Wikijunior talk:Solar System

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Jump to: navigation, search

Archives at (oldest first) ... Archive 1 ... Archive 2


See also:


Contents

[edit] Footnotes

Why are some modules - for instance, those on Mercury, Venus and the Moon - plastered with footnotes? This is meant to be a book for young people, not academics. I suggest sources are listed in a module at the end of the book. If specific referencing is a must, I suggest something like the truncated-quote method:

[edit] Mercury

"...is a terrestrial planet" : 1 2
"...has visited Mercury" : Zuber, Maria T., Mercury, World Book Online Reference Center, 2004 (World Book, Inc.) 1 2
etc.

David Kernow 04:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've been doing it as part of the proofreading process. I don't know if they'll make it to the print version, but it is nice to know where all the facts came from. It's helpful in convincing adults about the legitimacy of Wikijunior too. :)--Shanel 05:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Shanel; I agree entirely. In fact, as well as staying online, I think they ought to make it to the print version - with the usual caveat that URLs tend to date sooner rather than later. In both cases, though, I strongly suggest they're moved to an appendix module, for the sake of our target audience. Since you've already spent time creating them, I volunteer to undertake this task - but only if there's some consensus for it to be done. Thanks for your work!   David Kernow 00:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! I like the idea of moving them to an appendix. It's less clutter, and it doesn't look as "scary" to kids. I'll start a vote on this talk page to see if everyone agrees.--Shanel 23:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The footnotes were added during the process of fact-checking and verification. It was the only way to see what facts had been checked and which had not. At the time, we were hoping that someone would come along with a way we could switch the footnotes on and off, so that they would be in the source text, but off in the printed version, and in a "completed online" version. Or else printed in an "endnotes" section. Still hoping. --SV Resolution (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Any target audience trials?

Has anyone tried giving a module or two to someone in our target audience to see what they make of it?
How wide an age-range is our target audience meant to be?

I'm wondering whether a number of systematic features of the book - for instance, using descriptions such as "terrestrial" - might puzzle younger members of our audience unduly.

David Kernow 05:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

There's been no testing by kids as far as I know. Wikijunior is meant for 7-12 year olds. There is a glossary, but I don't think it's complete. That, and it has to be proofread to make sure the definitions are kid-friendly too--Shanel 05:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

In which case I'm also wondering just how far numbers (especially those using decimals) and units should be part of the main text, rather than only in say infoboxes or the like. I can imagine not everyone who might enjoy reading this book is as educated or confident with numbers and units as the book currently suggests (to me, at least). I'm not meaning to suggest the book should be "dumbed down" but rather that there's more division between words and numbers etc.

My niece is a little too young to try a test-read at present, but perhaps you or anyone else might know some 7-12 year olds only too willing to tell us what they think...?

Thanks,
David Kernow 00:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I could, thoeretically, see if my old elementary school teachers are interested seeing it and using it, prehapes for a lesson or 2, in there class. However I have some doubts that such a goal is possible cause it require vasts amounts of ink and paper to print enoug for the 30+ people. Prehapes I could simply print out the section that relates to the perticular lesson. Also I am surronded by young neighbors (like 4,6,7, 7, 8, 10, 10, 12 year old people (yeah quite a range)) so prehapes I could show it to them and tell me how they like it. N1person 04:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This sounds a perfect opportunity, N1person, so please go for it. Yes, I'd print out only one or two modules – ones that may be too simple or too sophisticated in content and/or tone – and see what people made of them. Some idea of what's too simple or too sophisticated for young people these days would be great. Thanks in advance, David Kernow 13:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


I don't know any young kids, and my brother and I are too old (15 and 17). I've been trying to round numbers as I proofread so there aren't any decimal places, and avoid words like "silicate" and "organic compunds." --Shanel 19:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
My son reading Wikijunior Solar System

The #1 complaint that I had (in an admittedly very politically conservative area) was the images of some of the greek gods in their various states of undress. The raping of Europa by Zeus in particular was considered rather offensive, even this from my perspective it is classical art. The image of Neptune was also considered borderline pornographic. Since the images of the various Greek dieties is hardly even necessary, I am considering just removing them altogether (even though I was the one who added them in). There is a mythology component to the planets that is useful in a historical context, but we don't need to be an art history book either.

