Template talk:Infobox planet/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Template-protected edit request on 4 July 2022

I would like to add the |barycentric = parameter to this infobox template. My specific changes to the source should look like this edit I made on the sandbox page. The purpose of this new parameter is to implement an option to specify a barycentric frame of reference for orbital elements, which I've proposed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. The result of this change should look like this in my sandbox. Thanks! Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 19:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Nrco0e: I have made the edit in {{Infobox planet/sandbox}} (diff). Tests in Template:Infobox planet/testcases § baricentric (Jul 2022).

Not sure if I understand the intended working. From your sandbox, it works like "If |baricentric= has any input, the link will show in the header".(ie a "This is a baricentric parameter"?). (The other parameter in that header, |orbit_ref=, is a regular ref, ie shows as ^[1] unchanged and as expected). Is this intentionally? Shouldn't the new parameter show e.g. like regular data row "Baricentric yes" -DePiep (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@DePiep: Well, that's nearly what I intended on doing, except for that any input part. I wanted the "(barycentric)" link to appear in the header only if |barycentric = yes. I'm not very familiar with the conditional "if" template, so I don't know how else to format it to work like this. Do you think you could fix this? Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 20:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this has been  done, and yet I have a similar concern. The |orbit_ref= parameter was inside the main #if parser, and is now outside it. Was that intentional? or should we close the main #if parser at the very end as it was before? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 21:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I commented at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Renerpho's_comments, maybe we could improve the Infobox from there. -DePiep (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

For sure, |barycentric=no should work as expected. To fix. -DePiep (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Won't interfere with P.E. editing. -DePiep (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@DePiep: Yes, my move of the |orbit_ref= parameter was intentional. I wanted the orbit_ref to always stay attached to the right of the header, without a space regardless if |barycentric= is specified or not. So it should appear like Orbital characteristics (without barycentric) or Orbital characteristics (barycentric) (with barycentric). If I leave the orbit_ref inside either of the two #if templates, the reference wouldn't show up (if inside #if containing barycentric) or would appear sandwiched like this: Orbital characteristics (barycentric) (if inside the main #if). Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 21:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The sandbox now has an #ifeq parser that requires |barycenter=yes to work. Anything else including |barycenter=no disallows it. And I've closed the main #if parser at the very end. That seems to work well in the test cases and on your sandbox page. If anyone finds anything wrong, let me know. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 21:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Strange. Putting it there would say the ref does not cover the "(barycenter)" part of the headercaption. -DePiep (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Can be done. Won't do it while PE is busy. -DePiep (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

To editor DePiep: looks like the sandbox works okay on the testcases page and in Nrco0e's sandbox. Go ahead and make any changes you think are necessary. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 21:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

re User:Paine Ellsworth Waiting for the planet people for desired (information presentation) improvements. For now, best if you update the live version, as Ansewred=yes. Future edits can get their own thread & ER. -DePiep (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, the corrections in the main sandbox are now in the live template. I'll keep an eye on this one for new improvements. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 22:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Template-protected edit request on 13 September 2022

I propose that the table under data100 should be center-aligned instead of left-aligned. See for example Uranus for awkward alignment of temperatures. Lasunncty (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll second this - I'd like to see a proof-of-concept, as unfortunately I do not have the time right now to be mucking about with the code myself. Primefac (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, done. --Lasunncty (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Nicely done. I think that Template:Infobox planet/testcases#Uranus still looks confusing, but primarily because the mean temperature with the Celsius conversion is very wide. The other testcases that do not have Celsius conversions look better with the text centered. Thoughts? – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and the others that do have °C conversions also look better with the text centered as well. Editor Lasunncty's sandbox is a definite improvement. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 12:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I split the conversion to two lines so it's not quite as wide. Thanks everyone! --Lasunncty (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Tropical year

HI there, tropical year was mentioned above allready, but I want to reiterate that it would be good to introduce this basic point to the infobox. Nsae Comp (talk) 23:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi everyone? I am sorry I tried to make proposal in the sandbox, but I still dont manage to make my changes show. So if anyone would have time to get into my proposal I would very greatful. Afterall for example in the Earth article its weird that there is no point for the tropical year. Nsae Comp (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Request for additional proper orbit parameters

