Template talk:Infobox planet

"MPC designation"

What is intended by this? The MPC can list a long string of permanent and temporary designations, but that's not what I usually see. Should we include all of them and in MPC format? — kwami (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Should we just disable this? It makes sense in languages where the name of the article may not match the MPC spelling, but I don't know of any bodies where we don't already use the MPC designation at the top of the infobox. — kwami (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Infobox colour scheme

Please join in the discussion below (direct link to section) to come to a consensus on a unified colour scheme for planets. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 11:51, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

---

Tagging in @IvarTheBoneless123, who recently went through a bunch of the planet/moon articles and changed the infobox colours as per the reasoning on their talk page here. I actually think this is a pretty decent idea, or at least the beginning of one. Choosing colours according to dynamic system, composition, or some other classification does help intuitively group objects together. The only issues are that this was done without consulting any other editors as far as I am aware, and the colours that were selected in the end actively made link text harder to read both in light and dark mode. Though I have reverted the edits I do recognize this was done in good faith, so now the topic has been broached, I figured we could establish some standard for the colours within the infoboxes, as currently I cannot find anything specifically addressing this. Xiphosura^Talk∞Edits 06:33, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I think there used to be such a color scheme for this project, but I'm not sure what happened to it. Perhaps that could be a useful addition to the WP:ASTROSTYLE page? Praemonitus (talk) 09:56, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Why not create a template that stores standard colors, like WP:ELEM's Template:Element color? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:42, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Sure, that would help with consistency. Hopefully automation could be used for implementation, or it's going to be a significant chore. Praemonitus (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I've been begging for a topic like this, by an established user, since otherwise the topic of planetary/moon infoboxes is either completely barren or otherwise subject to arbitrary changes.

Thanks. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

And yes, I did engage in some adventurous editing - granted, the new darker 'icy moon/dwarf planet' scheme you've seen and reverted in Pluto was simply due to 'lavender' looking kind of meehhh... IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah bro, I also doubt which template is better for representing stars Template:Color temperature or Template:Star-color. I personally like using "Color temperature" as it represents the stars more near to what it actually look rather than some standard template like "Star color" that are useful for general use but for specific work can be very questionable Abdullah1099 (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Did anybody also took my proposal in this discussion Abdullah1099 (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

This could be good Homlos (Message me bro) 00:47, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, but it will need to be held separately. I don't think this proposal will affect the discussion below. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:12, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03 Can we put this business to rest for real? It has been forever.

Only other thing I'd suggest is to somehow separate 'regular' and 'irregular' moons via color scheme (provided that the objects in question aren't already under a certain infobox scheme, such as Triton). IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

How about regular moons being more saturated and irregular moons being less saturated Homlos (Message me bro) 04:45, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Here's a list of all colors used in infoboxes about astronomical objects. Colors for minor planets are also used in List of minor planets, but the main-belt color for infoboxes,  #d6d6d6 , is used only for the outer main belt;  #e9e9e9  is used for the middle main belt and  #fefefe  is used for the inner main belt. (Other lists use completely different color schemes; for example, List of natural satellites is color-coded by parent body, and the individual lists for the outer planets are color-coded by group.) I propose using  #d8bfd8  instead of  #e0ccff  for the small moons, and  #a9a8cf  for all the round ones. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:52, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

List of current colors in infoboxes

Type	Color
Galaxy clusters	#ebe046
Galaxies	#dddddd
Quasars	#f09598
Stellar associations	#d8bfd8
Globular clusters	#ffcc99
Open clusters	#ccccff
Nebulae	#eeddff
Solar System as a whole	#f8f9fa
Stars (including the Sun and starbox templates)	#ffffc0
Inner planets and Moon	#fcbba9
Jupiter and Saturn	#f5f5dc
Uranus and Neptune	#f0f8ff
Dwarf planets	#e6e6fa
Ariel, Umbriel, Titania, and Oberon	#a9a8cf
All other round moons	#d8bfd8
Near-Earth objects	#ffc2e0
Mars-crossers	#fa8072
Main belt asteroids	#d6d6d6
Jupiter trojans	#c2ffff
Centaurs	#c7ff8f
Trans-Neptunian objects	#c2e0ff
Comets	#ffe0c2
Meteorites	#ddddcc
Everything else (including exoplanets and small moons)	#e0ccff

Added two colors, for meteorites and stellar associations. There are more colors in use for infoboxes about features and events. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:03, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I suggest you be careful with using dark background colors like the one for Uranus's major moons. Dark purple blends too much with black text and I suggest brightening it. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 20:42, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

It's still technically AAA-compliant: . –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:12, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

True, but we should still prioritize colours which contrast well against link and regular text. For any proposed standard, we should have a test table similar to the above but with link text colouring too, so we can check it out. A lot of purples make the blue/blurple link text very hard to read, especially on dark mode. Xiphosura^Talk∞Edits 03:06, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Sure, please compile a color contrast table so we know which ones need to be replaced. {{Color contrast ratio}} can compute this. Meanwhile, I am going to draft a tentative list of items that will need colors assigned. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:15, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Just for the record - I suspect the only reason the 4 out of 5 major Uranian moons weren't reverted was because they had their infobox color changed by Double sharp who saw what I've been doing (we've been in contact elsewhere) and did it himself. There is absolutely nothing essential distinguishing these 4 from other round, icy moons.

