Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Solar System

The working definition appears to be, "the Sun's Solar System and its planets, dwarf planets and 'belts' of small bodies". The Moon, the only natural satellite included, is something of an outlier, and is justified presumably by its importance to humans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pharos (talk • contribs) 02:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC).Reply

Another possible definition could be "major bodies and regions of the Solar System". Most natural satellites would not qualify, but the Moon has so much historical significance that it has honorary "major" status, not to mention the fact that the Moon is huge relative to the size of its planet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arctic.gnome (talk • contribs) 07:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC).Reply

I like the second one because it covers the Moon, which I think belongs in this featured topic. The only big problem I see is that it doesn't include all regions that might be considered major so we'd need to also define "major" in the definition. I think article order could also be included in the definition (see #Article Order). I'd thus probably try to put it as: "The Solar System featured topic consists of the major bodies and significant regions of small bodies in the Solar System, in the order of... The major bodies are determined by..." — Pious7 16:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

One significant question is how the articles should be ordered. Should it be in order of distance from the Sun, as it is now? This leaves a dispute about objects that are actually in the region covered (e.g. Ceres is in the asteroid belt). We should decide on and include a clear definition of how the topics are ordered, especially if we are planning on adding new topics anytime soon. — Pious7 16:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

When one sees a list of planets, they are almost always in order of their distance from the Sun, so I think that's a good way of listing them. As for objects in a region, I think we could do it either way as long as we are consistent. I would vote to put the small objects second, because the Earth should come before the Moon. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

So a region, larger than a specific object, should come first (as it currently is)? Perhaps we should bold regions so they are clear and add regions that include the planets and dwarf plannets currently not in a region? — Pious7 02:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

This topic does not meet current Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria, and will be eligible for removal after 1 January 2008 if this situation is not rectified. In particular, Uranus must be brought to at least GA status. It may also be desirable that Kuiper belt attain such status, but this is not strictly necessary since it is already ranked "A", which is considered equivalent under the guidelines.--Pharos 02:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Kuiper belt has been nominated for GA, to try to clear up any possible problems, and Uranus seems to be undergoing a GA push as well. --PresN 09:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Kuiper belt is already A-class which is BETTER than GA so there is no point in nominating it for GA. Dalf | Talk 02:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that there is no formal review process for A-class, nor is there a universal definition of it. The A-class status is arbitrary and unverifiable, GA-status has some weight behind the title and Kuiper belt could stand to have that formal review. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree. A-class is unofficial, GA class is official. Thus, the only things marked should be GA and FA, the earned titles. A-class just means "this is a GA or should-be GA that is almost a FA" and is used by WikiProjects. I reverted the unprecedented check, let's wait until it makes GA to mark it as GA and if it's not, it's not really A-class in the first place... — Pious7 04:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is a colboration by consensus, there is no offical or unofical beyond the core concepts. Additionally if you think the check is unprecedented then I suggest that you have a look at: Wikipedia:Featured_topics/Canadian_election_timelines and Talk:List of Nunavut general elections. If you think A-class should be done away with then I suggest you propose it at the appropate location. Dalf | Talk 05:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

The List of Nunavut general elections has a check because the subject matter is too limited to produce a featured article. That is not the case with the Kuiper belt. The Nunavut page is marked as A-class because lists cannot be GA, but as the Nunavut list is referenced and well-organized, it is more than a start-class. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

All the others are capable of being FA but not this one? If it is A-class (which is it) then it CAN be FA. I think the check is fine, if A-class is not valid then why is it unsed in all of the rnking schems on wikipedia other than this one? Dalf | Talk 06:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

The other Canadian provinces are up to 140 years old and have had about 40 elections each; Nunavut is 8 years old and has had only two elections. A list of two items cannot be featured status, as per the article's FL nominations. It is impossible for the Nunavut list to meet FL criteria until it has had one or two more elections. It is in a unique position. As for A-class articles, the A-class status is used to signify an article that is nearly ready for an FA or FL nomination, just as B-class articles are ones that are nearly ready for a GA nomination. All articles with A-class status should be at least as good as a GA, but there is no formal review process to make sure that they are, so we have to either nominate it for FA or use the next level down that does have a formal review process: GA. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Uranus is now a good article and Kuiper belt is a nominee and will probably soon be both a GA and an A-class article (though not GA-class, since A-class is better than GA-class). The topic is thus no longer in danger. Perhaps we should clarify in the FT criteria that A-class articles should also be recognized GAs so people don't rate their own articles A-class just to pass a FT candidacy? — Pious7 15:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Telling the related WikiProjects about the situation this featured topic is in as well as about this discussion might help expedite improving the topic. We might also be able to put something in Portal:Solar System's to do box. — Pious7 16:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I told the Solar System WikiProject. Hopefully that will help, but it looks like this featured topci is safe. — Pious7 15:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Of course it is desirable that more GAs be promoted to FAs, but see above for the priority work to be done.--Pharos 02:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