I've also been looking at other intro to the Solar System books that are commercially published, and now that I'm working on this book here I can see so many factual errors in those other books. One very blatant error I saw in one book was a mixup between Phobos and Deimos on the discussion of Mars. This is one area where having many contributors and the editorial style of a Wiki can have a huge improvement over other similar projects. Indeed the factual material was one of the areas where people were most impressed when I showed the book to them.

In terms of physical publishing, make sure that the images you use for the main content also look reasonable in Black & White. Color publishing is still incredibly expensive unless you have a huge print run, and even then it still costs more. I've published this book with a small printing company near where I live, and the cost was somewhat reasonable as long as the bulk of the images were all in B&W. The cover I did in color though, and that turned out to be incredibly stunning. It certainly makes a splash as cover art. --Rob Horning 14:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


I have to agree that he nude images of the gods could cause problems. Personally, I like them, but I am a pretty liberal minded parent. These books, whether on paper or online, need to be acceptable to a wide audience. My area is fairly conservative, surrounded by extremely conservative smaller towns. I am sure that those pictures, no matter how non-offensive they are to those of us with open minds, would get this book, and possibly all of Wikijunior on the schools "blocked" list. While banning "real" books is seen as draconian, many of these groups will not hesitate to ban online content at the slightest hint of an issue. I do not believe in bowing down to that sort of pressure, but by starting out with "acceptable" material the conservatives will start having to respect the medium more and censor less in the future.Starchildmom 22:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Being blocked would be advertizement we couldn't buy ;). That said, I don't see the need for the pictures, would kids who are interested in astronomy, be interested in a random depiction of a religious figure; or did I just read too much Sagan as a kid? -- Jeandré, 2006-04-05t17:40z

I'm a kid (11), and I'll read it and see if anything is out of my range. --Sam T. Jazzhands 19:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything too advanced. --Sam T. Jazzhands 19:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Our Solar System

I will finish the Copy Edit for Our Solar System by tonight, October 30!!! Glad this project is finnaly maturing!

The end of this copy edit will complete the proofing on that page

I wrote the parents introduction on the intro page, leave your thoughts on it please! -Basejumper123 Whoops, sorry (and its done now)

Woo hoo! Mind telling us who you are, stranger? :)--Shanel 19:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please help with Comets module

Currently, I am the only person working on the Comets module. Anyone interested in fact-checking or referencing this page please see its proofreading plan and sign up for a task. (God knows my work can't go unchecked for long...) --Basejumper123 2 November, 2005

[edit] Reference style

I've noticed that the way SV and Basejumper do their references is a bit iffereent than how I did mine. Each of their references has its own number, but mine are grouped together.For example, if I found two references for the length of a day on the moon, reference #24 would be both URLs. Should I split them apart?--Shanel 21:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Up to you!

as long as everybody can read and understand it, then i really doubt that it'll make any difference, but its up to you of course. -Basejumper123 23:50 (UTC) November 2, 2005

I suppose, but it annoya me. I want to be like everyone else! :P--Shanel 12:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Sometimes I group two references to the same fact together, too. I am not totally consistent. --SV Resolution 17:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References.

[edit] In appendix?

David Kernow has suggested that we move the references to an appendix, and has volunteered to do so. So, lets have a vote:

[edit] Yes

[edit] Online only.
  1. — Jeandré, 2005-11-19t20:16z. I don't think a book for kids should have it in the book itself, a link to a page online with all the references would be better.
  1. Starchildmom 03:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC) The way they currently are is much too confusing for kids. The references need to be separated from the main text.

[edit] No

[edit] Online only.

Also, we should probably decide on a consistent reference style. I volunteer to do this. Should it be:

[edit] Group references to the same fact together

[edit] Number each reference individually

  1. — Jeandré, 2005-11-19t20:16z

[edit] Some newfangled style

[edit] How was it discovered?

