User talk:Double sharp/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Sedna in interstellar space?

I tweaked the intro to the Sedna article, but one problematic (and uncited) claim is that for much of its orbit it's in interstellar space. But that would depend on how its orbit aligns with the heliopause. I doubt we know where the transition to interstellar space is along the tail. I'm not finding anything about Sedna ever being in in interstellar space, so wonder if this is OR. Do you have any idea? — kwami (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I've never seen anything about this either, so I also suspect that it's OR. Anyway, it's pretty easy to restore should the claim turn out to have support. Double sharp (talk) 08:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I deleted it but tried to retain the point of it.

BTW, I emailed you about your question on my talk. — kwami (talk) 03:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I saw it, thanks. :) Double sharp (talk) 09:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Plutinos

There are two populations of Plutinos, the Pluto camp and the Orcus camp. Do we have any sources as to which bodies are in which camps? That would be nice info to provide, like we do for the Trojans. — kwami (talk) 05:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I've just been looking and didn't find any, but maybe it will turn up. Indeed it would be nice to know. Double sharp (talk) 09:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Mean anomaly doesn't seem to do it. Pluto and Orcus are nicely separated, but others are intermediate. — kwami (talk) 09:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Have you ever seen the circled-× used as a symbol for Earth, other than on the pillar? Considering a proposal, and astrological use should be enough, but it would be nice to have more. — kwami (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Sorry, I haven't. I only remember seeing the circled-plus and the globus cruciger. Double sharp (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

(And P.S.: personally, I don't like that symbol, but maybe because I like the circled-x with overline for Ixion better.) Double sharp (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Manual copies of what you found here: , . Will get to the rest eventually. — kwami (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Nice, thanks. Although I'd note that putting it in Wikidata as you did appears to lead to it being taken without question automatically by some smaller WPs, judging from global file usage. Not sure what should be done about that (am not so familiar with Wikidata policies). Double sharp (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

There are manual overrides in those infoboxes, and they might not have the same reqs as WP-en. They also use the img at Wikidata by default, but can override that as well. — kwami (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Just a look at them in context: User:Double sharp/Largest Solar System objects. :) Double sharp (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Hm, I should clean up Callisto. But the Saturnians first. — kwami (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I guess it would also look nicer if the Uranians and Triton had fixed-width forms, too. (To harmonise with the rest.) But yes, the Saturnians first, please! :) Double sharp (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll hopefully get around to doing fixed-width svg's for all of them, with transparent backgrounds. I could also copy them all onto the same 50x50 px canvas as the planets, so they don't need to be individually sized.

BTW, Denis doesn't like that 'Latin' Salacia, because it doesn't provide for a distinct design for Actaea and Xiangliu (they'd both have the same tail). Not critical IMO, but I think that's where he's stuck. (I tried a vertical 'S' tail, but it ended up being an alloglyph for Capricorn.) Also, personally, I'd remove the eye glyph from Xiangliu. Too cluttered, like some of the early asteroid symbols. — kwami (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Yes, I like that idea for Xiangliu.

I wonder if Phoebe should have a symbol. It certainly seems a bit more important than some of those TNO moons. Maybe a capital phi with Saturn's hook replacing the vertical stroke? Double sharp (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The old mnemonic I learned for S's moons included Phoebe, and we have a flyby. But I worry that they'll start looking alike if we have too many. A bit too close to Rhea, maybe. — kwami (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, though I don't think nine instead of eight would make it that bad. I was thinking that the hook would go through an ellipse, the way the line goes through in capital Φ, which should make it look fairly different from Rhea. Or it could be a ring hanging from Saturn's hook, echoing the centaur symbols (since Phoebe probably is a captured centaur), and still looking a bit like an (upside-down) cursive phi.

I do admit that Phoebe (212 km diameter) is getting pretty small, and if it gets a symbol, it becomes hard to say why to stop there, and not continue to Neptune VII Larissa (~194 km), Uranus XVII Sycorax (~186 km), Saturn X Janus (180 km), and Neptune VI Galatea (~176 km). Of course those were all found significantly later. BTW, checking those figures made me realise that Janus is almost as large as Phoebe, which I did not remember. (Of course, it's a lot harder to observe, which is why it escaped discovery for so long. Come to think of it, I feel like it should be mentioned at Moons of Saturn that all the moons of Saturn from I to XIV, except faraway IX Phoebe, were found during or at least close to ring-plane crossings. Well, it was even true for XV through XVII, but that was coincidence since Voyager found those three.)

As for minor moons, I've seen three-letter abbreviations used when labelling the irregulars on charts, though the author (Tilmann Denk) notes that they are his own abbreviations only and are not official. (He does use them in his publications.) Double sharp (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe a cursive φ at top for Phoebe? But I'm not sure about Proteus and Nereid. — kwami (talk) 01:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Didn't Moskowitz make designs for Proteus and Nereid already? Double sharp (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

He did. I meant I wasn't sure about the need for them, same as Phoebe. Or Jupiter's Himalia. Gotta stop somewhere. And I don't care for them, so it's not like I'm trying to find some excuse to keep or use them.

I'll get around to the Saturnian symbols. Backlogged on proposals that ppl are waiting for after I asked them if they'd support them. — kwami (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see then. I admit that my suggestion of Phoebe was mostly brought on by Hyperion already being present: I think of Saturn's moons either as "the seven round ones and everyone else", or "the first nine discovered and everyone else". So if it had been me designing symbols, either I'd have stopped at Mimas (and there wouldn't be a Hyperion symbol), or I'd have gone on to Phoebe. But yeah, there needs to be some kind of limit, and I find roundness a perfectly good one already.

BTW, thanks for correcting me when I forgot about Sedna. Though I added to Sedna's article that within uncertainties, it's still tied with Ceres.

And no problem about the Saturnian moons; please, feel free to take as much time as you need. :) Double sharp (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Jonathan Hull's designs for the planets and 5 dwarfs now on Commons. — kwami (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

That's a pretty interesting design for Makemake. :) Double sharp (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems like it would make a nice handwritten form. The print form is a bit tedious to draw. — kwami (talk) 01:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed! Double sharp (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Hm. Tethys is a bit odd, but at least it doesn't look like anything else. Enceladus suggests the jets, maybe? Titan suggests the old T-maps of Earth a bit. Hyperion's a bit better balanced IMO. Overall, they look a bit more like independent symbols and a bit less like the alphabet. Suggestions welcome. .

I notice on your chart that there are a few patterns in the symbols when arranged by size, so that they should be a bit easier to remember: Rhea-Oberon (circles), Charon-Umbriel (crescents), Ariel-Dione-Quaoar (angles).

Funny, I can't find a generic symbol for 'galaxy' on Commons. I made one yrs ago, maybe I'll try to find it. — kwami (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

They look really good, thanks! :)

The Galileans do look a bit out of style compared to the others, though.

Maybe I should extend it further down, so that Mimas, Enceladus, and Miranda would show up. Double sharp (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done Double sharp (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm restylizing the galileans. I'd just slapped them together, didn't expect them to be the permanent forms. Same size as the others but lines 50% thicker -- still debating whether to thicken the lines on all the others to match, or reduce these further. — kwami (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Proteus isn't so bad. It's not obviously alphabetical. And with that, we have a symbol for every named body from Mimas up. — kwami (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

A natural stopping point indeed! :) Double sharp (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I should get around to svg copies of the others reasonably soon (when I need a break from s.t. else). Varda should probably have a hollow center. Version of Hygiea with the same weight as the rest, etc. — kwami (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I saw an interesting symbol for Theia: , like the for Pluto (iconic for it crossing Neptune's orbit) conflated with a globus cruciger, so, intersecting Earth's orbit. Or maybe it's just Luna superposed on Earth. — kwami (talk) 04:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The typical astrological approach for a body without a name is to make a monogram of its MPC designation. Something like Moskowitz's Corona Australis would work for AW197 (letting the middle of the W be the cross-bar of the A), but it's not great, and nothing much comes to mind for MS4 (M with a Gonggong tail from the middle?) or FY27. BTW, where does it say when the MPC desig was assigned? The discoverers have 10 yrs from then to submit a name, correct, before the opportunity is opened to the public? — kwami (talk) 04:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

A lower-case Nereid looks better: . — kwami (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I like the Theia and the lowercase Nereid. (With lowercase nu, it looks like a arrow pointing down rather than an initialism.)

I think only 2002 AW197 has passed the ten-years mark, though 2002 MS4 is very close. According to the MPC website, the ten-year privilege for the discoverer is from numbering (see item 3 here). 2002 AW197 was numbered in MPC 47762 on 16 February 2003. 2002 MS4 was numbered in MPC 77416 on 10 December 2011. So 2013 FY27 surely can't be open yet (though since there's a moon and it therefore can be studied better, maybe Sheppard and his team will give it a name). That said, though I've heard the thing about the public being able to submit names after that before, I'm not sure how we'd be able to go about doing so: the web-form for name proposals and citations is password-protected. But that is probably something you know about better than me. :) Double sharp (talk) 09:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Numbering for 2003 AZ84 was MPC 65351, 11 March 2009, so that one is open. (Though naming that one is a bit tricky, given the unconfirmed satellite.) Double sharp (talk) 09:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Can't find anything for Davida. Maybe there's some mythology associated w King David that s.o. could use. A sling in the shape of a D w a star for the stone, maybe. Something like . — kwami (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Nice idea, although I confess I don't really see a D in what you have. Unless it's intended to evoke the partial-differential sign? (Would fit Weilenmann's rationale for his Davida symbol, too.) What threshold have you in mind for asteroids to get symbols? :) Double sharp (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The fixed-width version should look a bit more D-like. But I really don't want them to all look like letters of the alphabet. That gets old fast. I figure this is as D-like as Makemake is M-like.

87 Sylvia: . Vesta's hearth overturned and the sacred fire extinguished. I tried stylizing it like a pine tree or a woman (per the symbol on Denis's page), but it came off as a cartoonish stick figure, so best keep it simple.

I figure the largest / most massive asteroids down to ones like Iris that appear to be remnant planetesimals. The old symbols for Iris and Psyche are perfectly good, though a little typographic styling wouldn't be amiss. — kwami (talk) 23:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

That's rather a lot! :)

So, let's see what's left. By mass, I guess 532 Herculina, 88 Thisbe, 31 Euphrosyne, and probably 48 Doris? By size we might need a few more: 451 Patientia, 624 Hektor, 65 Cybele, 45 Eugenia. Double sharp (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would be worth trying for all of them, but Denis has some of those already, even if they may be too complex IMO. An Earth sign inside a triangle for Cybele might be worth keeping.