With that said, since the Moon has been reverted to a terrestrial scheme, should we divide the 19 round moons into 'terrestrial' (Moon, Io, Europa perhaps - that one's debatable) and 'icy moons' (all the rest) schemes? If so, I propose that the 'icy moons' keep their current 'thistle' round-moon scheme but the 'terrestrial moons' should IMO then have a color scheme similar to but not the same as that of the terrestrial planets.

Actually now that I think about it: if people like the 'lavender' scheme that the dwarf planets currently have (who are all icy planetary-mass bodies), then perhaps the round icy moons should have a scheme more closely related to 'lavender' than 'thistle' in terms of color? IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 12:53, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I guess what I'm trying to say is that planetary-mass moons should have an infobox a shade or two lighter than their planetary/dwarf-planetary equivalents - so, something like this:

1) terrestrial planets (#fcbba9) vs terrestrial planetary-mass moons (#fdd3c7)

2) (icy) dwarf planets (#e6e6fa/lavender) vs icy planetary-mass moons (#efeffc)

This is just an example of course. But I think this balances the dynamical (planet, dwarf planet, major moon) and compositional (terrestrial, icy) properties of major planetary-mass bodies in a satisfactory way, at least as far as I can tell. (By the way - by 'icy' I mean any planetary-mass body in the ~1 to ~2.5 g/cm^3 density; a rather broad range, but I don't wish to overcomplicate, and this covers all such bodies which have a significant portion of actual ice of one kind or another, though mostly water-ice, as part of their bulk composition. This is actually why I think Europa belongs to the 'terrestrial moons' infobox, since its density is over 3 g/cm^3, comparable to that of the Moon or Mars.) IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I have no particular preference for a color scheme, other than the aforementioned darker background issue. The current list seems fine, but I do think that keeping it relatively simple is best. Right now there seem to be an overabundance of categories, especially for minor planets. But that's just an arbitrary choice, I suppose. Praemonitus (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, we have to decide exactly how moons will be classified for purpose of infobox color. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:51, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I just want to make it known that I've reverted the recent edits on Uranus' other 4 moons back to where they were before I embarked on my mess of edits. If for nothing else but consistency.

Unfortunately, in a rather funny twist of irony, when I tried doing the same for the Moon I got an edit-war warning.

That said, I'm ultimately still in favor of this planetary-body Solar System scheme:

1) gas giants: Beige (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter)

2) ice giants: Aliceblue (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptune)

3) terrestrial planets: #fcbba9 (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth)

4) dwarf planets: Lavender (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto)

5) icy planetary-sized moons: #efeffc (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:IvarTheBoneless123/sandbox#Ganymede); a shade lighter than the 'Lavender' scheme of the dwarf planets

6) rocky (terrestrial) planetary-sized moons: #fdd3c7 (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:IvarTheBoneless123/sandbox#Moon); a shade lighter than the '#fcbba9' scheme of the terrestrial planets IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good! Here's what it would look like, depending on what color we use for small moons:

Before/after comparison (with link test)

Category	Status quo	New
Terrestrial planets	Earth (#fcbba9)	Earth (#fcbba9)
Gas giants	Jupiter (#f5f5dc)	Jupiter (#f5f5dc)
Ice giants	Uranus (#f0f8ff)	Uranus (#f0f8ff)
Dwarf planets	Pluto (#e6e6fa)	Pluto (#e6e6fa)
Exoplanets	Kepler-10b (#e0ccff)	Kepler-10b (#e0ccff)
Rocky planetary-mass moons	Moon (#fcbba9)	Moon (#fdd3c7)
Icy planetary-mass moons	Enceladus (#d8bfd8)	Enceladus (#efeffc)
Small moons	Paaliaq (#e0ccff)	Paaliaq (#d8bfd8)

I propose using a greenish color for the small moons, bluer than for centaurs, to contrast with the other categories: approximately  Paaliaq (#bbffdd) . –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:15, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