I have also been removing the "How was it discovered?" sections. I removed them because anything before Uranus was known by the ancients, so that section would end up being repetitive. Plus, it was missing in most modules. In fact, I don't think it was even one of the oroginal questions. If anyone objects let me know.--Shanel 02:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Shanel, I would leave those sections in. I'm an elementary school media specialist (and hope to become more active here), and I know that students in the 4th grade who are assigned this topic are always asked to find out how the planet was discovered. The fact that almost all of them were known to the ancients may seem repetitive, but it's an important fact that should be attached to each planet.--Dale 27 November 2005

Ok, thanks. I'll put them back in then.--Shanel 20:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] two html versions

What is the difference between the two html versions? Which one should I edit?
(this unsigned entry by Gbleem 18:43, December 22 2005 (UTC))

Not knowing any better, I'd say edit the version on the website rather than extracted html documents. David Kernow 04:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
The reason why there is "two version" under the HTML distributions is because there is a version written specifically for the Beck Foundation and another version that has the full content of this website. The concern was that the full version would have far too much content to fit within the "48 page" restriction that was brandied about... and even removing the extra moons of the outer planets and Mars is still too much in this regard. I was the editor/author who made the two versions here, and all that you find in there is a transclusion of the individual articles that are also found immediately off from the main page. By clicking on the full HTML version, you can download the whole Wikibook at once and save it with your browser. I've done that to create the PDF version of the Wikibook as a way to simplify the process of compiling the book. You can still click on the "edit" sections in the full version as well, and either one will allow you to edit the same content in that regard. If you click on the "edit this page" tab, it only allows you to edit the transclusion list. Unless there is some new major sections (like adding some major asteroids or comets, or some additional moons of Saturn), this is not going to really need to be done. Changes in the individual articles will be updated automatically in the full versions. --Rob Horning 04:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Capitals

Is there a reason why sometimes "sun" and "moon" are written with a capital S/M? I couldn't discover any consistency. Fruggo 16:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a sun versus the Sun, and a moon versus the Moon. In other words, any random sun or moon gets lowercase, but our Sun and Moon get capitalized. — Laura Scudder | Talk 10:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Main Image

umm, you guys do realize that the image of the solar system on the main page is horribly out of scale?

Any image that attempts to display the whole Solar System is going to be horribly out of proportion simply because the range of sizes and the distances involved are absolutely huge. I consider this main image to be more art than any attempt to be scientifically accurate, but there is still some strong symbolism that can be attached to the order of the planets, the moons, and some of the features of the Solar System that come from that image. --Rob Horning 14:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
So long as some idea of the proportions involved is given in the book, sooner rather than later – and esepcially as regards the difference in distances between the inner and outer planets – then I reckon there should be no problem. I'd hope most young people reading the book would realise the picture wasn't to scale if they didn't already know. David Kernow 16:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I didn't realize that, so you're in the clear :)--Shanel 20:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
See w:Lie-to-children. I think simplifications should precede text/be noted in the captions. -- Jeandré, 2006-01-08t11:11z
It's probably closer to accurate if it's viewed as a logarithmic scale, at least in terms of the orbital radii. :-) — RJHall 21:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Readability; 'Freezing' modules to form a version 1 of the book

I've not been copyediting or revising material for this book for a while now as it occurred to me that I'm not confident how simple or sophisticated the text could/should be. On the one hand, I feel some modules might be overloaded with information and demands on reading skills; but, on the other hand, that some modules – including those at the start of the book I've worked through – might now be too simple.

Does anyone reading this have experience working with the target audience (8-12 year olds) and wish to pass comment?  I – and I hope others – would be grateful.

Meanwhile, by "taking snapshots to form a version 1.0", I'm returning to a concern expressed a month ago by SV Resolution, who(m?) I see has previously been much involved in this project. Please see User talk:David Kernow#Wikijunior Solar System/Our Solar System. I think something like a consensus (a vote?) to freeze modules as those for a version 1 of the book is needed otherwise there may never be a moment when a truly coherent, consistent book exists. Once a module is frozen as a particular version, people visiting the module's URL would work on what would become the next version of the module, to join the next versions of the other modules, all eventually 'frozen' to form the next overall version of the book; and so on. Please leave your thoughts here or at the thread linked above.