BTW, I like the one for Pan, and of Lempo as a heart with downward arrow under it on Nevernamed22's page he mentions. (He had a rather similar idea to Denis's for Gonggong too.) — kwami (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

That's a brilliant Lempo symbol indeed! I also prefer this Xiangliu to Moskowitz'. Double sharp (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Here's Lempo:

Denis was trying to derive the moons from their primaries, presumably as a mnemonic. They'd be too much to remember to bother with otherwise. I was thinking, rather than remove the eye from Denis's glyph, remove the tree. The eye would naturally turn on its side, and that would suggest multiple heads on a serpent, rather like the illustrations we have. I thought that might be too cartoonish, but it might be worth doing both and letting ppl choose. — kwami (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

From the mass we have and the effective diameter at JPL, 15 Eunomia is anomalously dense, at 4.9. Can you tell, are those numbers not compatible? I also recalculated 511 Davida (the density was based on an old, larger size estimate); the result seems more reasonable than for Eunomia, but at 3.65±0.25 is still pretty high. — kwami (talk) 03:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Latest values I'm aware of for large asteroids are from the VLT/SPHERE imaging survey. Apparently, the JPL diameter is too small. Eunomia is at 270±3 km diameter and at 3.05±0.19 × 10¹⁹ kg mass, giving a reasonable stony-asteroid density of 2.96±0.21 g/cm³. That density you have for Davida is indeed pretty unreasonably high for a carbonaceous asteroid; VLT/SPHERE survey gives 298±4 km diameter and 3.52±0.51 × 10¹⁹ kg mass, for a not-too-far-from-Ceres density of 1.92±0.53 g/cm³.

It looks like the current order of best masses down to 10²⁰ kg is: Ceres, Vesta, Pallas, Hygiea; then uncertainties overlap but if we take the middle of the ranges, we have Interamnia, Eunomia, Juno and Davida (almost the same), Europa and Psyche, Euphrosyne, Sylvia, Iris and Amphitrite and Hebe and Thisbe and Bamberga. That said, not all large asteroids are covered (would be nice to know where Herculina lies). But we don't seem too far from getting down to Iris mass-wise. Double sharp (talk) 12:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering when that was going to come out! Need to update all on their list. Do you have any idea whether VLT images are copyrighted? Their Fig 1 would be a wonderful addition to our asteroid article.

Will fix this PM, unless you get to it first. I removed yesterday's 'fixes'.

For Herculina, we could just add a star to Denis's symbol for the constellation Hercules. — kwami (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I really couldn't say if they're copyrighted or not. Though I notice some seem to be being used already (e.g. on pages for 2 Pallas, 7 Iris), so I guess there's reason to be hopeful that they aren't.

I'm a bit busy for the rest of today, so I suspect you'll probably get to it first. :) That's indeed a very natural idea for Herculina, BTW! So I guess just Euphrosyne is needed. Don't much like Weilenmann's symbol for it, though. Double sharp (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Roman numerals for Euphrosyne (even though she's Greek): . Herculina:

Sword and balance for Themis: (found that online). Elektra based on Venus: . Mulberry for Thisbe: . Fish in a net (bounty of the estuaries) for Doris: . (Doris is a bit busy, but with one fish it looked like a road sign. Four stars inside the net instead of two fish?) Other ideas welcome. Daphne could be a laurel leaf, easy enough, but no idea for Eugenia, so cutting off at R = 100 km.

Even counting Weilenmann (Cybele ; maybe Hektor could be saved?), we're missing Patientia. (Use weaving, for Penelope, the epitome if patience? - gone through a few stages of simplification.) Maybe 423 Diotima or a few others at approx. the cut-off. — kwami (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, the article is Open Access! — kwami (talk) 11:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I like your symbols very much. :)

45 Eugenia was named after an empress, so how about a crown and a star? Not too sure about 423 Diotima. Weilenmann's 624 Hektor symbol seems fine enough to me.

107 Camilla is probably also needed. According to that article, it, 65 Cybele, and 451 Patientia are the three >200 km diameter asteroids that were not observed in that study. Double sharp (talk) 12:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

And the meaning, "well-born", would accord with nobility, so a crown works. I could use the Cepheus symbol.

I'm searching for s.t. for Camilla. But I think I'll stop about there (and maybe Hektor).

If they believe Hektor is < 200km, I wonder whose data they're using? — kwami (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant "main-belt asteroids". They sometimes skip "main-belt" as understood. AFAIK everyone agrees that Hektor is big. :) Double sharp (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Our article has one ref for D = 150km.

I asked Marsset a while ago, and he said Hektor was too dim to be resolved by SPHERE. There's a new instrument coming out that should be able to resolve it, but in IR so lower res due to the wavelength. But still, hopefully enough to see if it's a contact binary.

Maybe Kalliope too because its density is notable. There should be a conventional symbol for the muse of music. — kwami (talk) 12:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

That'd bring us very close to the first two-dozen asteroids. But I suppose a smiley-face with a star for 23 Thalia would be too silly. :) Double sharp (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, a Greek comedy mask would be a bit hard to take seriously. Maybe a wreath or sprig of Ivy? Would need to be a distinct composition from Victoria. — kwami (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Could work, I think. As for Kalliope, unfortunately the obvious symbol (a lyre) got taken as an alternate for Parthenope. Then again, that's from the 1890s, long after the original 1850s symbol, and doesn't seem to have been used by anyone else: maybe we could still repurpose it for the more obvious Kalliope.

P.S. A lyre with a star might be sufficient. Double sharp (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

With the upcoming mission, it would be nice to have s.t. for Patroclus. — kwami (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe two crossed spears with a star, for his comradeship with Achilles. (I first considered his companions' hair on the funeral pyre with a star, but worry that that might look too close to Vesta.)

Still mulling over Diotima, BTW. Double sharp (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

For a low-numbered but only medium-large asteroid, perhaps the original orientation of Uranus (pointing down) might do for 30 Urania. So, "feminising" the symbol just as it's the feminine form of the name, by putting the arrow in the position of Venus' cross. Possibly with an asteroidal star if the original version of Uranus still merits disambiguation. Double sharp (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, not Diotima in particular, it was just near-next in our list by size, and it sticks in my head because I spent a good amount of time figuring out how it should be pronounced. So don't worry about it. Patroclus and Camilla would be more important.

This is a nice generic asteroid symbol: — kwami (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Urania has an astrological symbol, a divider caliper (i.e. compass), one of her traditional symbols. — kwami (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, then that's good enough. :)

I suggested a Patroclus above; maybe a bow-and-arrow with a star for Camilla? (Assuming that such a simple-seeming design hasn't already been used for something else.) Double sharp (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I found this online for Kalliope, but no idea what it's supposed to be.

For Patroclus, maybe crossed spears w the star under/between them. And Camilla, the bow & arrow pointing down as in Venus, w star above. — kwami (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it's a lyre so stylised that the strings are all gone? :D

Yeah, those sound great! Double sharp (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Could be. That thought crossed my mind too. But could be a Coney Island boardwalk calliope. Could be the antennae of a moth. Could be a hemorrhoid. But it's distinctive, so any objection to adopting it?

Urania: , Camilla: (bow might should be wider), Patroclus: , Hektor: (I reversed the direction for ease of writing, at least for me where the pallbearers look like the kanji 人, and in handwriting I abbreviate 'people' as 人人), Eugenia: . — kwami (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Nice!

No objections to Kalliope, though maybe it'd be more clearly an asteroid symbol with a star. Double sharp (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Astrology-style temporary symbols for MS4: (a mu-sigma monogram), AW197: , FY27: (that's pretty bad -- any ideas?), VP113: — kwami (talk) 04:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Is the 'D' more recognizable in this Davida? — kwami (talk) 06:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's good! :) Double sharp (talk) 11:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Take a look at the file history. I flipped it, then smoothed out the obtuse corners at top and btm so it was a smooth curve, but reverted the latter. By this point it's hard for me to see whether s.t.'s an improvement. — kwami (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the precise form is that important. At least, I don't think I'd really be making much of a distinction if I were to handwrite the symbol. :) Double sharp (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Albion: . Given that the temp MPC desig is the source of the word "cubewano", I think it's worthwhile keeping the temp astrological symbol. There are a few variants on this theme. — kwami (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

AZ84: (alpha-zeta monogram -- there's a font-based version in the history, which might look a bit less silly; same for MS4). — kwami (talk) 07:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Odd polygon db

Template:Odd polygon db has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Odd polygon stat table

Template:Odd polygon stat table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Odd star polygon db

Template:Odd star polygon db has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 November newsletter

The WikiCup is over for another year and the finalists can relax! Our Champion this year is The Rambling Man (submissions), who amassed over 5000 points in the final round, achieving 8 featured articles and almost 500 reviews. It was a very competitive round; seven of the finalists achieved over 1000 points in the round (enough to win the 2019 contest), and three scored over 3000 (enough to win the 2020 event). Our 2021 finalists and their scores were:

1. The Rambling Man (submissions) with 5072 points
2. Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 3276 points
3. Amakuru (submissions) with 3197 points
4. Epicgenius (submissions) with 1611 points
5. Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1571 points
6. BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 1420 points
7. Hog Farm (submissions) with 1043 points
8. Bloom6132 (submissions) with 528 points

All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.

• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for 8 FAs in round 5.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 5.
• Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured topic prize, for 13 articles in a featured topic in round 5.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 63 GAs in round 4.
• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good topic prize, for 86 articles in good topics in round 5.
• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the reviewer prize, for 68 FAC reviews and 213 GAN reviews, both in round 5.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 30 did you know articles in round 3 and 105 overall.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 71 in the news articles in round 1 and 284 overall.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

If you have views on whether the rules or scoring need adjustment for next year's contest, please comment on the WikiCup talk page. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2022 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

mo' moons

I figured if I was going to do Pan, I should do Phoebe: . Earlier form had a larger circle, if you want to check the history. And simplified Xiangliu is suggestive of multiple heads, even if it's 5 rather than 9. Other TNO moons now all SVG: , , , , , .

Kalliope: (yeah, I like the star -- looks like a musical fountain). Arrokoth: , Daphne: .

Guessing that it will probably be named Haua, so for MK2: — kwami (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Pan? That's tiny. :) Though it does make me start thinking of possible other symbols for the other inner Cronian moons. Based on the Pan precedent and running out of letters, perhaps those should use some sort of mythological allusion instead. X Janus – two Saturn hooks, mirrored and connected at their backs? XI Epimetheus – not too sure (or maybe it should pair with Janus to be more astronomical than mythological)? XII Helene – Saturn's hook emerging from a broken egg? XIII Telesto – Saturn's hook submerged in Interamnia's rivers, circled for divine blessing? XIV Calypso – a spindle as Saturn's hook, surrounding a simplified harp? XV Atlas – Saturn's hook under the Earth symbol? XVI Prometheus – Saturn's hook with a flame? (Or more strikingly if more busily, Saturn's hook with an eagle?) XVII Pandora – Saturn's hook as a keyhole for a box? Double sharp (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm feeling inspired, so let me try the inner Uranian moons. (When I say "Uranus symbol", I mean the platinum one.) VI Cordelia – a Uranus symbol with a heart replacing the circle? VII Ophelia – a Uranus symbol with a flower? VIII Bianca – an up-arrow atop a treasure chest? IX Cressida – a Uranus symbol with a triangle replacing the circle? X Desdemona – a Uranus symbol with a handkerchief? XI Juliet – a Uranus symbol on a balcony? XII Portia – scales (like Astraea) with an up-arrow? XIII Rosalind – Ganymede's symbol, but with a dot inside the gamma and the stroke ending in an up-arrow? XIV Belinda – a lock of hair on a Uranus symbol? XV Puck – Uranus symbol with horns and crossed with a broom, like this illustration?

