Talk:Neptune/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Orbit and rotation section

The poster above has a point. This article doesn't have an orbit/rotation section. Needs one. Badly. Serendi^podous 19:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Just started one. Needs more work. Serendi^podous 20:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This might be a good section to include the theory (model) about Neptune's outward planetary migration. Though of the 4 gas giants, only Uranus's formation seems to cover this topic. -- Kheider (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The outward migration needs its own topic. Jupiter has a separate section on how it influences the asteroid belt; Neptune needs a similar section on how it influences the Kuiper belt. The discussion of Neptune's migration belongs there (see the Kuiper belt page for more information on this) Serendi^podous 00:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

We should also add gravity, like your weight on Neptune compared to Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.1.99 (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Moon Problem

wikipeda says neptune has 13 moons, but somewere else it says it has 8 moons. Witch one is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.1.99 (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Neptune has 13 known moons. When we send a dedicated space probe to Neptune we will surely find many more. Where did you read that it only has 8 moons? -- Kheider (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Nereid - second moon?

The moons section described Nereid as "Neptune's second known satellite (by order of distance)". Counting outward from Neptune, all 6 Voyager-discovered moons as well as Triton are before Nereid. Nereid would be the sixth satellite counting inward from the edge of the Neptune system, which would be an odd way to count anyway. Also, Nereid is third in radius and mass, behind both Triton and Proteus. The only way Nereid is the second moon is by order of discovery, so I edited it so that's how the article now reads. Illexsquid (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Troubles for Neptunian sailors?

I find a discrepancy between the two values showed in the infobox for the Right Ascension of the North pole (assuming that they should be equivalent or slightly different results from independent measures): the first one (17 h 19 min 59 s) corresponds to an angle of ~259.5 degrees while the second one is ~40 degrees bigger (299.333). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.17.71.21 (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Road to Featured Article

Neptune is the only Solar System planet that ain't a FA. So what is needed to do to get there? Samuel Sol (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it needs to be comprehensive and properly cited, per the FA criteria. Currently I'm finding information on Neptune that wasn't covered, so I'm working on adding that in. Also, some of the current material is lacking citations and I have been unable to find suitable references, so those parts may need to be yanked.—RJH (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Once the moon additions to the Solar System FT are added, I'm planning on tackling Neptune. The two big issues for me that this page doesn't cover are seasonal variation (such as the disappearance and reappearance of the Great Dark Spot) and interaction with the Kuiper belt, specifically Neptune's outward migration, resonances and capture of Triton. Serendi^podous 16:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little skeptical that the spot disappeared because of seasonal variations as the seasons on Neptune are 40 years long. =) Yes I too was thinking it would be good to have a section on Neptune's formation (and hypothetical migration); it's just been taking a while to get the page properly cited. I've been putting a fair amount of effort into the page over the past few weeks, and I hope we can get it to FA quality in the near future. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay I think references are done for now. If you spot any missing ones I'll try to add those in; plus I'm going to keep an eye out for unsourced additions until this is past FA. =)—RJH (talk)

Mate did you see my post with the book that is cited on Nasa website? Do you have access to it and could check if we can put as ref? It would be better than the Nasa webpage I think. Samuel Sol (talk) 23:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok mate, I will try helping with what I can. It will mainly be rewriting, as I do not have access to most of the references. Samuel Sol (talk) 14:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Quick question: should the article list all temperatures in K, C and K, or C? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think K with convertion to C and F. Samuel Sol (talk) 18:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Mmm... MoS suggests using metric for scientific articles, so that would tend to leave out the F.—RJH (talk) 23:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

So go with k and a template conversion to C I think. I personally hat F anyone (bloody americans ;) ), but thought it was standard to use it. Even better without. Samuel Sol (talk) 23:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As an American I like seeing F only when referring to room temperatures. For any other use I prefer K or C. -- Kheider (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool, mate just came to tell you that summary edit of yours made me come here thinking it was some vandaslim or attack hehehehe :) Samuel Sol (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Planetary Rings