Thanks, David Kernow 16:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Freezing looks like a good idea, as long as we don't call early frozen modules version/edition 1. That designation should probably only be made after extensive testing with the target audience. -- Jeandré, 2006-01-08t11:16z

Thanks for your response, Jeandré – and also for your lonely votes above. It seems some lobbying nearer Wikibooks' root will be needed, especially re audience testing. Perhaps it might be enough for people like myself to browse something like Yahooligans! for a while... Any other suggestions – from anyone reading this?  Best wishes, David Kernow 21:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought of one kid in our target audience that I could get to test this module, but that's still not enough kids! D:--Shanel 04:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FactCheck for Neptune heavily required

Hi folks,

Im translating this project into german at german wikibooks, i have a question. You are saying that "Scooter" runs around the neptun every 16 hours, and you or someone else conclude this must be about 2000 Kilometers per hour. But there is something else. Neptune's day is 16 hours long, and if a full rotation is made, scooter is again visible. But Scooter needs not to move. So the question is, where does the information about 2000 Km/h windspeed come from ? -- 84.189.239.208 01:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC) (aka de:Benutzer:ThePacker)

I researched a bit the NASA says something very different, you can compare it, if you follow this link : http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/neptunefact.html
I can calculate on this factsheet a maximum windspeed of 720 km/h or 200 m/s. This is far away from 2000 km/h. -- ThePacker 01:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I proofread it. It says "up to 2000 Km/h." So it isn't the average wind speed, but the fastest wind speed recorded. Your calculation for the average is correct though. :)--Shanel 19:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, but where does this information come from. I had a look in different wikipedias and the german Brockhaus, but i havent found some hints for these high windspeeds. Those links provided do only cover tornados and their impact on facilities. But there is no link given, where something is said about maximum windspeeds of 2000km/h or 600m/s. I'm still not convinced... But i believe you proofread this article. Can you please provide me a link for this number/value? -- ThePacker 22:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
There are links though. In the references section, they're next to the fifth arrow, The links are: http://www.nineplanets.org/neptune.html and http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/solar_system_level1/neptune.html. Here's another one, for good measure :) http://www.earth.uni.edu/~morgan/astro/course/Notes/section4/new21.html
Indeed, thank you, for your information i found the number, you helped me a lot. Have a nice week. -- ThePacker 14:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Volumedata and km 2 (Pluto)

Doesn't match together. I figured that out, when translating his wikijunior into german. -- 84.189.239.208 01:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC) aka de:Benutzer:ThePacker

I've fixed it.--Shanel 19:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consistent scales

I've noticed a couple of things about the use of scales on these pages.

  1. First of all they are not always consistent. On the Sun page the first temperature is in Fahrenheit, while later it is in Celsius. Velocity can be listed in miles per hour or km per hour (or both in a few places). Kilometers has also been spelled kilometres, and vice versa.
  2. In addition your audience may not necessarily be familiar with the metric system, so a brief introduction close to the start of the book would be good. (At least for abbreviations such as km, kg and °C.)

Thanks! — RJHall 21:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Since the astronomical community largely uses the metric system, even within the USA, I would suggest that we stick with metric measurements. The only situation where I think non-metric units might be acceptable (in parenthesis) might be for surface temperatures on planets or moons. As far as kilometers vs. kilometres, that is again American vs. European spelling conventions. I don't have an easy solution for that issue. --Rob Horning 02:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the metric system use. The kilometers vs. kilometres spelling could be explained in a units introduction section, then the abbreviation km used thereafter. Likewise such a section could compare metric vs. old English. Thanks. — RJHall 22:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I wrote up something in the Introduction section. It could probably use a check ot three. — RJHall 22:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mistake in the 'Who discovered solar system?' section

The first paragraph starts out, "Anyone who looks up at the sky enough on clear nights can see seven bright objects. These are the Sun, our Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. "

Clearly, anyone who looks up into the night sky will *not* see the Sun. And if s/he does, s/he will *not* see the other six objects, and it won't be night.

Since I'm not an editor on Wikibooks, I decided I shouldn't edit this mistake, but obviously *someone* should.