I guess the memory problem is only as hard as memorising the asteroids. Suggestions and drawings welcome if you think any of these are good ideas. :D Double sharp (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I only did Pan because Denis copied it on his site, and it looked fun. I didn't mean to establish a precedent, and I wouldn't actually use it because of the imbalance it would cause. Nereid and Phoebe are historically notable, as are the Martians, but I don't want to bother with the rest. For Jupiter, only Amalthea was named before 1975, and that could be like Europa but with an alpha. The outer Jovians would need a different convention (e.g. an ear of wheat for Himalia), but would be endless. Same w the small Plutonians. I mean, Kerberos would be easy (and fun), but what of Nix? The other TNO moons are only notable because of their outsize importance in understanding their primaries. — kwami (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

That's fair enough, I guess. I haven't actually drawn SVGs before, so for now I guess these will be staying as description-only symbols (like the original for 14 Irene). And anyway, maybe it'd be weird to have such detailed inner Saturnians and Uranians when the major moons are mostly just initialisms. (Though maybe that fits with how simple the major planetary symbols are, compared to things like 14 Irene!)

If 1975 is the guide year (presumably naming of the first batch of Jovian irregulars), then Saturn X Janus (1966) might still qualify for a symbol. Well, maybe also XI Epimetheus because of confusion between the two coorbitals. They might be interesting, though I can understand if you want to limit it to pre-1900 moons.

The discoveries of the Jovian irregulars VI Himalia through XII Ananke predate the space-probe era, and XIII Leda (1974) at least just predated 1975. They might still be interesting as the first irregular-satellite system (as opposed to single exemplar) that could be studied, even if they were not named till later. I think that would make a good line to draw, if you wanted to do some of them. (But probably you don't! XD)

But yeah, I think stopping with just Jupiter V Amalthea would be a fine and consistent line to end this at. :) Double sharp (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I gave the Plutonians a try. Kerberos: is adequate. This is the best I could think of for Nix: . It looks a bit silly IMO. Lower-case nu, since the sigma of Styx is l.c., but a version with a cap N is available in the file history if you wish to compare. And Styx could be Charon's boat (rotated Luna) floating on water like a horizontal Interamnia. Even with one water squiggle, it looks silly, so I guess is best. Denis's Hydra is also okay. — kwami (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

('Nix' is the Coptic spelling of 'Nyx', and in Egyptian iconography, Nix was indicated by an arch over they sky spangled with stars. A variant w/o the stars is in the file history, if you have an opinion. A capital N form w/o the stars as well, so you can just rv to the best form. — kwami (talk))

I prefer the one w/o the stars, so I reverted to that. Double sharp (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Ooh, found an astrological symbol for Thalia. It's actually not bad (recalls the masks without being cartoonish). Might get to it tomorrow. [Okay: . Could work forever on the balance, but good enough for now.]

Should the line weight be heavier? Because the SVG's are drawn as simple lines and curves, rather than as outlines of the shapes, they're trivial to adjust. (Except for the asterisks. Those might need to be redone.) All the symbols are the same size (16×16 px), and all have the same 0.8-px line weight. I could increase that to 1.0 or 1.2 px, and they would still match as a set. — kwami (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

From Zane's collection of astrological symbols: Manwe , Altjira: , Praamzius: , Sila–Nunam: , and a bunch of centaurs. — kwami (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

And one from Zane's collection for Leleakuhonua: . Won't be important after we find more of them, but for now it is. — kwami (talk) 08:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Logos, from Zane's collection: . So, for its moon Zoe, Z's suggesting the spark of life: . [note Zane's symbols for Logos & Praamzius got mixed up somewhere --ed.] — kwami (talk) 11:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Nice. Could we have an Ilmarë symbol? I'm not sure if a tengwa L crossed with a star looks good or not. :) Double sharp (talk) 11:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Wait, what language are they in, if not Quenya and not Sindarin?

Any ideas for Phorcys? — kwami (talk) 11:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: They are Quenya names! I just referred to Tengwar as the "native script" in this case. Well, I suppose Varda and Ilmarë must have had names in Valarin that arguably were "native" for them, but Tolkien never said what they were (though he did for Manwë, Aulë, Ossë, Ulmo, Tulkas). Unless maybe they are in The Nature of Middle-Earth which I don't have at the moment. We don't know what script the Valar would've used for their own language (or even if they would've had a need for one); presumably Fëanor would have used the Tengwar to write it in his linguistic studies of it anyway.

I'll think about Phorcys. :) Double sharp (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Our article says that "Varda" is s.t. else in Quenya, so I assumed that meant it wasn't Quenya. Quenya's easiest, since I won't have to worry about sound changes or letter reassignments. But then what's the first consonant in Thorondor, since Quenya doesn't have a 'th'? — kwami (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thorondor must be Sindarin; IIRC, he has a Quenya name too. (Don't have the original source to hand, but Tolkien Gateway says it's Sorontar.) Double sharp (talk) 12:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Letter reassignments and sound changes not reflected in the script are also a thing for Quenya, aren't they? There's Fëanor's shibboleth (þ > s), the change z > r and repurposing of the z-tengwa for double-s, and I don't remember the rest very well but I suspect there are more. It's just that they don't occur in the names being considered. Double sharp (talk) 12:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

So I could dbl Manwe's head to make it an ⟨m⟩, or extend its beak to make it a ⟨th⟩. Or maybe add feet in the shape of the ⟨m⟩. — kwami (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, Ilmare: check the file history for which version you prefer. This is the simpler: . Can't think of how to stylize Varda to recall a Quenya ⟨v⟩, though. I could replace the inner spokes with curves, to make four V's, but then it would no longer look like a star symbol.

32 Pomona: . That was in the Solar Fire font. They spelled it "Pomono", but I've found old refs to (32) that spell it that way.

Thorondor: .

Phorcys: .

Echidna:

RW10, temp symbol for Neptune's large quasi-satellite: — kwami (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Got any ideas for Hiisi and Paha? Hiisi is quite large. — kwami (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: For Hiisi, perhaps Lempo with the down-arrow curled into a cursive lowercase h, like a devil's pointed tail? Although not so sure how to make that work for a p for Paha. Double sharp (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Like Phobos and Deimos, but with the arrow at the bottom, maybe. Paha could just be a 'p' with an arrow point at the bottom. — kwami (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Or perhaps a curly-p below a heart, since I feel like that's the more distinctive element. Arrows are kind of ubiquitous. :) Double sharp (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd already made them. I can try other designs, but if they look too much like Lempo, or if the heart is too dominant, that might be worse. Yeah, there are lots of arrows, which means you probably pay more attention. The other way, all you might see is a heart w something underneath. Well, we can try other things. This is just a draft:

Hiisi , Paha , Gǃoʼe ǃHu , Linus , Petit-Prince

Obvious symbols for Romulus & Remus on my to-do list, and Skamandrios. Patroclus is hard, unless it's just like Charon with crossed spears on top. But I'd rather not use that design very often. Did for Gǃoʼe ǃHu because it resembles a horn (even though oryx horns are straight). (The nice thing about it though is that you can use it even when the moon has no name. Maybe something like the one we like for Titan?) — kwami (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it suggests something for the moon of 2013 FY27 indeed. Double sharp (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Patroclus is a double, so Charon + crossed spears might work for Menoetius: ; Skamandrios: . — kwami (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

At List of former planets, do we have any evidence that those are the symbols for Hesperus & Phosphorus? — kwami (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Check file history of File:29 Amphitrite symbol.svg -- I tried a hollow, 5-pt star closer to the original, but rv'd to the asterisk because it looked too spangly (like a sticker for kids). If we use simple lines, like either of those, rather than using the asterisk from a font, then modifying the file becomes really easy. Do you have any prefs? — kwami (talk) 03:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: As this one was actually assigned a symbol back in the 19th century, I feel we should follow the historical 5-point star. Double sharp (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

AFAICT, that's just graphic variation. The symbol is simple "a shell" -- AFAICT, no description of what kind of shell, and no mention of a star. That's why I thought the astrological Shell gas station-shaped shell was a bad symbol for Salacia, because it would fit Amphitrite just as well. Maybe I'm missing something. — kwami (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 1) Isn't that completely expected, though? If I understand correctly, Salacia is the Roman equivalent of Amphitrite. Might likewise be difficult to come up with a reasonable symbol for 46 Hestia. Double sharp (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, it would be nice to clear up whether those are historical symbols for Morning Star and Evening Star. — kwami (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Isn't the first one the Latvian Auseklis eight-pointed star, going by the file name? The article on that doesn't even identify Auseklis the deity clearly with Venus, and isn't even sure that the octagram version originally even was a symbol of Auseklis (and that isn't cited). I've removed them pending any actual citation.

Also, the asteroids should probably be included up to Eunomia, rather than Iris. Double sharp (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure when there was a shift, if there was ever anything definite, but Iris seems too early.

Trying for s.t. simpler for Irene. Here's what I have so far: , though I think I can probably do better. I love Grus; maybe I can try for s.t. a bit more like that. — kwami (talk) 07:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

(Okay, that's a bit better, I think. Still kinda busy; suggestions welcome.) — kwami (talk) 09:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I got sick of looking at that bad SVG for Leukothea, so: . — kwami (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Per the Webster's dict that Schmadel took his images from, Bellona's "whip" is a morning star, and in German, a war Geissel is a morning star. Though the one painting I've seen of her with both weapons shows a triple whip with mini morning stars on the ends. Our existing Bellona img is fine, but for a matching format, . I'll do Thetis too, after a Classical mosaic of a dolphin that has a very similar shape to our current img. Our Flora symbol is so skinny that it doesn't display well in some contexts, so a squatter version per Schmadel: . Not nearly as elegant as the current one, though. And copied Denis's Lyra symbol for alt Parthenope, as that's clearly a lyre and not a harp: . — kwami (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, Thetis, from a mosaic of a dolphin at Susa: . "Niku": (astrological symbol), Romulus: & Remus: . — kwami (talk) 04:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

You're right, the Titan format did work well for FY27's moon: . But let me know if you're saturated. — kwami (talk) 07:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, certainly not! Please do keep them coming! :D Double sharp (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Did ǂKagara and ǃHaunu last night, and moons of Altjira and Huya. Nothing special. They're in the same img categories as the others. Almost did Mors-Somnus based on an astrological symbol in one of the fonts, but it was just a bed with s.o. in it (like a squat, squared 'h' with the dot from the center of the Sun symbol by the headboard, like you might see on a road sign for "lodging ahead"), which seemed kinda lame. Since it's so small, I don't think I'll bother. More interested in a symbol for Antiope, since that's such a beautiful example of a double asteroid. Haven't found anything. Any ideas? — kwami (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I am somewhat inspired by an unsigned comment on Talk:90 Antiope: It's a double asteroid, so... One half is named after the sister of Hippolyte, and the other is named after the mother of Amphion. I'll think about possible forms. :D Double sharp (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

My Thetis looks a bit like the one from Webster's Dict that Schmadel used. But their Egeria is very different -- more like an actual buckler, but not very distinctive (a circled circle with a star on top). It would certainly warrant a variant glyph img, if we're going to have a bunch of variants for other asteroids. A number of the glyphs in Schmadel are rather divergent from what we have, e.g. Leukothea, Astraea.