I'm in the middle of renovating articles on irregular satellites, whose orbits are highly variable over time and are best represented with mean/proper elements instead. I would like to ask for more proper orbit parameters, specifically:

• p_epoch = Epoch
• p_arg_peri = Proper argument of pericenter
• p_asc_node = Proper longitude of ascending node
• p_mean_anomaly = Mean anomaly
• p_period = Proper orbital period (sidereal) (I'm aware mean motion already gives this, but sources like JPL and Jacobson et al. prefer giving out the orbital period only.

Also, since I'm applying the proper orbital elements to satellites, perihelion_rate = wouldn't be appropriate and should have an option that renames the parameter to periapsis (periastron, perijove, peri-...?), similar to the apsis = parameter already used in the osculating orbital characteristics. Plus, I would like the default arcsec/yr units removed from perihelion_rate = and node_rate = so that I can use other units like °/yr, or add a separate parameter for perihelion precession period and node procession period.

I would also like to have some kind of option that would move the following parameters below into the Proper orbital elements heading. They're already built into the osculating orbital characteristics heading, which turned out to be too much of a hassle to deal myself.

• observation_arc =
• earliest_precovery_date =
• satellite_of =
• group =

Unfortunately I'll be busy for the next few weeks, so I may not have time to test out my changes in the sandbox. Nrco0e (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I can add this to my to-do list; it will be fairly low-down but I'll keep an eye on this thread and see how things progress. Primefac (talk) 12:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

"Template:Infobox Small, Medium, or Large Lump of Rock, Gas, or Ice, possibly Spherical, that May (or May Not) be a Planet" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Template:Infobox Small, Medium, or Large Lump of Rock, Gas, or Ice, possibly Spherical, that May (or May Not) be a Planet has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 17 § Template:Infobox Small, Medium, or Large Lump of Rock, Gas, or Ice, possibly Spherical, that May (or May Not) be a Planet until a consensus is reached. MClay1 (talk) 05:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on those little astronomical symbols at the top of the infobox

Please be aware there is an ongoing discussion about those symbols, at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Move planet symbols placed at the planets and moons' infobox title. — HTGS (talk) 05:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit request 17 May 2023

Description of suggested change: Move planetary symbols down from the infobox title to a section in the infobox. Village pump discussion: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Move_planet_symbols_placed_at_the_planets_and_moons'_infobox_title

Diff:

Change this line from:

| title       = {{{name|<includeonly>{{PAGENAMEBASE}}</includeonly>}}} {{{symbol|}}}

to this:

| title       = {{{name|<includeonly>{{PAGENAMEBASE}}</includeonly>}}}

And add this line after data16:

| label17     = [[Planet symbols|Symbol]]
|  data17     = {{{symbol|}}}

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane and Paine Ellsworth: At the VPR thread I had already described the necessary change, and this request fell slightly short. I've fixed it up now. For protected edit requests to templates, it's always best to use the sandbox to describe exactly what needs to be done, that way there's no ambiguity and no need to paste code blobs into the talk page thread. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Saw your sandbox es of "unlikely to be necessary, but just in case", and since it was not part of the request it was not included. Curious as to why now you think it is required for "completeness"? Have you changed your mind and find it now to be necessary? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The presence of the other textual parameters in that block is tested, the heading "Designations" only appears if one or more of |mpc_name=|mp_name=|named_after=|alt_names=|mp_category=|pronounce=|pronounced=|adjective=|adjectives=|symbol= is non-blank - note that |mp_name= is defeated by |mpc_name= being present but blank. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I do agree that sandboxing is useful (and often encouraged) for anything more complex than "adding in a new parameter", but regarding this specific issue, I have negated it entirely in the future by using |autoheaders=y. Primefac (talk) 09:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit request 1 June 2023

Description of suggested change: Add a Description to the lowercase "symbol" Parameter in TemplateData.