This should be discussed on the Infobox talk pages, not a wikiproject. As we all know Wikiprojects cannot impose any rules or styles, but if its on the infobox(es) themselves then consensus can be established and the determined colours put into the documentation of the infobox(es) for people to reference and use. Canterbury Tail talk 17:04, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Bullshit. This is a project-wide discussion about the choice of colors for a widely-used infobox. All discussions regarding color for the periodic table were hosted at WT:ELEM. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:55, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Eh? No, Wikiprojects have zero authority as we all know. Even if something is used out of them, they still cannot dictate, only suggest since Wikiprojects are purely for like minded editors to come together, not to dictate or enforce rules (which they explicitly cannot do), and no editor is under any obligation to follow anything that comes out of a Wikiproject. As per WP:PROJECT and WP:CONSENSUS. There has been a lot of ANI discussions around Wikiproject MOSes and guidelines in the aviation space, which have made clear to those editors that nothing in a Wikiproject can be used to point as consensus or as an MOS that any editor needs to follow, and is not a reason for reversion. They're a social construct, not a rule making body. Many editors act as if they are, but they've been proven time and time again that that is not the case. That's why I'm suggesting it happens on the infobox talk, that way people will know it happened and everyone can point to a proper consensus on the use of colours in the infoboxes. It's better for it to be in that one place, and documented on the Infobox description and parameters afterwards. As for the Periodic table discussion, be that as it may, its a local consensus that is not enforcable. Believe or not I'm trying to be helpful here to get something that can then be used for consensus. Canterbury Tail talk 20:54, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Consensus discussions do not necessarily have to take place on the template's talk page. That being said, I have transcluded this section to Template talk:Infobox planet with a request to join in the discussion here. Hopefully that should satisfy the bureaucratically-minded folk who are (legitimately) concerned that we didn't make an effort to include non-project members on a discussion (in other words, Canterbury, I completely agree with your concerns, but let's not restart the discussion in a different location just because it's not the most ideal place). Primefac (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Anyway, I invite @Double sharp, @Renerpho, @Kwamikagami, @ArkHyena, @Nrco0e, @Serendipodous, @My planet is Homlos, @Anonymsiy to join in on this discussion, seeing as you're the most active recently on the planets/dwarf planets/moons articles. I really wish for there to be some kind of consensus on this matter, whatever it ends up being. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Matching the color scheme with the objects' color themselves would be a great idea, I think, but I agree with what LaundryPizza03 just proposed at 20:15, 7 May 2026 (UTC), the moon could be grey in colour and Earth be bluish in colour tho, and if Pluto is coloured like that, then any other dwarf planets may be coloured in that too. Sorry for going too far but can the possible dwarf planets (TNOs in between + 1 sigma > (600/700) km and the size of Salacia and Hygiea, Interamnia) be coloured #B4FFB4? Homlos (Message me bro) 13:13, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

maybe create a formula to choose infobox colours using data from planets? i imagine it like this:

size = saturation

hue = type of body (habitable = green, gas giant = orangish yellow, ice giant = light blue, lots of water = blue)

brightness =??? - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

What are you trying to do, compress information, or make it more accessible? This sounds like an algorithm to compress it efficiently, not like something made for humans (especially not for those for whom certain color combinations create readability issues). Renerpho (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I see three problems with your proposal:

1) the overwhelming majority of solar system bodies are grayish in color - you'd end up grouping the likes of Ganymede/Mercury with the likes of Dimorphos

2) there are some planetary-mass moons (Io, Triton, maybe some major Uranian moons) that wikipedia can't seem to decide as to what they look like to a human eye

3) there are 7 out of 9 consensus-dwarf planets which haven't been directly imaged by a spacecraft - we can make some deductions about their surfaces but until we visit them/get some more powerful telescopes, that's all we have. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@IvarTheBoneless123: Yes, but it's not just Wikipedia who can't decide. We can have endless discussions about what the "true color" of even some well known Solar System objects is. Neptune is the classical example. Mars? Who knows, ESA and NASA traditionally push quite different views on this. Jupiter's moon Io? That's been a fun discussion recently. And there are problems with Sedna and many of the other TNOs as well -- just to mention some examples.

Please don't try to use "actual" or "true" color in these color schemes, My planet is Homlos. There is no such thing. Renerpho (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Granted, the likes of Eris, which is almost certainly snow-white (at least at its current point of orbit) kind of proves that you can determine the overall surface color of a far-off body even in absence of any visiting spacecraft...That said, that's Eris now - but Eris has a c. 600 year-long orbit and we simply don't know if Eris does or doesn't change its surface features from white to something else during its own incredibly elliptical year. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the tag. I think you should ask people who knows about accessibility issues (and how to avoid them), not someone who edits astronomy articles. Renerpho (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this is about accessibility, more about consistently painting the bike sheds. Primefac (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

As Primefac said, accessibility isn't an issue here (as far as I know) since all current or proposed infobox color schemes are on the lighter end of the spectrum, perhaps (in the case of 'ice giants') a little bit too light.

I think regular editors of astronomy/planetary science-related articles are the perfect people to ask about this - again, the exact color scheme doesn't even matter (so long as it's visible enough), this is all about effectively color-coding planetary-mass bodies (planets, dwarf planets, major moons) and making it consistent and agreed upon by the majority. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

So we eliminated a counter-proposal. Is it time for an RfC? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:57, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I didn't mean it to be a counter proposal, I just thought that would be cool, but let's use your suggestion for the best Homlos (Message me bro) 08:19, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, as I said is it a good idea to put mint green on possible dwarf planets? Homlos (Message me bro) 08:21, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps. It would likely reflect Category:Possible dwarf planets. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:00, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me but green of any kind is not what I immediately associate with far-off icy bodies. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

RfC? What is that?

Truth be told, I'm not sure that many people are even interested in this judging by the fact that out of the 8 people I tagged only 3 responded by now. (I know for a fact that Double sharp doesn't care about this matter and Nrco0e's only objection so far has been text visibility in an infobox - I still wanted them to at least know there's an ongoing discussion.)