Should we link the name of the rings to Liberté,_Egalité,_Fraternité? Samuel Sol (talk) 16:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've seen FAC criticisms of links that don't point to where the reader expects, so you might want to be careful. But you could mention the linkage in a note, assuming that naming pattern is historically correct. (Yes the name origins seem obvious, but that's just the sort of thing that articles get held up in FAC for not referencing. =) Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Add a ref to the NASA website SSE: Neptune: Rings. It is the first cite I do so please, check if it is alright. Samuel Sol (talk) 18:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The citation seems fine. I usually like to add in the date and names of the curators/writers for those NASA web sites, because they may ding you for that during FAC.—RJH (talk) 18:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Tried to, but couldn't find that info. Samuel Sol (talk) 18:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The article on nasa website cites this book http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521575973 about the influence of the moon. Do you have access to it? Samuel Sol (talk) 18:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Error in introduction

From the opening paragraph: "It is the fourth largest planet by diameter"... Shouldn't that be the "third largest" - I would assume that this article is stating that Uranus has a larger diameter than Neptune? That's surely not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.16.242 (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Neptune is 17 times the mass of Earth and is slightly more massive than its near-twin Uranus, which is only 14 Earth masses, and as a result of weaker gravity, less dense. -- Kheider (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Neptune Title Picture

Can someone revert this; it looks like an album cover, and I have no idea on how to revert images Fortunia (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's at the Wikimedia Commons. I tried to undo it but couldn't. Someone with better knowledge will have to figure that out. Serendi^podous 14:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Janus needs a disambig. Randomblue (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Foreign language equivalents

I'm moving the following entries to the talk page because (1) wikipedia is not a translation dictionary and (2) these are unsourced. I think that to include both entries, the article would need to include some additional facts beyond their basic meaning. I.e. show why these are notable for an English-language article.

The planet's name is translated literally as the sea king star in the Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and Vietnamese languages (海王星 in Chinese characters, 해왕성 in Korean).

In India the name given to the planet is Varuna (Devanāgarī: वरुण), the god of the sea in Vedic/Hindu mythology, the equivalent of Poseidon/Neptune in the Greco-Roman mythology.

Sorry.—RJH (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

English(British) and English(American)

We need to find some sort of ground level for word usage. For instance, color is used twice and colour is used three times. I haven't gotten through the whole article yet, this could be the only case. Just making a statement. Since this is the English Wiki, I would think to convert colour to color, but don't want to start any flaming. Stepshep (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right about standardizing, but in the case of this article it seems to be predominantly British English. I've adjusted it accordingly. (Yes, it is the English Wiki, but there is no preferred form; British, Canadian, American, etc. are all acceptable as long as we're consistent.) Thanks for noticing that there were inconsistencies to be addressed. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC) British English

The general rule is that neither is preferred (except if the subject matter is predominantly British or American) and that an article should be consistent. Therefore, the article should favor whichever is used most often - in this case British it seems. PhySusie (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Needs a citation

I could not find (or access) a suitable citation for the following, so I'm moving the entries here until references turn up.

• Comparing its rotational speed to its degree of oblateness indicates that its mass is less concentrated towards the centre than Uranus.
• The reason for the Great Dark Spot's disappearance is unknown. One possible theory is that heat transfer from the planet's core disrupted the atmospheric equilibrium and disrupted existing circulation patterns.
• These loops will carry it close to the 1846 discovery coordinates in April and July 2010 and in October and November 2011. On August 20 2010, Neptune will come to opposition on the same night as the discovery year of 1846.—I hope that citation is adequate; it looks to have been generated specifically for wikipedia.

—RJH (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the citation is adequate since the results can be reproduced by anyone willing to put 5 minutes into learning to use Horizons. -- Kheider (talk) 18:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

True. I just have minor concerns about the stability of the link.—RJH (talk) 18:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Orbit Resonance

First mate, thanks for the linking to the MOS, I didn't knew that. And about the paragraph below, I don't know, it still reads cluttered to me. what about if we change it to

Pluto and Neptune are in a 2:3 orbital resonance, which means that Pluto completes two orbits for every three orbits of Neptune. This configuration keeps the two bodies safely separated, even though Pluto regularly crosses the orbit of Neptune

Although Pluto crosses Neptune's orbit regularly, they are safely separated thanks to a 2:3 orbital resonance, which means that Pluto completes two orbits for every three orbits of Neptune.