Other than that, I'm trying to think of s.t. for Sawiskera, wonder if the horn should be straight for Gǃoʼeǃhu, then there's just the "Apollo + 13" set that Stein uses, a couple more of his centaurs, and 1812 Gilgamesh, which is so minor we don't even have an article for it. I'm in no rush for the apollo & centaur glyphs, and the Teharonhiawako symbol already implies that it's for the binary, not just the primary. Can't think of much else. Do we need one for AZ84's moon? (It looks like the Pixar lamp: .)

BTW, in the Solar Fire font, it's clear that the 5 Astraea symbol is just a percent sign. — kwami (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, Janus: . I came across a suggestion that something like this would be appropriate for the planet later named Neptune, when s.o. suggested that it should be called 'Janus'. 21:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that's nice! Any chance of an Epimetheus symbol to pair with it?

And if we're doing Janus, Amalthea would be nice to round off the satellites that had names pre-1975. (As you suggested, it could be Europa with alpha replacing epsilon.) Double sharp (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Can't think of anything for Epimetheus, apart from maybe flipping the key around. Could make it an 'E'-shaped key, like for Elatus, so that we could remember which is which. — kwami (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Why not do both? The "E" tells us which is which, and flipping the key makes it clear they're a pair. :) Double sharp (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that works well enough: . Backwards also because Epimetheus means "after-thought". — kwami (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

So, here's a wordless version of List of natural satellites:

	I	II	III	IV	V	VI	VII	VIII	IX	X	XI	XII	XIII	XIV	XV	XVI	XVII	XVIII	XIX	XX	XXI	XXII	XXIII	XXIV	XXV	XXVI	XXVII	XXVIII	XXIX	XXX	XXXI	XXXII	XXXIII	XXXIV	XXXV	XXXVI	XXXVII	XXXVIII	XXXIX	XL	XLI	XLII	XLIII	XLIV	XLV	XLVI	XLVII	XLVIII	XLIX	L	LI	LII	LIII	LIV	LV	LVI	LVII	LVIII	LIX	LX	LXI	LXII	LXIII	LXIV	LXV	LXVI	LXVII	LXVIII	LXIX	LXX	LXXI	LXXII

Double sharp (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Nice!

I have decent ideas for the trojans and all the inner moons but Prometheus. Don't know how to indicate fire, but maybe an eagle like for Manwe. (The Saturn hook turned would suggest a flame.) But I'm rather burned out, so probably nothing anytime soon. — kwami (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I wrote up some ideas for the inner moons of Saturn and Uranus at the top of this thread, in case you want them. I didn't think about Neptune: that seems harder to me. For Jupiter, Metis and Thebe could continue the initial-letter motif, but I suppose Adrastea and Amalthea would need disambiguation. (OTOH, they are really the same figure, aren't they?) :) Double sharp (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I figured, since they're the same, cap A (or small-cap A) for Adrastea. Your idea for Atlas. Daphnis could be like the asteroid, a leaf on the hook, but between parallel lines (like Iapetus, but vertical). Prometheus and Pandora could be inverses. Pandora, a hook emerging from an upside-down pi stylized like an open box. Prometheus, an upside-down hook, resembling a flame, under a Thorondor/Manwe-like symbol (but with a pi-shaped head) -- or maybe just a pi over a turned hook. For the trojans, a bit like the Jovians: an initial joining a small Dione or Tethys glyph, to the left (epsilon, tau) or to the right and backwards (pi, kappa), depending on whether they're L4 or L5. I'll also fix Callisto so it looks more like Europa. For Antiope, maybe two A's, one inverted, either point-to-point (like Dysnomia) or side-by-side sharing a single cross bar.

For the Uranians you suggested, I don't see a way to include an initial or some other clue that would make them memorable. I could make a balcony out of a J, maybe, but the others ... I'll let those stew for a while. — kwami (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I've added the ones you've recently made. :) Double sharp (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Vanth error

Just caught an error in the Vanth info box. Don't know how many places it's been copied over.

The info box said that the diameter is 442.5±10.2 km. But the source actually says it's not 442.5±10.2 km -- that a non-detection meant that if Vanth was spherical, it couldn't be that big. Since one of the occultation cords was 434.4±2.4 km, they say that places a tight constraint on the size. Assuming it's spherical. — kwami (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I changed it to 434.4±2.4 km in List of natural satellites and List of Solar System objects by size, since that's now the first value in the Vanth infobox. Double sharp (talk) 11:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

But that's just one chord. Unless we got really lucky, it's not the diameter. Certainly not to that precision. 432–452.7 should work out to about 442±10. — kwami (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, serves me right for not reading carefully enough either. What value do you think we should put? Double sharp (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

We've got a low end and an upper end, so I'd give the range from (lower − 1sig) to (upper + 1sig), 432–452.7 > 442±10. There's a second chord, but the error bar is so huge that it's not helpful. — kwami (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, changed it to that. Double sharp (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

120 Cell Question

This question at the maths section of the RD seems like one you might be interested in.  --Lambiam 05:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

It is. :) Just answered. Double sharp (talk) 11:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Glenn Seaborg seaborgium.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Glenn Seaborg seaborgium.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "no derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only", or "used with permission"; and it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag and if necessary, a complete fair use rationale.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ObserveOwl (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

diagrams

I do agree with the removal of the simplified atomic and nuclear diagrams. I am not sure if there are other images that could go in their place. In the case of U isotopes, a picture of a piece of U metal or U ore might be nice. Gah4 (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Gah4: There's already some at uranium-233, uranium-235, uranium-238. Double sharp (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, ones like that. Gah4 (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

S/2003 J 24 and S/2019 S 1

Would you mind working on the articles for these two now that the MPECs are out? Thanks. 2600:1700:D11:930:649E:C4D0:D43D:AD29 (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll start making updates. :) Double sharp (talk) 13:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I think S/2003 J 24 should be okay now. I think exoplanetaryscience already updated S/2019 S 1. (BTW: do we know the size of S/2003 J 24?) Double sharp (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

There was a calculation done here by a fan who calculated that the diameter might be about 3 km, but other than that, we have nothing. 2600:1700:D11:930:649E:C4D0:D43D:AD29 (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually that seems all right to me per WP:CALC; it's a standard formula. So I'll put the size in. Double sharp (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

No prob. 2600:1700:D11:930:649E:C4D0:D43D:AD29 (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, I think we should be good. (Made it 1 s.f., since the albedo is also 1 s.f.) Let me know if you see anything else that need updating. :) Double sharp (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

No prob. 2600:1700:D11:930:649E:C4D0:D43D:AD29 (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 1) Sorry, one more thing: what's the usual line for who counts as the discovery team – observers only or measurers too? When exoplanetaryscientist updated S/2019 S 1, apparently only the observers were listed. Though maybe in this case it might be best to just write "Sheppard et al." Double sharp (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Hm. I'd talk with him about how to handle this case. 2600:1700:D11:930:649E:C4D0:D43D:AD29 (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi - it's a bit complicated, obviously. Sheppard et al are the official discoverers, but Kai was responsible for the recovery/confirmation, and discovered it independently. I would list Sheppard et al as the discoverers in the infobox/top section while mentioning it was independently discovered and followed up by Kai in more detail- since there's plenty of news sources reporting that angle of it, I don't see any risk of OR either. Seems you guys have the rest figured out properly though. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Exoplanetaryscience: Okay, I've edited the lede of S/2003 J 24 to match. What do you think we should do for Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons? On the one hand it is an independent recovery, but on the other hand we follow "official" discovery here to the extent that we don't list Simon Marius for the Galilean moons either, just Galileo. (Haumea being the exception, but since the discoverer was left blank for it, it would require an explanation no matter what.)

I wonder if Sheppard was the one who submitted the original tracklets back in 2003 to the MPC? Since he's listed as the other measurer for those images that Ly apparently also used. Double sharp (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a good answer. Discovery credit is one of the most fickle parts of planetary science and it ultimately comes down more to a coin toss. Sheppard originally submitted the first two nights' observations in 2003 though, yes. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Herculina

There was no ref for our diameter estimate, so I replaced it w the one from JPL. But they haven't been very reliable, so if you have anything better ...

Patientia's also dated. I changed them and Camilla in our 'largest asteroids' list, but not in the SS list. — kwami (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know anything more recent for this asteroid either. :( Double sharp (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Copernicium

Template:Copernicium has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. User:GKFX^talk 21:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

momo' moons

If you can guess what these are, that's encouraging; if not, maybe need to rethink.

(check the history on #3 for s.t. closer to what you suggested -- should we revert?)

Also 8 Flora , 90 Antiope . — kwami (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not quite the best person to ask since I suggested some things that are not too far away, but yeah, I could guess what they were. :D

Based on Puck, I wonder if some of my Uranians might be usefully changed to that format: first letter over an orb, crossed with something emblemetic of the character. So, Belinda might be like Bienor with a lock of hair. Double sharp (talk) 10:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking of using half an Andromeda for the lock, but there's no room. Things quickly start getting crowded with the others too, and I don't have any ideas for most of them. But maybe this?:

So you're okay w Atlas? I'm torn -- the form w/o the initial looks better, but is harder to ID. Or maybe remove the A and leave just the orb w rings. — kwami (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I was okay with either form, but I have to admit, since Atlas the moons is rather "holding up the rings", that does seem more appropriate. :D Double sharp (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The inner Jovians aren't turning out well. Metis is marginally okay, but s.t. like "A+" looks like a grade, not a moon. — kwami (talk) 08:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Could we not make some of the other Uranians like Juliet or Puck? That is, keep them acrophonic (many still stay distinct), but either make the letter resemble something appropriate or cross it with something appropriate. Say, XII Portia could use weighing scales and X Desdemona could use a handkerchief, in some way. VII Ophelia could be Oberon's symbol with the "O" stylised as a rose (I mean, that seems a logical way to represent a flower minimalistically as a symbol requires :D). Double sharp (talk) 10:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll try s.t. more for Ophelia. Why scales for Portia? — kwami (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Because of the court scene. :) Double sharp (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Based on Themis: . Check file history for form based on Astraea. Not sure which I prefer. — kwami (talk)

Nice. I considered styling C with a heart for Cupid, but etymologically I guess it might be confused for Cordelia, too. Double sharp (talk) 14:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I did Calypso and Helene, and they look horrible, too spelled out. Better just to abbreviate them CAL and HEL, as in Astrolog. — kwami (talk) 09:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, Helene was originally just "Dione B", so maybe it could work to overlay B (for leading trojans) or C (for trailing trojans) on the Tethys and Dione symbols. Or maybe just the Tethys and Dione symbols with arrows going off at 60-degree angles. :) Double sharp (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Trying out Portia with the scales like Libra. Will be a red link until I can correct the typo. — kwami (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Puck also has that typo, BTW. :) Double sharp (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Just realised that I only remember the moons by number consistently up till Voyager's discoveries. Which is probably more than anyone really needs to know, though. I always did like the Uranian moon names, so maybe I'll think some more about completing the set of VI through XV. Cordelia's still hard. :( Double sharp (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually, maybe hold off on my earlier idea for Ophelia. Since Cordelia and Ophelia shepherd the epsilon ring, it should be possible to make something reasonable for them like Prometheus and Pandora. Even if, unlike the pair of Saturn's moons, they're not really related. :) Double sharp (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

BTW, if you haven't read this about the naming of the Uranian moons, you might like it. :) Double sharp (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Didn't read your ideas above till I came back to post these. Yours might be better. But meanwhile here's something. They have the benefit of being simple.