Like it or not, I think the lot of us here are all the deciding factor there is... IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

An RfC is a formal discussion that is visible to the entire Wikipedia community. WikiProject Weather ran one at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Colour discussions in 2021 to adopt their current color scheme. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:42, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, here's a comparison of the possible dwarf planet color with TNOs (where the majority of candidates are located), centaurs, and my proposal for small moons:

Proposed candidate dwarf planet color (with link test)

Category	Color
Small moons	Paaliaq (#bbffdd)
Dwarf planets	Pluto (#e6e6fa)
Candidate dwarf planets	28978 Ixion (#b4ffb4)
TNOs	486958 Arrokoth (#c2e0ff)
Centaurs	944 Hidalgo (#c7ff8f)
Jupiter trojans	588 Achilles (#c2ffff)

I think we should use a paler and bluer green  28978 Ixion (#e1fff0)  than suggested by My planet is Homlos. (Making it too close to cyan will clash with the color for Jupiter trojans.) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:05, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree Homlos (Message me bro) 07:24, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Alt. color proposal

Category	Color
Small moons	Paaliaq (#bbffdd)
Dwarf planets	Pluto (#e6e6fa)
Candidate dwarf planets	28978 Ixion (#e1fff0)
TNOs	486958 Arrokoth (#c2e0ff)
Centaurs	944 Hidalgo (#c7ff8f)
Jupiter trojans	588 Achilles (#c2ffff)

RfC: Colors for infobox planet and List of minor planets

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

{{Infobox planet}} is the infobox template used for articles about planets, moons, and minor planets. Should the color scheme presented below be adopted for classifying objects in instances of Infobox planet? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:59, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

The proposal

Category	Color + example
Planets
Rocky planets	Earth (#fcbba9)
Gas giants	Jupiter (#f5f5dc)
Ice giants	Uranus (#f0f8ff)
Exoplanets	Kepler-10b (#e0ccff)
Moons
Rocky planetary-mass moons	Moon (#fdd3c7)
Icy planetary-mass moons	Enceladus (#efeffc)
Small moons	Paaliaq (#bbffdd)
Minor planets
Dwarf planets	Pluto (#e6e6fa)
Candidate dwarf planets	28978 Ixion (#e1fff0)
Near-Earth objects	433 Eros (#ffc2e0)
Mars-crossers	1951 Lick (#fa8072)
Main-belt asteroids	4 Vesta (#d6d6d6)
Jupiter trojans	588 Achilles (#c2ffff)
Centaurs	944 Hidalgo (#c7ff8f)
Trans-Neptunian objects	15760 Albion (#c2e0ff)

Discussion

I agree with almost all of these. My only point of contention is that I don't really see a need to have a 'Mars-crosser' category - why not combine all asteroids interior of the main asteroid belt (incl. near-Earth asteroids and Mars-crossers) into a single color-category?

Similar problem arises with the Hilda and Hungaria groups - where do we put those? Personally, I'd group these two with the main asteroid belt category.

And if we're splitting asteroids into several different groups then it feels wrong to me to only have one giant TNO category - (main) Kuiper belt objects vs scattered disk objects vs detached objects seems like a reasonable tripartite split on its face. (Also, ideally, maybe it'd be best if there's some connection via color to show close relationships between certain of these groups? For instance, why is the main asteroid belt gray, but trojans are cyan and NEOs are magenta? There should be more sense to this.) - IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

there should also be variety in exoplanets too, maybe seperate ones for rocky, gas, subneptunes and more? - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 10:26, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the currently proposed schemes for rocky planets and gas and ice giants can be used for exoplanets, so long as there's very strong evidence for their bulk makeup.

You do bring up a good point about the types of planets we don't actually see in our own solar system - these could have their own scheme too. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Brown dwarfs especially. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 10:35, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep the Mars-crosser category. The categories here are those used by JPL, and we're color coding per their classification. Mars crossers differ from MBAs by having unstable orbits, mixing up the two makes no sense. If anything, make the subdivisions within the main belt more granular, not less; like the color scheme for "class" in (based on the part of the main belt, as defined in File:AsteroidIncAu.png). Renerpho (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting to group 'Mars-crossers' with the MBAs but rather with all the asteroids inferior to the MBAs' orbits such as near-Earth asteroids, Venus-crossers, Mercury-crossers. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 10:38, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Venus-crosser and Mercury-crosser aren't categories used by JPL; Near-Earth asteroid is. If you want to get rid of Venus-crosser and Mercury-crosser as standalone classes then go ahead, but I think Near-Earth asteroid and Mars crosser should both remain. Renerpho (talk) 11:08, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Getting rid of the former (Venus-crossers and Mercury-crossers) and keeping the latter (near-Earth asteroids and Mars-crossers) seems arbitrary other than the fact that JPL uses some of these categories.