All planets should be able to be brought up to featured status at the very least. There's only 3 left below FA, I think, so it shouldn't be that hard. — Pious7 16:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think that this topic should be re-named something like "Bodies of the Solar System" so that we don't need to add articles like timeline of solar system astronomy. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

In that case, wouldn't we have to replace Solar System with some sort of superlist?--Pharos 00:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't see why. The Solar System article does a better job of introducing and summarizing the major bodies of the Solar System than any list would. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't have a problem with renaming it, but the name is always the lead article. I would object to removing Solar System from being the lead article as I agree that it is the best summary article. Can't we just keep the name and just make it clear in the definition that it has to do with specific bodies and regions? I don't think it's too confusing. — Pious7 01:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

The name isn't always the lead article; there are slight differences like with timeline of Canadian elections versus the topic Canadian election timelines, and in the case of the topic Star Wars episodes the proposed lead is Star Wars. The lead article is the one that best summerized the topic while the topic name is a description of the topic's contents. Most of the time the names are the same, but they do not have to be. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

But I think Solar System best summarizes the major bodies and regions of the Solar System. Star Wars episodes cannot set a precedent because it is an early featured topic that was made in a time when the rules were lighter or less enforced. FT criteria point 2 requires a lead article. As for slight differences between the titles of featured topics and their lead article, it is usually removing "List of..." or something similar that wouldn't make sense in a non-list. A Major Bodies and Regions in the Solar System link and title wouldn't make much sense as there is probably a more specific article that someone would expect to go to. The Solar System FT obviously cannot go into too great of detail just as Solar System does not describe every single thing in the Solar System. — Pious7 02:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

It would probably be desirable to extend this to "classes of solar system bodies" as well (asteroid, comet, etc.).--Pharos 02:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think that articles like asteroid and comet are too general for this topic. The topic is about objects in the Solar System, not objects that could be found in any stellar system. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 07:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agreee. Anything added should be specific objects or regions. — Pious7 16:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, if you read asteroid and comet there is not one sentence about "extrasolar asteroids" or "extrasolar comets", if such discussion of specific small body types even makes sense, when not one example is known. It seems that all of our info on such postulated extrasolar small bodies is in the one short article debris disk. Also, how is one to deal with classes of objects that by any definition could never make sense outside the Solar System, such as Trans-Neptunian object and Centaur (planetoid)?--Pharos 00:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

The first, however, is the problem of our lack of observations of such classes of objects. They still theoretically exist around other star systems. As for specific classifications that are Solar System only, you cannot cherry pick - you'd have to include them all. Almost any topic can become very in-depth, the question is how specific you want to make it. More than 99% of the articles on Wikipedia are probably on things exclusively located in this Solar System (or probably Earth), such as the Internet, or something that we have no way of telling if they exist elsewhere (have you ever observed an extrasolar mountain?). I think just general bodies and regions is the widest scope this topic needs to be or this topic will keep adding things onto it until it is too bloated and impossible to maintain. — Pious7 02:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

If I could get Halley up to GA status (not likely at this point, but I'm working on it), could it be included on notability grounds? Serendipodous 12:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Interesting question. I would have to say no, because there are tonnes of comets, and we can't add all of them. However, there is a fairly strong argument that Halley's Comet deserves special status because of its historical importance, as precedented by the Moon. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would have to say that Halley's Comet as a major component of the Solar System would be going rather too far. It might be a good idea to work toward a featured topic for the Great Comets instead.--Pharos 00:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

You cannot cherry-pick. Every major comet would have to be included. And if we're including major comets, why not other major objects such as asteroids and large moons around gas giants? I think that the Solar System topic should be general and, as Pharos said, there should be more specific topics for more specific things in the Solar System. — Pious7 02:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think I should put the idea out into the air anyway. 2 Pallas, 3 Juno and 4 Vesta are all GA class, were all once considered planets, and could very well become dwarf planets should the IAU rule on the issue in future. Serendipodous 11:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I believe with some research it should be possible be write at least a GA article on the first four asteroids as a group, given their historical importance. I have a bit of a knack for finding obscure sources, so I might be able to help you with that. So, if you could then bring Ceres and Vesta, say, up to FA, you have yourself a whole new featured topic.--Pharos 06:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps former planet could be made so that it includes other objects formerly classified as planets? I think people would find that more useful than first four asteroids, which would obviously be created specifically for a featured topic. On the other hand, that might have too much of an overlap with this topic since the Sun, the Moon, Ceres, and Pluto were all at one point considered planets... — Pious7 13:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Former-planet asteroids" then? Circeus

That still might be too narrow. Perhaps early asteroids, split off and expanded from Asteroid#Asteroid_discovery? — Pious7 19:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Reply