Samuel Sol (talk) 15:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'm not sure I'd use "thanks" as it seems a little unencyclopedic. My suggestion is to change "thanks to" to "by". Otherwise it looks good.—RJH (talk) 18:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it sounds even better mate. Samuel Sol (talk) 23:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Abbr. for year

We discussed the abbreviation for year some time ago over in the astronomical objects wikiproject. The consensus was to use 'yr' instead of 'a', as the former is much more widely understood and is commonly used in astronomy papers. Internationally, use of 'a' is suggested rather than required, and I think some readers may find it confusing.—RJH (talk) 22:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah cool, I just check the Julian Year page and it said he abbr. was a, that's why I changed. If it has consensus, that is cool. Samuel Sol (talk) 23:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Triton moon comparison

I don't think it adds much to the article mate, it is more importante to Triton_(moon). Here it takes too much page space. I removed it, if you prefer revert it back. Samuel Sol (talk) 23:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally I don't care, but I should point out that other planet articles have similar tables. (Earth#Moon, Jupiter#Galilean_moons, Saturn#Natural_satellites, ...)—RJH (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Triton, compared to Earth's Moon
Name (Pronunciation key)		Diameter (km)	Mass (kg)	Orbital radius (km)	Orbital period (days)
Triton	ˈtraɪtən	2700 (80% Luna)	2.15×1022 (30% Luna)	354,800 (90% Luna)	-5.877 (20% Luna)

Moved table to talk page. -- Kheider (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think the table's useful in helping conceptualise Triton's dimensions (though the use of "Luna" rather than "Moon" is a bit poncey) Serendi^podous 11:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur with you. It is a great comparison, but I don't think it is apropriate in an article about Neptune. But on one about the moons or even Triton itself. I think we should put some of these info (weight and diameter) on the prose, as it is. A move the table to the Triton_(Moon) article. Samuel Sol (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Triton already has an infobox, so I don't really think the table is necessary there. Serendi^podous 14:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Naming

Perhaps we could change this section to Etymology of the planet? Meldshal42_{Comments and Suggestions}^{My Contributions} 12:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Etymology is the linguistic origin of a word. This section tells the history of the naming of the planet. Not the same thing. Serendi^podous 13:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Anomalously high temperature

I have some concerns about the following statement:

For reasons that remain obscure, the planet's thermosphere is at an anomalously high temperature of about 700 K.

Originally it was the planet's "exosphere" and the reference (Elkins-Tanton (2006):79-83) matched the value. Now the statement has been modified to say "thermosphere" and the Herbert (1999) reference doesn't appear to give a temperature for Neptune. (I couldn't find it, anyway, so I'm probably not understanding something.) By contrast the same reference does give a value of 850 K for Uranus, so it seems odd that the temperature of Neptune would be considered "anomalously high". The sentence also appears to be saying that the thermosphere temperature is uniform, which I don't think is the case.

I added thermosphere because it seemed odd (for me at least) that it had not been mentioned. Thermosphere by definition has a uniform temperature because it is dominated by conduction. Now I have added an additional reference to Broadfoot et.al. 1989, which resolves the issue. Ruslik (talk) 06:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. In that case the thermosphere article may be in error beacause it says that, "Thermospheric temperatures increase with altitude". Or perhaps that just applies to the Earth?—RJH (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it just applies to Earth. In the case of Neptune (and Uranus) the definition of the thermosphere is different. Ruslik (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

In a somewhat related concern, the following statement has been removed:

Orbiting so far from the sun, Neptune receives very little heat, with the upper regions of the atmosphere reaching a low temperature of 52 K.

even though it was properly sourced with Lindal (1992). Was this statement proving just too inconvenient, given the first sentence above? Perhaps it should have said "minimum" rather than "low"?

Am I missing something?—RJH (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The 52K figure is still there. I revised the first part of the sentence because, when compared with Uranus, Neptune's surface temperature is actually quite high. Serendi^podous 16:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I added a specific figure for the amount of sunlight. Serendi^podous 16:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see why; it got changed to 51.9. In that case the correct value is 51.7, per Table 1 of the reference.—RJH (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Convert Template

There is something strange on the convert template, some that I tried to add turned into redlinks and I have removed thenm. Any idea what it is? Samuel Sol (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Forget it. found the problem. Samuel Sol (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Still on it should we use convertn on bar ? And if so to which unit? Samuel Sol (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

disambiguation

spectra needs a disambig Randomblue (talk) 11:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulation

RJHall, serendipious mostly among everyone that contribute. Congratulations! Now every planet is a FA :) Well done and amazing article. Samuel Sol (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget to congratulate yourself dude. Serendi^podous 12:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)