I simply want consistency. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Besides, the 'Mars-crossers' infobox color is in the 'too dark' category anyway, since someone else already objected to and changed a similar color to it that I applied to terrestrial planets a few weeks ago, so it would have to be changed anyway. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

That touches on the potential accessibility issues I warned about. Renerpho (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Can we turn the text color into White rather than Black if the background color is too dark Homlos (Message me bro) 12:04, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Can't we just group all asteroids interior of the asteroid belt into one scheme? IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

What is the benefit of differentiating a Mars-crosser from a NEO from a Mercury-crosser in terms of color-coding? IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

There is no benefit to differentiating a Mercury-crosser from anything. Near-Earth asteroids are special, and they should be their own class. I'd prefer Mars-crossers to be their own class as well, but that's a hill I won't die on. If you really need to combine Mars-crossers with main-belt asteroids, go ahead. Renerpho (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

But I don't want to combine Mars-crossers with main-belt asteroids. I want to combine them with all other asteroids (NEOs, Venus-crossers, Mercury-crossers) which are interior to main asteroid belt. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 12:47, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

NEOs are interesting of course (for many different reasons), but that doesn't justify them belonging to a separate color-category as if they're made of some special material/are on some unique orbit. (Earth is 'special' too, but is still under the terrestrial planet infobox.) IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Well...perhaps...since comets are just TNOs/centaurs/etc. on extremely elliptical orbits that come very close to the Sun and they have a whole different infobox altogether...Maybe you're right. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Mars-crossers are special as that is when an asteroid's orbit has started to become truly unstable. -- Kheider (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, but all the unstable-orbit asteroids also include NEOs, Venus- and Mercury-crossers don't they? IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Why should stability be the primary (or only) concern, IvarTheBoneless123? NEOs can pose a potential impact risk, and they can be special in terms of accessibility (they are generally the easiest to reach with a spacecraft). I think that's more interesting than the question of whether their orbits are stable. @Kheider: While generally true, this doesn't apply to all Mars crossers. Compare temporary Mars crossers like 4222 Nancita, which was an inner main-belt asteroid until 2019, and which JPL recognizes as a Mars crosser,, while the Minor Planet Center (which uses the same definition as JPL) continues to define it as an MBA. This isn't particularly rare (323 Brucia is another low-numbered example), while transitions from Mars-crosser to NEA or back are seen less often. Renerpho (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, color contrast against visited links (in Vector 2022) is 2.105. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:38, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Venus-crossers and Mercury-crossers are classified as NEOs, even the handful of them that don't also cross Earth's orbit. These categories (and their associated colors) are long-established on Wikipedia and based on those used by the JPL Small-Body Database. SevenSpheres (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

This proposal seems more cosmetic than encyclopedic. Why do we need a separate color scheme for different astronomical bodies, rather than a single color for all bodies? Newberry Pie (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Support Looks fine to me. Double sharp (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: various pastel hues are fine, but what happened to comets? Praemonitus (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Comets have their own infobox type ({{Infobox comet}}); the color associated with comets is a pale orange  C/2024 G3 (ATLAS) (#ffe0c2) . –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:10, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  As for 'candidate/possible dwarf planet', I'd suggest this: #D4E3FD - it is exactly in between the dwarf planet and TNO color schemes.

  I'd also suggest a former dwarf planet/protoplanet infobox reserved for the likes of Vesta and Pallas (#DEDEE8) (also exactly in between the dwarf planet and asteroid belt color schemes). IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  That works for me. Double sharp (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  Can you perhaps include my proposal in the above comment in your main 'proposal' section? Colors included?

  As for my other criticism of Mars-crossers being included as a separate color-category I give up. Fair points were raised (particularly in regards to JPL having this category) - I still think it abuses the essence of what a narrow-level category is for but I'll leave it at that.

  So no need for any additional adding or removing to the 'project' list of color schemes, except for the fact that the 'Mars-crosser' scheme is too dark - perhaps you can add a suggestion? IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  Based on the current color scheme I think Mars-crossers would be a lighter hue from the {{Shades of pink}} table, with a slight tinge of orange. Like a Peach or Melon, for example. Praemonitus (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  How about  1951 Lick (#ffcccc)  or  1951 Lick (#ffe5b4) ? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:40, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'd go with #ffcccc since it's more similar to NEOs, while #ffe5b4 is so distinct it makes Mars-crossers look like a totally different type of object completely dissimilar to the NEOs (in reality, they're all just inwardly-scattered asteroid belt objects).

  Also, it'd be good if we divided the generic TNO scheme and came up with appropriate colors for each of the main TNO elements:

  0) Centaurs - which are really just inwardly-scattered Kuiper belt objects that are not yet comets (e.g. Chariklo and Chiron)

  1) (main) Kuiper belt objects (e.g. Arrokoth)

  2) Scattered disc objects

  3) Extreme TNOs (detached objects incl. sednoids, inner Oort cloud objects) (e.g. Leleakuhonua)

  I feel like all 4 of these should share a theme based on the current #c2e0ff TNO scheme, Centaurs included.

  By the way, will you include my #D4E3FD 'possible dwarf planet' and #DEDEE8 'former dwarf planet/protoplanet' proposal in your above scheme? I get that the #D4E3FD conflicts with your current pick for 'candidate dwarf planet', but the latter (which Double sharp agreed with) should IMO be included anyway. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 13:04, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  It's a synonym, so it wouldn't create an extra layer. I'd support rearranging the colors based on similarities, probably swapping the colors for centaurs and Jupiter trojans, for example. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:32, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  Can we move this along?? IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  It's been a month since the original proposal. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  No-one else is replying so...It's as close to consensus as such an obscure topic can get. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  I've filed a WP:CR. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:49, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  Before this discussion is closed I want to propose using a single color for all astronomical bodies rather than multiple colors. Newberry Pie (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  Can you give a non-circular argument why this may be better than color-coding objects by type? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:00, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  I would rather know why color-coding objects by type is better than deciding on one color for all types. That's what I'm trying to understand. Newberry Pie (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  The purpose of color-coding is to represent which region of the Solar System a user is reading about. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:10, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  Why do we need to represent each region by color-coding? I would honestly refer to the lead section for that. Newberry Pie (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  It is in addition to that. We do this for other infoboxes such as for chemical elements. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:23, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  That's fair. But if we're using a color scheme the colors and contrasts should be as compatible with colorblind people as possible. Newberry Pie (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  You think we should move on to phase 2 with the revised proposal and start debating it? I'd think some people who participated in WikiProject Weather's color RfCs would have input they haven't provided here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:30, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  I believe we should. Newberry Pie (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Colors for infobox planet and List of minor planets, round 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