Diff:

Change this line from:

−

"symbol": {}, "image": { "label": "Image", "type": "wiki-file-name", "suggested": true

+

"symbol": { "label": "Symbol ", "type": "string", "required": false, "suggested": false, "deprecated": false, "description": "symbol of planet"

99.236.142.92 (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The /doc is unprotected so you are welcome to make the change yourself, though I am concerned that the change you propose will not work owing to the proliferation of {. Primefac (talk) 09:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

image size → image scale

'image size' is deprecated in info boxes (as generally for images) because it overrides the reader's default preferences and is thus a problem with accessibility. For example, if a reader with poor vision sets their display to 200%, and we size an image to 150% to show greater detail, the reader will see it at 75% the size of an unadjusted image, so trying to make an image larger can actually make it smaller and more difficult to see. The solution is to use the 'upright' parameter, which uses the reader's preference as the default. Setting that to 1.5 will increase an image's size to 150% for everyone. However, we probably shouldn't be individually resizing very many images in the infobox (unless maybe they have an odd shape; e.g. maybe Perdita (moon)), and instead choose a standard size here for consistency.

(The weird parameter name "upright" is due to its history. It was originally a quick way to set 'upright' (portrait) images to 75% of the default width of a landscape image, so it wouldn't be oversized, which is why setting image_scale=yes reduces it to 75%. The param was later extended to relative rescaling of any size. The unintuitive name might be why people don't use it much; it took me years to realize what it was.)

There are lot of template errors generated for deprecated 'image size' (e.g. asteroids with the asteroid number used for the image size!), which I'll be going through with JWB. Most are historical detritus that should be cleaned out anyway (e.g. from years ago when all imgs were individually set to 250 px rather than using a common infobox default).

Note that AFAIK small images will not be embiggened past their actual size. We've been reducing them to their original size in pixels; that's no longer necessary.

The default size should now be encoded as "upright = 1.3". We can adjust that here if e.g. a slightly larger size would be better for this template. (Most of the resized imgs were set at 250 to 265 px, 10%-15% larger than the WP default of 225 px; a few orbital diagrams of asteroids and the photo of 243 Ida were set to 300 px, equivalent to image_scale=1.33.) On my machine, the pics at Earth, Jupiter and HD 81040 b, for example, are just under the width of the infobox at image_scale=1.5 and so IMO look best at that size, but I don't know how that would translate to other readers. — kwami (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 January 2024

Change the background to a web color, so from:

| headerstyle = {{#if:{{{background|{{{bgcolour|}}}}}}|background-color:{{{background|{{{bgcolour|}}}}}}|background-color:#E0CCFF}}

to:

| headerstyle = {{#if:{{{background|{{{bgcolour|}}}}}}|background-color:{{{background|{{{bgcolour|}}}}}}|background-color:LightGray}}

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

​ Genuinely curious, why? Primefac (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Purple headers in the infobox feels out of place and clash with the infobox pictures. Since this template is used most in minor planets and most minor planets are of gray color, this change will make the header color feels more concordant with the image. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

This feels like something that should have consensus, so I am not going to enact this right away but will leave an opportunity for folks to comment on the proposed change. Primefac (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I've cross-posted this to WT:AST and am watching the page, so wherever the consensus ends up I should be able to deal with it. Primefac (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  →   I'm indifferent. Either works. SWinxy (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Opposed. The current color matches well with the color of links, and so doesn't look out of place. It also highlights the sections of the box better. Grey is pretty drab. Maybe though we could automate background=lightgrey when minorplanet=yes? — kwami (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - The proposed   is nearly/identical to the Lists of minor planets'  . The LoMPs have used white for inner main best asteroids, and 2 slightly darker shades of grey for middle and outer main belt asteroids for at least as long as Template:Minor planet color code legend has been around (at least ~7.5 years), so it would be best to not overlap planet colors with minor planet colors.   is not used in the LoMPs.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Do remember that almost all minor planets that have its own article uses this template, like 1 Ceres or 1000 Piazzia. Infobox of actual planets in the Solar System already have their own headings that match their colors. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)