Template talk:Infobox planet

Standard gravitational parameter

GM is typically known to higher precision than G or M, and is often encountered as such in formulae, so it's useful for more precise calculations. I wanted to add it for Earth, but it seems we need to discuss this. So, how about it? Is it too much detail for Wikipedia? If we don't allow it here, I don't see where else it might have a good place, so this data would be missing from Wikipedia, then. Darsie42 (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that would be too much detail for Wikipedia. GM is a very common parameter and it involves smaller and more intuitive values than either M alone. Elleh3113 (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, looks like we have a consensus :). OTOH I noticed there are not many values in Standard gravitational parameter. Maybe that's because we don't actually know too many GM values (to a significant precision). Then again we've orbited e.g. 101955 Bennu so we should have a pretty good GM of that and we could add more. I'll request it (possibly after some procrastination ;). Darsie42 (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm overwhelmed. Someone else do it, please. Darsie42 (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Should we pick Standard gravitational parameter, GM or µ? Darsie42 (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 August 2024

Can the label mean anomaly be changed to read mean anomaly at epoch? I'm assuming this field is intended to be M0 (rather than M), but the way it's labeled currently is misleading and confusing.

−

[[Mean anomaly]]

+

[[Mean anomaly|Mean anomaly at epoch]]

Elleh3113 (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC) Elleh3113 (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That is rather long for an infobox label and is likely to cause the text to wrap on any article using this field — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree it's on the longer side, but "Mean anomaly at epoch" is still shorter than multiple existing fields, so I'm not sure that's a reason to stick with a misleading label. Perhaps another solution would be to keep the text as is but link directly to Mean_anomaly#Mean anomaly at epoch? Elleh3113 (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. I agree that the naming is probably a hindrance, but if there is consensus then please feel free to re-open the TPER. Primefac (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I support Elleh3113's suggestion from 19 August, to directly link the relevant section but keep the text as is. Renerpho (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 August 2024

Description of suggested change: The recently created page mean radius has since been turned into a Broad Concept Article that no longer covers the connection to a planet's dimensions. The special case of astronomy was spun off into mean radius (astronomy). Similarly, mean diameter now redirects to the BCA (it previously was a redirect to mean radius), hence why that link has to be changed as well. Compare my previous edit request from 30 June 2024, and the discussion at Talk:Mean radius#Hat size.

Diff:

−

[[Mean radius]] {{{mean_radius}}}

+

[[Mean radius (astronomy)]] {{{mean_radius}}}

−

[[Mean diameter]] {{{mean_diameter}}}

+

[[Mean radius (astronomy)]] {{{mean_diameter}}}

Renerpho (talk) 07:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

 Question: editor Renerpho, wouldn't it be better to pipe those links, as in:

• [[Mean radius (astronomy)|Mean radius]] {{{mean_radius}}}
• [[Mean radius (astronomy)|Mean diameter]] {{{mean_diameter}}}

? I'm no expert, so correct me if I'm wrong. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 09:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

You are correct, they should be. Renerpho (talk) 09:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, and  completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 09:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: Thanks! While I'm here, could you explain to me why the first change I suggested in my Edit request from 30 June 2024 (to change 'Yes' to Yes) was not possible? Renerpho (talk) 09:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

To editor Renerpho: happy to help! It looks as if you were wanting the 'Yes' to be italicized in the TemplateData table, and that doesn't work as expected. All it does is place "Yes" in double quotation marks, which mucks things up for those who use the TemplateData code, which, as editor Jonesey95 explained, is not a viable solution. Even though the TemplateData code is lodged within the template documentation page, and therefore not usually protected, editors should have experience before they attempt to change that code. Hope this helps! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 10:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: It does. I was confused by what may have been conflicting advice. Thanks for explaining it again.

Oh, one more thing... I just noticed one more change that I should have proposed with my edit request. I hope you don't mind if I attach it here? In the minor planet section of the infobox template, the "dimensions" parameter should now link to Dimensions (astronomy), which is a redirect to the main radius (astronomy) article. The concept is defined there.

• [[Mean radius (astronomy)|Dimensions]] {{{dimensions}}}

This was one of the last parameters that are still missing an appropriate link and for which the definition is not obvious (the dimensions of a minor planet are the principal axes of the unique ellipsoid with the same volume and moments of inertia). The concepts of radius and dimensions are so closely related that they can be conveniently handled within the same article. If you could make that change as well, that would be great! Renerpho (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

 No problemo. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Pole ecliptic latitude should come after ecliptic longitude

I noticed that the north pole direction parameters in RA/Dec. versus Ecl. Long./Lat. coordinate systems have inconsistent ordering. When you specify both Pole RA and Dec. in the infobox, you see that Pole RA is listed before Pole Dec. However, when you specify both Pole Ecl. Long. and Lat. in the infobox, you see that Pole Ecl. Lat. is listed before Pole Ecl. Long.

My problem with this is that RA is equivalent to Ecl. Long., and Dec. is equivalent to Ecl. Lat., so for the sake of consistency it should make more sense that Ecl. Long./Lat. should follow the same ordering as RA/Dec. Swapping the current order of Ecl. Long./Lat. should be simple, as I've shown in this sandbox infobox edit here: [1] Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 22:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)