{{Infobox planet}} is the infobox template used for articles about planets, moons, and minor planets. Does the proposal below make sense and satisfy color accessibility? If not, what changes would you make? Be specific about any new colors you propose. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:30, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The proposal

Category	Color + example
Planets
Rocky planets	Earth (#fcbba9)
Gas giants	Jupiter (#f5f5dc)
Ice giants	Uranus (#f0f8ff)
Exoplanets	Kepler-10b (#e0ccff)
Moons
Rocky planetary-mass moons	Moon (#fdd3c7)
Icy planetary-mass moons	Enceladus (#efeffc)
Small moons	Paaliaq (#bbffdd)
Minor planets
Dwarf planets	Pluto (#e6e6fa)
Candidate dwarf planets	28978 Ixion (#d4e3fd)
Former dwarf planets	4 Vesta (#dedee8)
Near-Earth objects	433 Eros (#ffc2e0)
Mars-crossers	1951 Lick (#ffcccc)
Main-belt asteroids	7 Iris (#d6d6d6)
Jupiter trojans	588 Achilles (#c2ffff)
Centaurs	944 Hidalgo (#c7ff8f)
Trans-Neptunian objects	15760 Albion (#c2e0ff)

Discussion

I have a question, can't we just turn the text color into white, and then the darker color schemes would not be a problem anymore? Homlos (Message me bro) 01:21, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

The "text" I mean is the text inside the block like "physical characteristics" and "orbital characteristics" Homlos (Message me bro) 01:24, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Sure, if we de-link headers like "Orbital characteristics". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:55, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

The text color cannot be changed if it is hyperlinked. Only the background colors can be changed. Newberry Pie (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Wait how come can I do this link Quaoar Homlos (Message me bro) 03:26, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

MOS:COLOR implies that link colors should not be changed if possible. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:28, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh sry I didn't know that Homlos (Message me bro) 03:30, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

checking if the proposed background colors should be contrast-tested against the actual blue/purple link colors used in infobox headers. If linked header text cannot be recolored, the accessibility check should use those link colors, not just black or white text. Pretty colors looks nice for sure, but if we can't read the text, then the infobox gone on vacation! NicoR8 (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

@NicoR8: Use Template:Color contrast ratio to test colors. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:52, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I sdhould note that List of minor planets uses a similar color scheme, which will also be modified if it fails accessibility. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:52, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

If the color scheme used for the lists of minor planets fails accessibility then I think it's a good idea to change it. That would probably be a job for a bot. I am tagging Tom.Reding, to make them aware of the possible upcoming change. Renerpho (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I have notified WT:WEATHER, WT:ELEM, and WT:Manual of Style/Accessibility of this RfC. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:58, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

@My planet is Homlos and IvarTheBoneless123: How about  S/2009 S 1 (#bbffdd)  for regular small moons and  Paaliaq (#e1fff0)  for irregular ones? (Triton is the only round irregular moon, but some sources count Iapetus as well because its orbit is tilted with respect to Saturn's equator.) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:01, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

This sounds good Homlos (Message me bro) 07:30, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I feel like I am ready to close and deploy the color scheme. It would be implemented similarly to Template:element color in places such as Template:Infobox element. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:40, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

All of it? As in the first one about the physical properties and all that, and the second one with the 'regular' vs 'irregular' moons? I agree, if you're willing to go ahead. (I'd maybe add a small color change to Triton, just a bit, to signify that it is a captured moon.) IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 11:22, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Do we have a final consensus color table now? Praemonitus (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Actually now, I disagree with the decision to split "former" dwarf planets, which relies completely on untested scientific hypotheses and cross-cuts across minor planets and moons. This is why I am disappointed by the lack of third-party participation in the RfC. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:39, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, I am a bit iffy on creating a color category for Triton that will only ever contain Triton. It is clearly logical if we split regular and irregular moons, but it would also logically lead to an additional unused category for the rocky planetary-mass irregular moons. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:42, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Frankly I think we have too many color codes at this point. It may be unclear to most readers what the colors are trying to communicate (especially for minor planets). Perhaps it would make sense to focus on settling the moons and planets discussion, then deal with the minor planets? Praemonitus (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not really too attached to either Triton having a separate color scheme or the 'former' dwarf planets scheme though so unless someone else objects you can get rid of these. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Should we adopt the color split between regular and irregular moons for small moons? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:34, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@Nrco0e: Any opinion about the irregular moon question? I myself don't think that color split is necessary. Renerpho (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not necessary. The default purple is fine. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 21:05, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I was thinking about using #bbffdd for both regular and irregular small moons. But I guess the default purple does the job. Renerpho (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, if it serves to push this discussion to the finish line I'm willing to concede on the 'regular' vs 'irregular' moons.