--User Firsfron (from Wikipedia)

I don't see why not, but I agree that this section does need to be "cleaned up". It should simply read (anybody who looks up into the sky) and keep it simple, but truthful. --Rob Horning 13:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factcheck Hyperion

Under: How long is a day on Hyperion? is a description, which says Hyperion has a chaotic orbit. It wobbles so much that its location in space is impossible to predict!: this can lead to misunderstandings, because the orbit around saturn is like an orbit compareable to other moons, but its own rotation axis is chaotic and impossible to predict. So says the german wikipedia. -- ThePacker 22:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

So it has a multi-axis rotation? Very interesting, and yes, very chaotic. Imagine taking a gyroscope or bicycle wheel and then turing it while it is spinning. Over time the rotation settles down to a more ordinary single axis rotation, but this is caused usually by a collsion of two similarly sized object, where the angular momentum is kept for awhile having two or perhaps more axii that the object is rotating around. This doesn't happen on the Earth because it would take a nearly Earth-sized object to collide with the Earth to have this occur. We would be dead if it did happen. This has been observed with some of the smaller asteroids, and is assumed to have been caused by a recent collision... recent in terms of the age of the Solar System, not that it necessarily happened just a few days before it was observed. --Rob Horning 16:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
You are explaining a rotationaxis using a regular shape. But if you have an irregular Object, the rotation axis dont have to be there where you describe it. Saturn pulls Hyperion, some of the mass is nearer to Saturn (because of its shape, and orientation in Space) and the other is further away. Because of the gravity of saturn, you can not predict, where the axis is, because: you cant't predict how much of the mass will be nearer to the Saturn (remember the irregular shape), this leads to the following problem. The gravity is not a linear function. And each different constallation of rotation (I mean the orientation of an irregular Object in relative position to Saturn) and its rotational speed of each mass element leads to a different axis. Sorry my english is not that good to explain it better.
It might be peredictable and even periodic, but only if you simulate it with a very good model to verify it. ;-) --ThePacker 17:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding names of planets as page titles

A simple bolded page title and divider bar needs to be at the top of where the text actually starts. Kids need that signpost to clearly define where to start reading. Right now, even without the cleanup notices, it is hard for a target-age reader to determine where all the web page stuff ends and the "good stuff" starts.

I will start adding them as I go through systematically proofreading. Maybe a simple template that would create a consistently colored bar with the page title in it would also work?

Starchildmom 20:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too many scientific errors in the book!

I've corrected some, e.g. chapter Venus said Venus always has the same side face to the Earth, and chapter Mercury also said 100 kg item weigh 38 kg on Mercury, also chapter Moon said the Apollo photo of the Earth was taken from the surface, I believe there still many other errors in the book, please review this carefully! — 218.68.245.98 15:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting these errors. Any help with the factual accuracy of Wikibooks content is always welcome! --Rob Horning 16:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redoing the references

A quite revolution has occured on Wikimedia projects regarding citations and references. We can now put in citations that are directly embedded into the text while we edit, and they are automatically generated and put onto the web page where we would like to put them (usually at the bottom of the page, as usual). The really cool thing about using this approach is that each page can keep the references and citations while as a web page, but they can be either eliminated completely for the published edition or left as a huge appendix of just citiations (endnotes) when doing the printed version. And put in very small print or have other editorial control that keeps the citations from being overwhelming to younger children.

For details on how to do this, see: w:Wikipedia:Footnotes which goes into depth about this current footnote system. It really does work out quite well, and I've started using it already on Wikijunior Solar System/Solar System, although this whole project needs massive cleanup of the citations if this is the route we want to go. The only drawback is that it is harder to seperate citations into seperate chapters, but there may even be a cool way to do that as well. We are going to have to do some experimentation on that level. --Rob Horning 03:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see references as a big consideration for Wikijunior. This isn't a reference work, it's an educational book for kids. Isomorphic 22:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
No, they aren't, but the references are already there and some contributors put a huge amount of work adding them in. This is mainly a quality issue, and a way to help improve the content we current have here. --Rob Horning 13:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial Standards

The main page says: "It's more important to be understood than to be precisely accurate on every detail." and while this is probably good advice when writing for children, it might leave one with the impression that being accurate is not important. I think that this should be rephrased. Perhaps "Being understood is just as important as being accurate. Authors should concentrate on the most important concepts rather than getting wrapped up in every trivial detail."--Xixtas 20:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proofing status