— kwami (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey, those are not bad at all. Simplicity is of course quite a desirable goal for symbols. And with that, we've gotten all the moons I-XVIII for Saturn (up to Voyager)! The other inner moons are pretty tiny anyway (the Alkyonides, and Aegaeon which is really more of a moonlet).

I should start thinking about finishing the Uranians, I guess. I wonder what ought to be done for the Jovians, though: VI through XIII are all irregulars, but significant as they were discovered so early. Maybe I'll think about them, though their names can be quite obscure (e.g. VII Elara)... Double sharp (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Might as well:

For the others, maybe @+ or ♑︎+. — kwami (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I guess you mean Thebe. :) Double sharp (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

D'oh! — kwami (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

My worry is how we'd be able to tell which is V Amalthea and which is XV Adrastea, since really they are the same mythological figure. I suppose Amalthea, being larger, should get the simpler variant.

To be honest these make me think a little bit of particles. Metis makes me think of a positive muon, because the μ+ structure seems a bit too obvious. Maybe it could be stylised to make the stroke not vertical? Double sharp (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the inner Neptunians: IV Thalassa, V Despina, VI Galatea, and VII Larissa could simply be initials with the letter in the same place it was on for II Nereid and VIII Proteus. (I think the capitals fit better.) III Naiad would need disambiguation, since those were for freshwater rather than the sea: maybe Nereid crossed with Interamnia's wave. For XIV Hippocamp (adding from the Voyager total, since it's just one), maybe the curl often on lowercase iota could be styled as a seahorse' tail. :) Double sharp (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

 ? — kwami (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

That's a good Cupid, also recalling the platinum symbol for Uranus itself.

Maybe VI Cordelia could then be a crowned C+o to avoid confusion. Could be reversed for VII Ophelia (well, in ancient Greek ὠφέλεια started with omega, so indeed /ɔː/!) and the crown instead made of flowers. Then they'd be an approximate pair of ring shepherds, kind of like Janus/Epimetheus or Prometheus/Pandora among your Saturnians :) Double sharp (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

VIII Bianca and IX Cressida are still not inspiring me that much on how to ornament the B+o and C+o, but X Desdemona could easily be D+o overlaid with a handkerchief. (Well, her name probably means "ill-fated" anyway, so that particular plot element seems logical to highlight for a symbol.) For a more acrophonic suggestion for XIII Rosalind than my previous one, R+o overlaid with a shepherd's crook. :) Double sharp (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Could Cressida be kappa+o? I mean, her name's not really Greek, but she's based on Chryseis who is. Well, logically that should be chi+o, but that'd be confusing. Double sharp (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

LOL, I forgot XXV Perdita. Well, given the name, perhaps appropriate. :D Double sharp (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Probably the Jovian irregulars VI through XIII need a new convention, as you said: Himalia and Elara already coincide in initials with Io and Europa. (Normally I wouldn't bother, but they were discovered so early. Let's say I'm feeling nostalgic for 16 moons of Jupiter.) Double sharp (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Thought an ω initial for Ophelia, but it looks like boobs or buttocks. That's all we need for Uranus. So it would have to be cap Ω, which doesn't connect as easily. — kwami (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I suggested an Ophelia using ɔ above, among other things, since the theme seemed to be the initial letter plus something. (It's incorrect for the English pronunciation but correct for the ancient Greek where the name probably came from, and makes a natural pair with the other shepherd for the ε ring, Cordelia). Yeah, lowercase omega plus Uranus would really be a catastrophic combo. :D Double sharp (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, here's this: . Can always change. Don't know if people would get the IPA connection, though.

Not in our article, but found a ref that Portia and Rosalind are shepherds of the nu ring. So like Cordelia and Ophelia, we could stylize Rosalind like Portia: lower-case (a cap R would connect to the scales, making a confusing enclosed space). — kwami (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

That's really good! I think I like your versions of Cordelia and Ophelia better than mine: definitely less busy. The connexion of Portia and Rosalind with the nu ring is apparently in Rings of Uranus only. :D Double sharp (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh you added that. That's fast! :) Double sharp (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Added my ref, but I'd prefer so see s.t. that explicitly concludes the nu ring is confined by them, and not that they just happen to orbit near it. — kwami (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

So, maybe:

Amalthea stylized as goat horns, Adrastea maintains the ring. No ideas yet for fixing Metis. — kwami (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I like this Amalthea, though I'm not sure I can quite take the @ sign seriously. Maybe Metis and Adrastea should have more paired symbols? :D Double sharp (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what the motivation for Naiad is. Perhaps the inclination skipping it over Thalassa; perhaps it breaking up if it gets too close. (I'm not fixed on this, but I don't see how adding a wave would dab river from sea. BTW we had a claim in the lead of the Naiad article that it would both enter N's atmosphere and become a ring because it's tidally locked (!!), but I don't know if the resonance will keep it safe, so we need a ref.) — kwami (talk) 05:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Nice! And yeah, your Naiad's better than mine. :)

Since Cordelia and Ophelia are pretty much just C+o and Ω+o now, maybe X Desdemona may as well be an unadorned D+o. Which might legitimise chi+o for IX Cressida. Double sharp (talk) 11:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I changed the colour scheme above, at least for giant-planet moons:

• Light blue – all planemo moons (including Luna and Charon just for completeness)
• Green – other inner moons. We probably should finish off the symbols. (I was going to stop at the Voyager discoveries, but Polydeuces and Daphnis were natural, and there aren't many more. Anyway Pallene, Perdita, and Mab were later found in Voyager images anyway, so why not.)
• Pink – irregular moons that were discovered fairly early and for that reason might still deserve symbols. (Phoebe and Nereid already have them, so it's just the eight Jovian irregulars VI through XIII. Well, maybe Themisto since it was found and then lost, but it's not that important.)
• Red – other irregular moons since the flood started in the late 1990s. Probably no need, and there'd be no end to it anyway.

I put in a lot of useless cells to Jupiter LXXII, but only just to make it really a "wordless version" of List of natural satellites; otherwise, I wouldn't have bothered. :D

Remaining greens: Methone, Pallene, Anthe, Aegaeon at Saturn (might not even be big enough to bother with, though); Bianca, Cressida, Desdemona, Perdita at Uranus. Double sharp (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Made the Saturnians yellow, since likely they're not really important enough to bother with. Double sharp (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Been playing around w the Uranians, but nothing I'm happy with. The problem w D for Desdemona is that it's easy to read it as a P, even w serifs to the left. So s.t. more needs to be done. DE ligature like de in old Spanish mss, maybe, but that's still not clear.

I think the only other things still on my draft list are Echeclus (ugly, but I've seen it a lot), Dioretsa, Zane's "Apollo + 13" which will probably be next year, alt Egeria, touching up alt Astraea, and a few obscurities that probably aren't worth doing, like 2000 OO67 and 1820 Gilgamesh.

Might as well upload Apollo now: ; Damocles and Urania are already up. — kwami (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, why not. . Check the file history for Des. — kwami (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Interesting! Why the dot for Bianca?

Yeah, I see what you mean about D looking like P because of that stem. I considered maybe a delta, since she has a Greek name. But DE ligature works well too. :)

Two more to go! :D Double sharp (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's just "Bi" with the "i" stuck on the side. Like I said, not happy with it.

A delta would start looking like the sulphur variant of Pallas. Trying to avoid too many arrow shapes. — kwami (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. So I'm fully behind this Desdemona then. :)

I'll think some more about Bianca. And the last two (Cressida and Perdita). Double sharp (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

. No idea why.

(Oh, I was tinkering w handkerchiefs. Nothing came to me.) — kwami (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

To fill out the set, . Can't say I like the last three. — kwami (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, what's it supposed to represent?

I'm willing to take these until either of us thinks of something better. :) Double sharp (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Just the 'Pr' of 'Perdita'. — kwami (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, not too bad I guess. I spent a lot of time thinking about these three and didn't get very far either, so I'll be happy with this. :) Maybe 'Cr' could be given the same treatment for 'Cressida'? Since I confess I don't get why you used a dot for it. Double sharp (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Check the file history for Perdita. Is that any better? It's either a 'PD' or just a fancy 'P'.

Yeah, I was thinking of a 'Cr' too, but haven't tried it out yet. Maybe this PM. The dot was just because a plain C-o could be lots of things, and why should Cressida be privileged? — kwami (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I prefer the 'Pr' version. Well, Perdita was fostered by a shepherd, and I can pretend the r is a tiny little shepherd's crook. Well, maybe if it were drawn a little bit differently. :) Double sharp (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, changed it a bit. She didn't wear a ponytail, did she? — kwami (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I guess I have to picture her with one now! Double sharp (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Should there be a dot at the center of the loop of the Saturn hook of the trojans? [I tried it. See if that helps. More distinctive, esp. for Telesto, which might be read as Titan or Tethys otherwise.] — kwami (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it helps. Great idea! Double sharp (talk) 09:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The dot in Cressida doesn't mean anything, but it does help it pair up w Bianca. Arrange them by distance, and the Uranians pair up fairly nicely, which could help remembering their order. — kwami (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh wow, it did work for me. :) Though maybe I'm not the best test case, since I already remembered the original Voyager ten, and just needed to recall where Perdita, Mab, and Cupid fit in there. Double sharp (talk) 09:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

(The last is actually a corporate logo turned on its side. — kwami (talk))

Nomination of Tetracontaoctagon for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tetracontaoctagon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetracontaoctagon until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Danstronger (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Clean up

I tried cleaning up Hiisi and Paha. Check the file histories. Any better? (That Paha would be good for Hiisi, actually, but it looks too much like a 'P'.)