Though I'm not sure why there shouldn't be a distinction - it's a fairly important one when it comes to the origins of the moons (regular moons generally forming around their parent planet while the vast majority of irregular ones being captured bodies). It doesn't have to be a very pronounced difference in color either (LaundryPizza03's proposal is subtle enough).

Also, BTW, are we agreeing on #bbffdd or the default purple (assuming no distinction)? I rather like #bbffdd but I'm fine either way (maybe even leaning towards default purple since otherwise we'd have to change hundreds of infoboxes). IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

We will be changing tens of thousands of infobox colors no matter which category is set to default purple. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:55, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

That's a good reason to set up a template to manage the color table before we start applying these changes to articles. Praemonitus (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

And just to clarify - is "the proposal" table what's actually being voted on? Because I think you ought to delete the 'former dwarf planets' entry + whatever is decided about the small moons scheme. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

The proposal is subject to modification following feedback. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:54, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

@IvarTheBoneless123: "it's a fairly important one" -- Why is it important enough to get a different color? And how does making the color difference subtle help with making an important distinction? Renerpho (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Weren't you the one to insist on as many infobox colors for a certain category of objects (i.e. asteroids)? Why are you so hesitant then to acknowledge that regular and irregular moons are basically two separate classes of objects?

Regular moons form around their parent planet, while irregular moons are just captured objects.

That seems like a very significant and yet simple detail that I wish to capture with the 'regular' vs 'irregular' moons scheme. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 23:01, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Anyway - despite what my reply to Renerpho might suggest I really, really wish for this nonsense to end.

Therefore, can you actually start implementing the scheme that we conjured up? IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

As for 'regular' vs 'irregular moons' - you can discard that. That's a discussion for some other time. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Since neither @Renerpho or nobody else replied to my subsequent comments - please, just adopt the 'scheme' (minus 'possible dwarf planets' and such).

(Also disregard the 'regular' vs 'irregular' moons stuff...) IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@IvarTheBoneless123: If you want me to see your comments, you've got to ping me. I am not regularly following the discussion on this page. Weren't you the one to insist on as many infobox colors for a certain category of objects (i.e. asteroids)? No, I was suggesting that we keep the categories that are used by JPL; that we don't try to encode too much information into the colors (like the object's true color); that the color scheme we adopt should be checked for accessibility issues; and that we should probably avoid splitting categories like TNOs or small moons further than necessary. I also said that I'd prefer Mars-crossers to be their own class as well, but that's a hill I won't die on. If you really need to combine Mars-crossers with main-belt asteroids, go ahead. If you do, please keep Near Earth asteroids separate. Renerpho (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

It's been literal months. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Actual implementation

I have made a clone of Template:Element color at Template:Astro color. I suppose we deploy it to Template:Infobox planet first, then Lists of minor planets? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:38, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

How does that work? How long it takes?

BTW, your Template:Astro color is as good as it gets given the circumstances.

Thank you for your considerable patience with my nonsense. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Not to jinx it, but the 'Stars' section really only has one type of star infobox-color; did nobody consider giving outside-of-main sequence stars their own infobox color, and don't get me started on stellar remnants (white dwarfs, neutron stars, stellar black holes) which aren't even stars to begin with...Brown dwarfs as well...

But what really needs its own separate color-infobox are SMBHs just like the one in the center of our own galaxy.

Anyway, don't want to put too much pressure on you, just wanted to get this off my chest. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

It's cleaner to just have one color code for stellar objects, otherwise what do you do for a multi-star system with components at different evolutionary states? Or systems with orbiting brown dwarfs, neutron stars, or black holes? Plus some stars are ambiguous as to their evolutionary status. However, I'd be okay with SMBH having their own color code, as they are a completely distinct category. Praemonitus (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure, maybe we should discuss this in a follow-up section. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:21, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Definitely. Please sorry for going off-topic. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, this was just an intrusive thought that came to my brain - couldn't help myself even though I'm desperately trying to finish up the planetary/moon infobox debate.

...but...if you insist - two solutions come to my mind: either make the multiple objects' infobox color follow the most dominant object in the system (but that's no guarantee since so many are very even in terms of mass). Or two, just have two or multiple color schemes in an infobox representing each of the objects in question (if an example is, say, Sirius A and B). It might even be easier on the reader to distinguish these objects within an infobox. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

These are solutions in search of a problem. I'm not sold on a need to change the current form for the sake of change. What does it buy us? Praemonitus (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Probably nothing. Let's leave this discussion for another day/topic for now. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I see above that the implementation seems to be going ahead okay, if another set of eyes is needed feel free to ping me. Primefac (talk) 11:46, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I have a revision at Template:Infobox planet/sandbox ready for review: it includes a new type= parameter that overrides the background color with {{astro color}}. I have also added an American-English alias for bgcolour=. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:18, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Now we can start updating the articles. I'll do the Solar System planets, round moons, and dwarf planets and file a request at WP:AWBREQ to do the small moons and minor planets. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:32, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The color scheme for 'ice giant' is barely even visible. Praemonitus (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

