This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles
Other talk page banners
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Citing sources : Verify every single citation. Article has major source-text integrity issues.
Cleanup : Focus clean up the planet/dwarf planet descriptions and "General characteristics" section.
Expand : Expand more on recent discoveries, particularly in trans-Neptunian objects and interplanetary molecules
Featured article candidates : Check this article against modern FAC criteria, specifically about prose. Get some FAC reviewers to check this article again
Infobox : Find citation for the Hill sphere and galactic inclination
In some spots, distances in AU are presented without conversion, while others convert it to miles and km. It's inconsistent. The size of an AU is well defined at the start of the "Distances and scales" section. Do you think we can use AU thereafter without the intermittent conversions? An example is the Asteroid belt section, where the inner and outer radius from the Sun is converted, then AU is used for orbital distances without conversion. The benefit of the AU in this context is that it provides a convenient scale. There shouldn't be a need to keep converting it; that just adds clutter. Praemonitus (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agree, AUs should be enough. there is no way anyone can imagine what (15 billion km; 9.3 billion mi) is, 100 AU does the same job and is more concise. Artem.G (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support removing conversions. The distances in kilometers are simply too large, astronomical units are more appropriate to such large scales. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well the pluto article just jumps in and starts using AU without defining it, so I'm not sure. Perhaps that's a more general discussion for WP:AST? If there's a consensus, it could go in the astronomy style guide. Praemonitus (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear why this section is needed. It discusses spaceflight maneuvering, rather than the properties of the Solar System. The previous section already mentions the history of exploration via spacecraft. This discussion can be better handled via a link in the "See also" section. Praemonitus (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support removing most of the content; some of the info relevant to major missions could also be merged w/ the above subsection. ArkHyena (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A factual issue: this article states the Solar System creates a bow shock within the surrounding ISM, whereas the Heliosphere#Bow_shock article-section states this has been determined to be not the case. The Heliosphere page's applicable reference is more recent than that of this article. 98.1.3.105 (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]