I'm curious to know what's the status of the proofreading of this wikibook? It seems like the pages have been sitting around now for months with the proofing/do not add new material tags on them. Is one allowed to make corrections? I didn't know whether to make changes to the Wikijunior Solar System/Asteroid belt page, for example, so I just wrote them up on the talk page instead. Can anybody go in and just start doing blanket cleanup, if they are so inclined? Thanks. — RJHall 22:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently it still needs proofreading (based on the asteroids page.) ;-) When you see something that's wrong, you should go ahead and correct it. --Xixtas 05:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay the Asteroid belt page has been proofed and edited slightly. Thanks. — RJHall 18:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dwarf Planets (Pluto is no longer a planet)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/space/article/0,,1857618,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1

Instead it is Classified as a "Dwarf Planet" along with Ceres and UB313. This needs to be addressed. There is now a formal definition of a planet that we shouldn't contradict anywhere.

OK, I'm game with that. That means that Ceres and UB313 (aka Xena) have now been promoted to planet status and this book perhaps should reflect that new definition of 11 planets instead of merely 9. And that would be good.
I know that is not what some people want to read here, but I consider the whole debate to be something very silly and pig-headed. What will be very interesting it to see what will happen at the next IAU convention. I promise you that the final word on this issue hasn't been said, and it is likly to get ugly before it gets resolved. That the IAU has taken an official position on this issue is interesting, but there were a number of "members" that didn't vote on the proposal and may force this to be reconsidered.
The thing that I find very peculiar with the "definition" that the IAU came up with is that in order to be considered a full-fledged planet, that planet must have substantial gravitational influence with other objects in its orbital path and that path must be nearly a circular orbit. I consider this to be an unstable definition as exceptions will still creep in especially as other planetary systems of other stars are discovered that will challenge this definition. In other words, I consider that to be a band-aid definition only and not something that will meet scientific rigor or help with ontological discussions about objects in space.
For myself, I favor a mass/size definition of planets more that uses clean non-solar system centric concepts that would apply more universally even outside of our solar system. That would include wheither a planet is circular or not due to gravity (this is required currently for even status as a "dwarf planet" by the IAU). It would also be useful to include classification stages between not just planets and asteroids, but between different types of planets like terrestrial planets and gas giants. When this distinction is fuzzy due to extra-solar planets that fall between the size of the Earth and Neptune, it will get to be very interesting. I also don't mind calling the Earth's Moon, Titan, Triton, Ganymede, Io, Callisto, and Europa as dwarf planets either, even though the IAU is currently trying to avoid including those objects into the definition. --Rob Horning 14:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It is sure that science is constantly changing. Perhaps in just a short amount of time definitions will change again, forcing everyone wanting to write something about planets to have to take a step back and start again.

There is some issue on whether or not to talk about dwarf planets at all. At this point, it seems there is mention of it in some pages, but dwarf planets don't have any pages except for, of course, Pluto. As there might be less information about each Dwarf Planet available, it is possible we may have to combine them on a single page, like comets.

The last note about dwarf planets is that UB313 has been officially named (quite recently, in fact, less than two weeks ago). Now it is called "Eris", and it's moon is called Dysnomia. MiltonT 02:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The asteroids article stills says that Ceres is the largest asteroid. Since Ceres is now a dwarf planet, this is no longer true. The asteroids article needs fack checking in other ways too. --Xixtas 03:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Next page?

Going from one planet to the next is somewhat cumbersome (and I imagine possibly not easy for children). How about adding a 'next page' button to the bottom right of each page ? I would be prepared to do that if i get one or to: go aheads here. Regards w:User:Sean Heron 211.44.18.22 03:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a useful idea to me. --Xixtas 05:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've done it now (and can understand why other people might not want to do it :D ) . I only noticed there where more pages in the module than in the top right box pretty late, and to say the truth couldnt be bothered with filling in all the moons of the planets into the chain of "next pages". Whoever does feel like it may do so of course.

By the way, I followed the style of Wikijunior: Big Cats, as that was the only other wikijunior I could find that had a next page function. Everybody feel free to improve on that of course (a page back for example ? A nice picture of a page being turned would be good as well...).