I think the old forms were easier to recognise, though the new forms do harmonise a bit better with Lempo's heart. But I guess sharing one element is enough, so consider this a vote for the old forms. :) Double sharp (talk) 09:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Rv'd. — kwami (talk)

I made s.t. for Daphne's moon Peneius, but it seems rather trivial. And if Alauda really is 200km, it should probably be included, so we have all R > 100km. Could do temps for Elektra's 3 moons too (replace orb w small decrescent, encrescent and horiz. crescent), but again seems rather trivial, and they'd be easy to confuse. — kwami (talk) 05:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

-- a lark ascending. — kwami (talk) 05:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Nice, makes sense. Double sharp (talk) 09:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

It's a bit smaller, but any thoughts for Massalia? As it's the last one in the first two dozen. :) Double sharp (talk) 09:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Nothing comes to mind. I'm more interested in any remaining named TNOs and asteroids in the R ~ 100km range, like Hermione.

Maybe 94 Aurora, then? Double sharp (talk) 09:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, edit-conflict: ... like Hermione, Aurora, Bertha, Chicago, Palma. — kwami (talk)

Chicago could use its flag. Though that's not really an option for Palma. Bertha means "bright one", but the obvious symbol that sprang to mind was already taken by Logos. [edit: Logos and Praamzius symbols were reversed at this time --Kwami] :( Double sharp (talk) 08:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

BTW, ? — kwami (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey, cool idea. :)

Should Aten and Atira get symbols too, then? Double sharp (talk) 09:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

— kwami (talk) 10:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Remaining named TNOs: 15810 Arawn (quasi-satellite of Pluto), 66652 Borasisi–Pabu, 184314 Mbabamwanawaresa (no article), 341520 Mors–Somnus, 474640 Alicanto. Double sharp (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Mbabamwanawaresa: s.t. about beer & rainbows? Alicanto: gold + silver + wings? — kwami (talk)

These seem like sound ideas to me. Alicanto, I guess, could be File:Platinum symbol.svg crowned with wings indeed. Mbabamwanawaresa: I'm not sure about how to realise this idea, though it makes perfect sense, so I'm curious to see what you'll come up with. :)

OTOH the Sun+Moon platinum does seem to fit Borasisi rather well too.

Arawn interests me the most, because of its relationship with Pluto. Double sharp (talk) 08:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Chicogo: would that be the 2-star flag of 1917? Still anachronistic, though. The municipal device would be easier and not so busy. Alicanto w simplified platinum to form a tail. (I've seen that simplified form in alch. sources. Also, platinum was known in S.America long before Europe.) For Mbaba, a spilled jug o' beer might be recognizable. The Zulu would brew it in s.t. of that shape. — kwami (talk) 06:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I translated the WP-fr article on Mbabamwanawaresa and updated the params, but we need a citation for its size. — kwami (talk) 07:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Johnston's Archive gives "232?" km for diameter. So, changed it to that.

Any news about this occultation? Double sharp (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

No idea. Where do you find that stuff anyway? — kwami (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I just searched the designation on Google. :) And I see it provides diameters for a couple of albedo guesses. Double sharp (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I added the one for 5% since it's presumably dark.

How about this? — kwami (talk)

Interesting! Why two Pluto signs joined like Pisces, I wonder? Double sharp (talk) 09:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

No reason in particular, just a thought. Approaching Pluto and departing again, sorta tied together. Rotated because it isn't an actual satellite. — kwami (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense then. :) Double sharp (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Which suggests something for (76146) 2000 EU16, Ceres' quasi-satellite. Double sharp (talk) 09:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

If it's worth it.

BTW, Alauda is a nod to Vaughan Williams. — kwami (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

As I suspected! :D

Yeah, Ceres' quasi-satellite is probably 3.5 km, so not worth it I think. Just interesting that it has one. Double sharp (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Doing the same thing w a sickle would suggest both an 'E' and a 'U' (if the cross-bar is kept), so it really would be rather appropriate, at least unless it's ever named. — kwami (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Huh, I have to admit that this is a good reason to make it. :D Anyway, isn't the Albion symbol we have on Commons still a QB1 monogram? So, maybe it's still okay even if it ever gets named. Double sharp (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Albion's a special case because it lent its provisional name to the QB1-o's. There are lots of astrological monograms made from provisional designations, and I doubt they'll last. But a symbolic symbol should be more stable, I'd think. — kwami (talk) 09:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

. The flag we had in our article was for Mallorca, not Palma. Its symbols are a palm tree and a bat, so ... — kwami (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Thinking how to mod the existing symbol for Mors-Somnus for each of those. That just leaves Hermione, Bertha & Ursula as possibly r > 100km asteroids, right? — kwami (talk) 06:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Huh. The only WP with an article on EU16 is Minankabau! Interesting enough we should probably have one too, with a link to that article. — kwami (talk) 06:47, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Is this: file:Ursula symbol (fixed width).svg too silly? — kwami (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it is. :D Double sharp (talk) 08:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Then maybe add a star to the Ursa Minor symbol? — kwami (talk) 10:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Yup, I think that works! :) Double sharp (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

From your earlier request: . — kwami (talk) 10:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Nice! From the cross on Marseille's coat of arms, I'd assume? Double sharp (talk) 10:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, just copied the idea from Bamberga.

(if the star were near the top it might look like a symbol for Polaris) — kwami (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Last of the TNOs: — kwami (talk)

And if you can guess what this system is:

The asp made me suspect; then the A and C confirmed it. But again, maybe I'm not the best person to ask since I already knew the names of this system. :) Double sharp (talk) 08:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's more will someone remember the symbol once they learn what it is than will they recognize it cold.

And with that I think I'm done, unless you have any ideas for Hermione. (?) Also did the Unicode alchemical block for the character lists on Wiktionary. — kwami (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Interesting idea. Position of the arrows does remind me of the symbol of Mercury (Hermes), which seems etymologically apropos. Maybe it should have the asteroid star to be easier to identify? Double sharp (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you not going to do Bertha, as you suggested above? Double sharp (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Thought about a star, but couldn't think where to put it that wouldn't be crowded. Inside the circle would suggest a particular orbit as per Atira.

Bertha, sure, that's the remaining gap, but no ideas.

Zane had collected symbols for centaurs Dioretsa and 2000 OO67. Are they worth uploading? — kwami (talk) 10:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, why not. With 1812 Gilgamesh, they're the last in my notes of things from astrology fonts: I have a few ideas for Elpis and Aegle, but they're getting too small to justify by size alone, unless new estimates ever put them back to ca. 200km.

Any luck with Bertha? I'm striking out. — kwami (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

[1]? — kwami (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Reverted, since AFAIK there's no use outside WP yet. Double sharp (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe a pear for Bertha? — kwami (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey, good idea! :D Double sharp (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

For Elpis, a cornucopia w a star in the opening, for Aegle, maybe somehow combine Venus and Sol, maybe the old solar symbol or one w rays. But there are lots in this size range, so that would just be if their estimates go back up. — kwami (talk) 03:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Among that size range, 762 Pulcova might be of interest for having one of the first-discovered asteroid moons. Maybe also 283 Emma and 93 Minerva as in your sandbox, since they have moons and you already made Cleopatra. But that's just a maybe. Double sharp (talk) 04:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

P.S. The twotino (119979) 2002 WC19 is about the size of Huya and has a moon, but it's unnamed and anyway its provisional designation has a somewhat unfortunate letter-pair in it. :D Double sharp (talk) 04:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Could be like Damocles but w a double blade.

It's ~ the size of Mimas or Interamnia but twice the mass? That's interesting. — kwami (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Category:Apollo + 13 asteroid symbols. Apollo needs a bit of cleaning up (too close to one of the fonts and not close enough to the original design), and didn't bother w Psyche, since it's just a stylized psi. — kwami (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Triacontatetragon for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Triacontatetragon, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triacontatetragon (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Chess championship years

Are you sure it's a good idea to rename chess championship articles to hyphenate a range of two years? The championship officially I think is usually only designated with a single year. As you know multi-year championship cycles are the norm in chess and have been forever, but I don't think I've ever seen the championship referred to in that way before. Quale (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Quale: The title of this seems promising, though I'm not sure if the book covers just KK1, or also KK2. If it's the former, we have an example; if it's the latter, I admit that this might be unprecedented, and I'll have to check some more. Anyway, I thought it was a bit odd to name 1984 after the starting year (though by then there was probably some official name indeed), but 1891 and 1897 after the ending year. So I elected to go for listing both years, since it might be hard to verify what 1890/1 and 1896/7 were "officially" called, or if that concept quite makes sense for back then. Double sharp (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Right, I agree that the "correct" thing to do is unclear, and probably there isn't an obviously correct thing to do. With annual championships such as national championships there is almost always a specific official year for each competition regardless of whether the tournament spans December and January, and in fact is is not uncommon for championships to be played a year early or late for financial or legal reasons. With the world championship on very irregular three-year cycles for a long time it is much more murky. I mostly wondered what your thinking was about this. It's possible we should throw it out on WT:CHESS to see what others think. It may be that they would want to consider articles case-by-case, or maybe no one cares too much. Quale (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Cleaner galaxy

Used a golden spiral. A bit better, if still not quite right: , — kwami (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

If I'm gonna do WC, should do the larger binaries as well:

And the remaining unnamed TNOs larger than G!kun:

Sedna DP

Don't recall if this was in your list: The Pluto System (2021: 41) "making this dwarf planet [Sedna] very different from Pluto," (p.460) "satellites were being discovered around most of the other dwarf planets, including Haumea ..., Eris ..., Quaoar ... and Orcus", (p.525 'Other dwarf planets in the Kuiper belt') "Notable among these detections are methane ice on Eris and Quaoar, extensive methane ice on Makemake, and water ice on Haumea, Quaoar, Orcus, and Gonggong." — kwami (talk) 02:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Added to User:Double sharp/Dwarf planets. Double sharp (talk) 08:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

They imply on another page that Varuna is a DP, but not clearly, and they never mention Salacia as such. — kwami (talk) 08:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Hexafluorides

Template:Hexafluorides has been nominated for merging with Template:Fluorine compounds. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Planet def again

Maybe a more coherent article this time, and more worth our while?

Moons are planets: Scientific usefulness versus cultural teleology in the taxonomy of planetary science Icarus 374, 1 March 2022, 114768.

That's probably the most definitive statement we're going to get for a while, so I've started editing planet accordingly. It seems to be a bit more coherent than some of the other pubs, though it does show its bias in dismissing the dynamicist def as "astrology". IMO the whole article should be written with the understanding that there are competing definitions and not take either to be correct. — kwami (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Yes, that's definitely much more coherent. (And at least they admit that gravitational clearing is an important concept, even if there are other things to say about those bodies.) I agree – it should be written with the idea that there are multiple definitions, since planetary scientists routinely ignore the IAU definition.

That said, if secondaries were indeed routinely being considered planets (with "satellite" understood as "satellite planet" even if the second word is skipped), then I'd think that the little tables under "History" need some revision. Certainly at least the satellite discoveries till 1787 even explicitly were called "planets" even in the strict sense that the word was used in their discovery papers. And it should probably also reflect that the asteroids kept being called planets, just a different kind from the major ones, until Kuiper's paper came along and suddenly that stopped (except for Ceres and sometimes Pallas and Vesta). Double sharp (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I added the Galileans to the history article, but yeah, there should be more. At least to 1787 then; not sure how much I trust the paper, since they seem to be trying to justify their POV rather than do legit historical research. Not familiar with the effect Kuiper's paper had -- would you be willing to tackle that?

