to the planet infobox, immediately after density.
Thank you. I am happy to seek a consensus on this non-controversial proposal. Most planetary science texts list the moment of inertia as one of the fundamental descriptors of planets. Examples:
-Hartmann (2005) Moons and Planets, Table 8-1, p. 198
-de Pater & Lissauer (2001) Planetary Sciences, Table 6.1, p. 221
-Lodders & Fegley (1998) The Planetary Scientist's Companion, Table 6.1, p. 128, and corresponding tables of physical properties for other planets
-Hubbard (1984) Planetary Interiors, throughout the book
Does anyone disagree with the inclusion of the moment of inertia in the infobox? Thanks.
That sounds like it could be good addition, of course only if the parameter links to a good explanation about what it means. --JorisvS (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
A page describing the moment of inertia factor has been created. Please review and comment on suitability for infobox. Thanks.
@JeanLucMargot: between which two existing labels should this be added, and what should we use for the parameter name and label (e.g., | data82 = {{{moment_of_inertia_factor}}} and | label82 = [[Moment of inertia factor]], which would place it directly above temperature). Frietjes (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. The moment of inertia factor is a function of the mass, radius, and density distribution. I think that there are two logical places for it within the current infobox: immediately below density or immediately below escape velocity. The moment of inertia factor is not a function of length of day or albedo or temperature, so it should not be grouped with any of these quantities. The name and label you suggest are appropriate. Thanks. JeanLucMargot (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Does a transwikiable version of this template exist, and if not, how difficult would it be to create one? I need this template for my conworld's wiki and, sadly, the current version is, in my experience, not cleanly transwikiable due to the intricacies of some templates transcluded therein. CJ Miller[T]/[C]10:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Should Template:Infobox irregular satellite be merged here, or replaced completely? Its not used in many articles, and seems to visually present the same information, but seems to have a lot of incompatible parameters and would require article-to-article adjustments. --Netoholic@23:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Aphelion and Perihelion
These headings for minor planets are directed to Apsis. There are now articles for these two words rather than the redirects so could the maintainer of this template please change these. If the definitions are inadequate you can always improve them. Chris55 (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. – This does not appear to be necessary, since a look at an example article, (4953) 1990 MU, shows that this parameter, which is not used frequently compared with most other params, can easily be included by use of a table, when needed. I could be wrong, which is why discussion about this should take place first. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX!04:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
This is why I asked the user to bring it here – to discuss it. Looking at the JPL NEO database, all of those parameters, except the MOID, are supported in our Infobox.
Looking at the individual data page for your example at JPL, I see that MOID and T_jup are in a table separate from the Orbital Elements, but so are absolute magnitude and rotation period, yet those are both supported in the Infobox. I can't see a reason to include those and not the others. While anything can be added with another box, it's a pain by comparison.
Given the requesting username, I'm AGFing some sort of knowledge in the field, leading to the request. Lastly, as a non-astronomer, I find the MOID more interesting than, say, the argument of perihelion. —[AlanM1(talk)]—01:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Some questions I have about the example, which also has the Tisserand parameter included in the table with the MOID. How many articles would have to be checked for the extra table and have the MOID removed from the table? Also, how many of the other params, such as the Tisserand, should also be included in this ibox so as to get rid of those tables altogether? Exactly how many object articles would receive a MOID? The proposer seems to only want an Earth MOID param, but should the MOID also be noted for other-than-Earth objects such as Jupiter MOIDs, Venus MOIDs, and so on? As for the Earth MOIDs, should it be noted that when the MOID is less than a certain amount it becomes potentially dangerous to Earth? (That last question may be covered by the MOID link; however, should we require readers to "hunt" for the info?) – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX!04:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Well Earth MOID, in our geocentric opinion on things, is the only parameter that JPL cares to include, and including other planets' MOIDs wouldn't be needed much unless it's quite close. I also mentioned on AlanM1's talk page about the MOID in lunar distances being included if it is less than 0.1 AU or some other small value. Also, it seems that the MOID and T parameters seem to be the only missing ones; plus, it's much better to have all parameters easily available if they're needed to be used instead of not having them using the logic that only a few use them. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, the Earth MOID has been added using the format you suggested above. Will that format work as well with lunar distances as with AU? Also, if you would like Tisserand added, then please submit it exactly how you want it in the same format. I'll continue to watch here, so another formal edit request won't be necessary. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX!08:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I notice that the |pronounced= tag is in the template documentation twice. Is this deliberate? Additionally, the second instance of |pronounced= recommends the use of {{IPA-en}}, but I think that is semi-deprecated, to be replaced by {{IPAc-en}} (which breaks up the sounds by letter so that the hover-text tells you how to pronounce each phoneme), so maybe the documentation should be updated if possible. 0x0077BE(talk · contrib)18:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I believe it is a good idea to add colors to this template. It would be more interesting to look at and it'd better for dividing the categories (Discovery, designations, etc.) just like in Infobox galaxy. The template would be easier to be visualized. Tetra quark (talk)04:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Although I do think the headers can be made clearer, I don't know if colors are the best way to do that, because they can be distracting. Maybe a horizontal line above the header will do. --JorisvS (talk) 12:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