How about  Uranus (#e1fff0)  vs. current  Uranus (#f0f8ff) ? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:58, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

e1fff0 looks really good Homlos (Message me bro) 07:09, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I still actually think, after a bit of thinking through, that Vesta and Pallas (or at least Vesta) have enough evidence to suggest that they were once dwarf planets - perhaps these two can occupy what used to be the 'former dwarf planet category' and combine it with the present 'possible dwarf planet' category? In fact, the only other two objects listed as former dwarf planets in any capacity are Triton and Phoebe, both of which are of course moons. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 11:04, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Such information can be better communicated in the articles themselves, rather than having readers try to puzzle out the color codes. Praemonitus (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, after mulling it over more this is getting too complicated. It's fine as it is. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

A bit late to the party, but just wanted to jump in here to thank everyone involved with getting this sorted - it's real great to see people establish a new standard and deploy it effectively, even if it was a bit of a winding path to get here. Xiphosura^Talk∞Edits 07:13, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

---

Edit request 22 May 2026

Description of suggested change:

Currently, in the "proper elements" subsection of the infobox, "precession of perihelion" is needlessly ambiguous. Not only is there chance for confusion between "perihelion distance" and angular parameters relating to it, but there are multiple parameters in use that could be abbreviated perihelion: longitude of perihelion which is the direction an eccentric object's orbit is 'pointed' relative to the standard reference angle of Earth's position at the vernal equinox; and argument of perihelion which is measured relative to the object's longitude of ascending node. As someone who works with this frequently, it's obvious that this parameter is supposed to refer to the former (longitude of perihelion).

With that context out of the way, I would like to ask that the display for perihelion_rate parameter from its current "Precession of perihelion" to "Precession of perihelion longitude" or just [...]peri longitude / [...]perihelion long, if space is needed, as well as changing the link from the very generic apsis to longitude of periapsis. It's needlessly ambiguous otherwise to those not already highly familiar.

Original:

| label68     = {{longitem|Precession of [[Apsis|perihelion]]}}

Changed:

| label68     = {{longitem|Precession of [[longitude of periapsis|perihelion longitude]]}}

Alternative change 1:

| label68     = {{longitem|Precession of [[longitude of periapsis|perihelion long.]]}}

Alternative change 2:

| label68     = {{longitem|Precession of [[longitude of periapsis|peri. longitude]]}}

exoplanetaryscience (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Because your requested wording would take up so much space, is there another way to approach this? Maybe change the link without changing the surface wording? Is there a common abbreviation that would work? — kwami (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Just changing the link would be a good concession at least. I'm not sure there's a much more concise way to word it that gets the point across without being so abbreviated as to require clicking the link anyway. Personally I'm partial to "perihelion" -> "perihelion long", but if 5 more characters is too much then just changing the link would be fine too. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Done.

Because there are already 2 long words, adding "long." may cause it to spill over onto another line. Let's see how it works in practice. — kwami (talk) 01:02, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Seems to work fine, as it's still shorter than "precession of the ascending node" which is both split over 3 lines and still ends up being longer on the third anyway. If wanting to save line breaks, it could probably be shortened to just ascending node (no "the"). exoplanetaryscience (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Abbreviated.

I think how many lines it has will depend on user prefs, so I went with "asc. node". Let me know if that doesn't work for you. — kwami (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Disabled mpc_name when minorplanet=yes

Please rv me if this causes problems I don't see.

This still works for moons etc., but for minor planets, with very few exceptions, it redundantly copies the infobox header. There are possibly thousands of articles where this adds a line to the infobox without adding any information.

It is also ill-defined, because there is no single MPC designation, apart from unnumbered objects that have only one provisional designation, where it isn't needed anyway.

The one place that I see where this provided some info was the 9 dwarf-planet articles where the MPC number is not use in the infobox header. But since number + name is not the MPC designation anyway, we can maybe just add those to the alt_names param.

If this isn't a good solution, we could run a bot to remove the entry from all mp articles, and restore it to those few where it's doing something. — kwami (talk) 03:58, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 30 May 2026

Description of suggested change: Add the “Life Likelihood” parameter to help humans find a new planet to live on someday. ~2026-29052-60 (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first. See WP:TESTCASES. I have removed the {{textdiff}} and everything that it encloses; it is for showing text differences, not markup differences. Also, your suggestion is difficult to follow and impossible to test. Please prototype template changes using the sandbox, as explained at WP:TESTCASES. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 July 2026

I have implemented a new type= parameter in the sandbox that overrides with a value from {{astro color}} if it is set. The American-English alias bgcolor= was also added for the background color. The default background color is the same as before, as well as the value set for exoplanets by {{astro color}}. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Actual_implementation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:24, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

 Completed – please update /doc page as needed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 02:29, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

To editor LaundryPizza03: your final ifeq function is throwing an error at the top of the #All parameters section. That might confuse editors, so it should be clearly explained under that error message, don't you think? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 23:06, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Can you create a tracking category for this error? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:14, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Tracking category created. I agree with Paine that visible errors are more for things that are broken rather than tracking bad use. Primefac (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2026 (UTC)