Nice to have a ref that the IAU def is intrinsically self-contradictory. — kwami (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The Kuiper thing is admittedly based on their previous research. I'll need to look and see if it actually bears out. For one thing, even as late as 2006 we can still find sources calling all minor planets "planets". Their research probably does show that geoscientists did drop them from the planet club fairly quickly after Kuiper's paper (except for Ceres, and with Pallas and Vesta being ambiguous), but I guess the old conception of "minor planets are planets too" never died out either. Double sharp (talk) 05:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess one could interpret "has sufficient self-gravitation to be round due to hydrostatic equilibrium" to mean that it's round and also big enough that gravity has played a part in rounding it. Even if it has not actually reached a state of hydrostatic equilibrium.

Though I suppose that means that if transitional KBOs like G!kun or Varuna are round, they would be planets since they started to collapse and just never finished. (Assuming Grundy et al. are right.) Whereas Vesta would not be a planet despite being fully differentiated. Matches the poster, but a bit weird since Vesta seems obviously more geophysically evolved. Double sharp (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I haven't finished the new paper yet, but I like the Venn diagram. That's how cognitive categories work: objects are better or worse members of a category depending on how many characteristics they share with prototypical members, and how well. (One of the authors is married to a linguist. I wonder how much is her influence.) Whenever you impose a rigid definition, you're going to run into problems, because reality doesn't care about our conceptions. (Is Europa a planet if it's geologically active because of tidal heating rather than adequate mass?) So something may be a typical or atypical planet, borderline case, or of interest to planetologists for any of various reasons. Vesta certainly is, and I suspect Psyche will be too.

The benefit of the IAU def -- or potential benefit, if they're drop the HE criterion -- is that you have an easy answer to how many planets there are in the SS. Otherwise the category is amorphous, and trying to answer it is like trying to count how many biological kingdoms there are. But we don't have a problem teaching biology to kids without knowing how many kingdoms there are, and we wouldn't have a problem teaching them astronomy without knowing how many planets there are. In both, we'd teach them what the most important ones are, and there are benefits to discussing the criteria involved rather than relying on rote memory. — kwami (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with all of that (and I think Europa is obviously a planet). Although if the definition was to deliberately be left a bit vague rather than rigid, perhaps something like "a planet is something big enough to be round, but small enough that it can't burn hydrogen" would be a better sort of language to use. And indeed, "big enough to be round" invites a discussion of how exactly the two are related, but also the various other transitions that happen along the way from becoming round (and joining the planet club) to becoming a red dwarf (and graduating out of it). That'll probably be fun to talk about. Double sharp (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if deuterium fusion actually occurs in brown dwarfs. I would expect the %age to be pretty low, so the cross-section of atoms meeting would be low -- would there actually be enough fusion to matter? — kwami (talk) 09:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd expect the percentage to be more or less equal to Jupiter's, which Galileo measured as 26±7 deuterium atoms out of every million hydrogen. So not much.

There's not any noticeable difference in the mass/radius trend when you get to any of the masses commonly given for the onset of deuterium fusion, according to the 2016 Chen and Kipping paper. Nothing like the dip you get a little after Saturn when the planet stops getting much bigger with increasing mass, or with the sudden takeoff that appears to happen only with hydrogen fusion. That's why I said "red dwarf" above, because on this basis I'd rather call brown dwarfs planets. Okay, borderline ones that do manage to do a bit of fusion, just not enough to actually matter.

Haven't most brown dwarfs we've discovered long since stopped fusing their deuterium, anyway? Double sharp (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Dunno. How long could a trickle of fusion continue? Though I guess if on average D meets another D every 10^4.5 of its collisions, fusion might not last as long as I'd imagined. — kwami (talk) 10:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, D can fuse with a proton, too. And it would do that more often than fusing with another D. Double sharp (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh. Yeah, duh. So yeah, they should've mostly burned out long ago. — kwami (talk) 11:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

And in that case I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be considered planets. :D Double sharp (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Could they be warm enough that we'd see a heat glow if there were one in our system? The distinction created when the Sun was delisted as a planet was that stars shine with their own light, planets only reflect. If you have something that dully glows then it would be reasonable to classify it as an intermediate object. Though subjective, of course, as that would be based on our range of visible light. — kwami (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Since Jupiter produces more heat internally than it gets from the Sun, isn't it kind of intermediate too? :D Double sharp (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure, that's what I mean about it being subjective -- we can't see a glow from Jupiter. — kwami (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Just realised I never answered this. So: yes, M-, L-, and T-type brown dwarfs would glow visibly. But Y dwarfs would not.

Actually, T and Y dwarfs show methane resp. ammonia absorption features. Okay, some T dwarfs show alkali-metal absorption features, but so should hot Jupiters. So they really seem like "large planets" to me.

Presumably Jupiter would've glowed too back in the early days of the Solar System. Of course it's cooled down by now, though it does still produce more heat internally than it gets from the Sun. (So do Saturn and Neptune.) But that's presumably the story of brown dwarfs too.

Anyway, at least it isn't "sub-brown dwarf", which is completely unworkable as it currently stands (a division by formation). If Jupiter was floating out a couple of light-years away, we'd presumably be calling it a sub-brown dwarf too. (Hmm, I wonder if we'd be able to notice the Galilean moons if that were the case? We might have a fighting chance since it would be closer than Proxima. Europa might still have an ocean in this situation!) Double sharp (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, my favorite planet is Earth and my favorite star, Sol. Can do without the others. — kwami (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Hence "present company excepted". ;)

The reason is really about how I first got into astronomy as a hobby, which is why present company has been excluded. :) I suppose thermophile aliens might have such a preference among Sol's planets for different reasons, though I'm not sure they'd have had time to evolve around Spica. ;) Double sharp (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I was wondering what that meant.

BTW, 594913 ʼAylóʼchaxnim might should'na been moved after all. You can check the link there. — kwami (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Re. your recent ed to 'planet', wouldn't Europa be terrestrial? It just has an ice shell, a terrestrial water-world that froze over. (I wonder if Io and Europa weren't both once much more massive, ice worlds like Ganymede, with most of the volatiles now lost.) — kwami (talk) 12:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I suppose so, but some using geophysical definitions think otherwise. The Planetary Society groups Europa with the other giant-planet moons as an "icy planet", although it then admits that like Io it's mostly rock and metal. (It agrees with you that Io and Europa probably formed with more ice, BTW.) It points to Eris as another example of this (density about 2.43±0.05 g/cm³). Lewis' Physics and Chemistry of the Solar System (2nd ed., 2004) is kind of old, but it groups Europa with the icy satellites (and Pluto). But it groups Io with the "airless rocky bodies", writing Io presents us with our best example of large, rocky bodies in the outer Solar System. Of all the six lunar-sized satellites of the Jovian planets (Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto about Jupiter; Titan at Saturn; Triton at Neptune) and the Pluto–Charon system, it is the only one with rock-like density (3.52) and an ice-free surface. Even Europa, with its similar density of 3.45, has a deep ice layer, perhaps 50km in thickness, that bars us from studying its rocky component. So I suppose those who call Europa an icy planet do so because the interior cannot be studied well yet. Actually I haven't yet seen someone calling Europa terrestrial, but maybe I just haven't looked in the right place. Double sharp (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. But if the Sun warmed enough for it to melt, it would be a small terrestrial water world (assuming it could keep enough of an atmosphere so the ocean didn't boil away) ... so we're classifying it for where it is, not what it is. I recall s.o. complaining about that recently. — kwami (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hee hee, yes. :)

Just grabbing another example for citing later: "This chapter reviews the interior structure, chemistry, and dynamics of terrestrial planetary bodies: Mercury, the Moon, Venus, Mars, and Io." Europa and Ganymede are mentioned because of the 1:2:4 Laplace resonance, but not called terrestrial.

I guess melted Ganymede and Callisto would be "icy water worlds"? :D Double sharp (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, found an article that actually sticks to classifying things by what they are: the rocky satellites Io, Europa, and the Moon. In spite of its icy surface, Europa rather belongs to the rocky satellites because its bulk metal and silicate content exceeds 90 wt%. So, cited it for Europa. Double sharp (talk) 12:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

DP colors

For some of the astrology templates, I gave the planets a background color for link buttons; used also for sign (traditional only). There aren't any fixed colors associated with the planets, so I went off the planetary metals and associations with the gods. For Earth, verdigris. I'd like to do the same w the DP and early asteroids, e.g. something coppery for Gonggong, ice blue for Sedna, something w grain or harvest for Ceres. I suppose Haumea, Makemake and Quaoar should have something green for generation/creation, Orcus dark for the underworld. See below; not happy w Makemake (see its file history). No idea for Eris or Vesta Juno Pallas Hygiea. Could use something in the orange-rose-purple range to balance the color range. Any ideas/criticism? — kwami (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Pretty good, I think! I admit that the colours I naturally associate with the major planets are rather their actual colours, but I suppose this should be more symbolic.

I find Makemake alright as it is.

The most obvious thing to associate with Eris would be the Golden Apple of Discord, but I suppose that'd run into the Sun's colour. So, indeed I'm not too sure.

Pallas could be a bright violet (perhaps heading for magenta), since Athens is the violet-crowned city. Juno could be pink, as wife of Jupiter and queen of heaven. For Vesta, maybe orange for the association with fire. On the other hand, this kind of logic suggests green for Hygiea, and we already have a lot of greens... Double sharp (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Forgot to ping you, sorry. Double sharp (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, Uranus is sea-colored and Neptune is sky-colored. Unfortunate, but not like this is of any real importance.

Maybe a pinker gold to suggest 'apple'?

Nice idea for Pallas.

I was thinking of moving Makemake's green to Haumea, but then don't know what for M.

Why green for Hygiea?

There's also Chiron to consider.

I did Psyche as well, but just used the blue of Uranus (which I also used for Ophiuchus, since it doesn't have a ruling planet.) — kwami (talk) 09:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that works for Eris.

For Hygiea, don't pharmacies usually use the colour green? Double sharp (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Dunno. Will check.

Yeah, Pindar used "violet-twined", doesn't seem to be a problem w the ID of the flower (unlike "hyacinth"). So yeah, violet for Pallas is good. — kwami (talk) 10:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Best I could do for Eris was 'pear'. Awfully close to Quaoar's peridot. Peridot might actually be a better color for Eris. — kwami (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Nice! Double sharp (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe for 2014 UZ224 'DD'? — kwami (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Yes, that makes sense. Double sharp (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm proofing a 1911 EB article, where they're talking about education in the UK, and came across a description of Manchester as being "in the provinces". :) — kwami (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Titanium Featured article review

I have nominated Titanium for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

'geological' planets?