Many kind Regards w:User:Sean Heron 211.44.20.113 14:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prepare an audience test version/revision

Hey y'all, let's get a static version of this book ready for audience testing. If we can produce a pdf, I can print paper copies and get some feedback from kids and teachers at my son's elementary school. I already have both the librarian and a second-grade teacher on board. I also have some pretty good contacts at a private primary school, and through the cub scouts. I'm pretty sure I can get at least 10 kids in the target range as test readers.

What needs to be done to create a new PDF? Here are a few things I can think of.

  • Set goals for completion.
  • 'Freeze' pages that have been proofed. (Replace existing cleanup tags with temporary freeze tags.)
  • Decide which modules will be included.
  • Decide on a version/revision labeling convention.
  • Finish proofing included modules. (Mars, Jupiter, Asteroids all still need proofing)
  • Create the HTML master document.
  • Layout the PDF.
  • Publish the PDF.
  • Create feedback form for test readers.
  • Create feedback summary document.
  • Revise documents based on feedback.

Is anyone else ready to move this title out of limbo? How many are out there willing to commit to this? --Xixtas 18:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stars?

The introduction page has a section on the stars. It mentions at the end of the paragraph that there will be more on the topic later. However, apart from a brief mention on the "Our Solar System" page, I don't believe stars and galaxies are even mentioned in the remainder of the book. Should that section be modified or removed? It doesn't really seem appropriate for a book on the solar system. Thanks. — RJHall 16:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't read the intro page. It needs a lot of work, IMO. --Xixtas 19:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Format consistency

There are varying formats for the cool fact boxes. Also, we should change the questions in all of the pages to either including the name or saying "this planet" or whatever object is in question; I propose we go for filling out the name. But it's somewhat inconsistent to flip between saying "this planet" and the name of the planet, IMO. A single format should be chosen for consistency. MiltonT 17:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think filling out the name is a good idea as well. --xixtas 20:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup and Proofing tags

I've been watching this project pretty closely for about 3 months. There have been very few edits anywhere in Wikijunior Solar System. I think the tags are actually stifling improvements to this book. If there are no objections, I'm going to take them down in two weeks. I don't think that leaving those tags up in perpetuity is beneficial in any way. If we want to tak a run at a publishable again in the near future we can figure out the best approach as a community. --xixtas 03:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I did it.
I'm going to think about the best way to actually get a big ready for publication in a form that we can all be proud of and propose a process on Talk:Wikijunior --xixtas 20:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The Wikijunior Solar System/Asteroid belt page appears to be in decent condition now, yet is still only shows a 50% completion status. I am wondering what else needs to be done to get that page wrapped up? — RJHall 23:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Zero replies in two months, so I bumped the article up to 75%. — RJHall 21:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PDF Update

I was wondering when (if ever) the PDF version will be updated. As of now I can not even download the PDF currently listed in the article. Is there a process by which someone will update the file? I am interested because I would be able to present the book as supplemental learning material to a fourth grade class of 23 students studying the solar system and see their reactions, but I'd only be able to do so with some copy of the book. --Odie5533 01:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been holding off on recreating an updated PDF file mainly because of the previous cleanup campaign and the fact that it hasn't been finished. This is something that perhaps I will make a priority, as I have other uses for the PDF as well.
I just saw that there is some problem with downloading the PDF files, so you might want to look at Image:Solar System.pdf and download some of the earlier versions at the moment (which seem to work just fine for me). I'm also going to ask on the technical side to see what might be a problem here. --Rob Horning 17:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solar System study module

Hi, I would like to invite all of you interested in this are, to come to en.wikiversity and cooperate on a study module called The Solar System. Regards --Juan de Vojníkov 17:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How long would it take people to get there

I'm not sure that these sections are helpful, since the time depends significantly on the propulsion method and the type of orbital path followed. I suggest that they be expanded or removed.—RJHall (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category sort keys

Until a day or so ago, the book category for this book had all the pages of the book sorted by the last name of the page; so, for example, Wikijunior:Solar System/Jupiter/Ganymede would be listed in the category alphabetically under G (for Ganymede). In some minor work on the category, I incidentally — and reversibly — caused this to change, so that it would now be listed in the category alphabetically under J  (for Jupiter/Ganymede). I could readily change this so it sorts by last name again, if it matters to anyone. Does it matter to anyone? --Pi zero (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikijunior_talk:Solar_System"