I know 'geophysical' is in the sources, but it seems like unnecessary jargon. Is there an advantage to it over simply 'geological'? — kwami (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I suppose geophysics is a subdiscipline of geology, so it has the advantage of being more specific and corresponding to what the sources call it. But 'geological' is also correct and would be better understood. Double sharp (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

And I see some already call it a 'geological definition' when explaining it to the public. Double sharp (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Double sharp (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't think you were expecting a response. It was just a suggestion. Though the 'moons are planets' article does speak of "the geophysical/geological planet concept forged by Galileo". — kwami (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Well, in that case I'd suggest calling it the 'geophysical (or geological)' definition the first time, and then 'geophysical' thereafter. Double sharp (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Works for me.

Sigh. Have an editor who claims a linguist is being unscientific in his analysis of a language because he didn't interview angels. Appears to be serious, and claims that we can't report linguistic analysis on WP if there's just one because it's protected by copyright. Topic's too silly to argue about. — kwami (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

BTW, have you seen any astronomical use of symbols for asteroids (2)+, like the poster you found for the dwarfs? Probably a good idea to add modern refs. — kwami (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: All I know is sources giving historical uses, like Lutz D. Schmadel's Dictionary of Minor Planet Names. Vesta might be the best hope for it, I guess. Double sharp (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

In an edit summary at Pluto, you said, "the P-L has more use in astronomy because Pluto was a planet in recent memory." But does it? We have one source for actual use of the monogram in astronomy (the one you knew of), vs one source for the bident (the NASA/JPL poster). The real use for both is astrological, where from what I've seen the bident seems to be more common. — kwami (talk) 08:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Sorry, was going by memory for that one. I think it may have been true in the past, but now that Pluto got dropped from the IAU planet list and planet symbols have mostly become quite rare in astronomy, I think you're right about the current situation. Double sharp (talk) 08:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, quite common in a theoretical list of symbols, not so much otherwise. Any objection to changing it back? — kwami (talk) 08:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I just changed it back. :) Double sharp (talk) 09:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Would you also review what I did at WP-zh? My Mandarin sucks. — kwami (talk) 09:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Reads okay to me. :) Double sharp (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. The symbols on the NASA poster should be well-ref'd now. Seen anything w Sedna? No-one's likely to object to the low-# asteroids w/o recent refs, but we need for the DPs. — kwami (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Sorry, I haven't seen anything with Sedna. :( Double sharp (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Thank you for your hard work on WikiProject Elements and planet articles. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 03:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Double sharp (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Even star polygon db

Template:Even star polygon db has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 12:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Star figure db

Template:Star figure db has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 12:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

Hello, Double sharp. You have new messages at Talk:Cerium.
Message added 21:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Mars at FAR

@Double sharp: Greetings! I see that you are often involved in articles about the solar system. I don't know if you are busy, but your help would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mars/archive1. Cheers - Wretchskull (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Wretchskull: Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of the problem with this article is just that it needs a big update, looking at the years of the sources! I'm kind of busy at the moment indeed and I admit I haven't kept up with the latest on the Red Planet. (A bit easier to keep up for the others, since there were fewer missions there...) It seems from the FAR that these problems are in good hands now, so while I'm sorry that I can't really do much more, it should probably work out. :) Double sharp (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Hexafluorides

Template:Hexafluorides has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 02:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Planetary-mass objection

Thank you for doing so much to improve Wikipedia. Please do not take offense, but i have a concern about one of your edits, which you gave the edit summary Planetary-mass objects: almost all up there already. You seem to be both more knowledgeable about and more invested in the Planet article than i am, so i'm really trying not to step on your toes, but maybe you'd be willing to give this another look. (As an unregistered user, i can't boldly edit the Planet article myself.)

Planetary-mass object redirects to a section you deleted in that edit, so Planetary-mass object effectively links to Planet, even though the name strongly implies that the purpose of the term is to differentiate planetary-mass objects from planets (some rectangles are squares, not all squares are rectangles). You have made quite a few edits to the Planet article since then, with a few edits by others mixed in, but the article currently refers to planetary-mass objects several times without ever defining the term as far as i can tell. Without defining the term on the Planet page, anyone following any of Wikipedia'a links to Planetary-mass object is going to be disappointed.

i'm sure i understand the gist of what a planetary-mass object is (something the size of a planet that doesn't orbit a star) in much the same way that i understand what a planet is (something that orbits a star ^{JUST LIKE PLUTO!} _{WAIT PLUTO'S NOT A PLANET?!})

Since you seem to think the Planet page does not need a Planetary-mass object section, would you please define the term in whatever you think is a more appropriate place, and make sure Planetary-mass object redirects there? Thanks.

If we need to discuss this further, i recommend we do it here or create Talk:Planetary-mass object. Plan C would be Talk:Planet and Plan D would be my talk page.

--96.244.220.178 (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

It's basically that there's disagreement within the scientific community on what "planet" means. See, the reason I made those edits is that the planetary-science community still often refuses to accept the IAU definition of "planet", and some of them actually recently formalised what they mean instead. For those who accept the IAU definition, a planet has to be something round, that orbits a star, and is also gravitationally dominant (this is the clause that excludes Pluto). However, for those who don't accept it, a planet only has to be round. (It doesn't even have to orbit a star: not only Pluto but also our own Moon is a planet, according to this definition. Which makes sense: if you're mostly interested in intrinsic properties, it's hard to deny Titan with its lakes and atmosphere membership of the planet club.) And this usage has been in enough papers that I figured we had better be more neutral about it.

"Planetary-mass object" usually refers to anything round, but that means it's only actually differentiated from "planet" by those who follow the IAU definition. I added a note in the lede about it (though it was already defined under Planet#Geophysical definitions at the very end). Double sharp (talk) 09:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Salacia

Per DM, the tail of Salacia should be Latin S-shaped, so here's my attempt: , . — kwami (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion: FAC 4 nomination of nonmetal

Please accept this note as an invitation to participate in the discussion of this latest FAC nomination for the nonmetal article.

The context is that you were involved in the FAC 3 discussion for the article (which was not prompted) or you are an editor who made a recent edit to the nonmetal article.

Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

GAR

Group 4 element has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Bli231957 (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Regular star polygon stat table

Template:Regular star polygon stat table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Threeleaper for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Threeleaper is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Threeleaper until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

JBL (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kirin (chess)

The article Kirin (chess) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I cannot find any evidence of this being a thing -- aside from the undiscerning aggregator of invented chess variant pieces, Wikipedia mirrors, and a small handful of chess variant enthusiast forum posts, it doesn't seem to have any existence in potential sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JBL (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Transuranium elements in cosmic objects

As for transuranium elements in cosmic objects, see Przybylski's star. Burzuchius (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Burzuchius: Thanks, I've added it. :) Double sharp (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

(page-stalker) That's fascinating. — kwami (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Solar system

I have nominated Solar System for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Cinadon36 15:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Protactinium.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Protactinium.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Vitaium (talk) 12:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Protactinium.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Protactinium.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Vitaium (talk) 12:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Response to your observations about Grand Chess

I appreciate the observations you made about Grand Chess six years ago, comparing it to Chu Shogi in the Grand Chess talk page. That said, the only reliably sourced commentary I could find comparing Grand Chess to Chu Shogi comes from Larry Kaufman (yes, it’s a mailing list posting, but he’s a published chess writer, so a mailing list posting about chess by him is reliable as per WP:BLOG since he’s a subject-matter expert on chess) here http://www.shogi.net/shogi-l/Archive/1999/Nfeb07-06.txt so I have added some of his commentary to the Grand chess article.

I think the comparison of Chu Shogi to Grand Chess is an interesting topic of discussion and if you can find other reliably sourced discussions comparing the two (e.g. anything published in a chess magazine or published by someone who had written at least one professionally published chess book), I would welcome it being added to the relevant Wikipedia article. Samboy (talk) 05:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Samboy: Haha, someone read it. I used to be more naughty about WP:NOTFORUM indeed, but of course understanding that it couldn't be on the article. :)

I've seen a few RS argue that chu shogi is the best large chess variant:

• Jean-Louis Cazaux (author of A World of Chess and other books on chess history): "[Chu shogi] has been called the most well designed Great Chess game in the world being more enjoyable and interesting to play than most large variants." (2013)
• David Pritchard, The Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants: "Reckoned by many to be the best of all large chess games." (2007)

Given the dates I guess both must have known about Grand Chess, but it's not explicitly stated in the comparison. Neither is there anything explaining why they (or at least Cazaux' sources) think so. Double sharp (talk) 06:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the references. I’ll see if I can put them in the Chu shogi article (if they aren’t already there). My own original research on the matter leans towards Chu being better: Grand chess has a 1-2 pawn advantage for White at the highest level of play, and may even be a win for White while it’s very unlikely Chu has the same first mover advantage (then again, I don’t see that White advantage for Grand at club level play). But maybe we can salvage Grand Chess with either the pie rule or by not allowing While to make certain first moves. Naturally, I haven’t seen this discussed or published anywhere, so take it with a huge grain of salt. Samboy (talk) 06:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Samboy: No problem, it's interesting to me. :) Larry Kaufman published some engine-related results on odds and winning advantages in normal chess in his recent Chess Board Options (2021); maybe he might be interested in doing such a study for variants.

A restricted first move could work; John Beasley has suggested it to keep Losing Chess playable. Double sharp (talk) 07:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

"Yog sothoth (geometry)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Yog sothoth (geometry) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 31#Yog sothoth (geometry) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Apocheir (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

"Chaugnar faugn (geometry)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Chaugnar faugn (geometry) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 31#Chaugnar faugn (geometry) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

List of possible dwarf planets‎

The ref given doesn't seem to say that Callisto and Titan are not in HE, only that non-HE effects in the lithospheres may be why previous MI calculations suggested that the moons were only partially differentiated. Am I missing something? — kwami (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Yes, it seems to be just about the lithosphere. For Callisto I have another ref: At the core of the problem is the assumption that Callisto is in hydrostatic equilibrium, which was used as the basis for interpreting gravity data provided by the Galileo Mission. Before Galileo reached the Jovian system it was explicitly noted [2] that the possibility of non-hydrostaticity could make ambiguous the interpretation of gravity data. As a matter of fact, the available dataset, while scarce, does present a number of anomalies suggesting that the moon is not in hydrostatic equilibrium. So it might or might not be. For Titan, the last I found was this: The new solution likewise confirms that, despite Titan's considerable excess flattening, its interior has relaxed to a state compatible with hydrostatic equilibrium with a moment of inertia factor close to 0.341, though the presence of such significant non-hydrostatic topography is a reminder that hydrostatic equilibrium is not guaranteed, precluding a definitive determination of the moment of inertia. So, the shape seems to be consistent with HE, but that does not actually prove HE. Double sharp (talk) 04:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

So we mark Callisto as not being in HE, though we don't know that's true, and mark Rhea as being in HE, though we don't know that's true either. We seem to have a OR problem. 05:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I've reworded the table; is it better now? Double sharp (talk) 06:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's better. Thanks. — kwami (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Planet at FAR

I have nominated Planet for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Artem.G (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)