User talk:Nstock

Welcome!

Hello, Nstock! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Jojhutton (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Kepler planets and metallicity

Hi, Nstock.

I've noticed you've changed a lot of the metallicities for the star articles I've been working on. I do thank you for catching many of my errors, although I believe that I'd save you the work if I knew how to interpret [Fe/H]. I thought I did, but apparently I was wrong. :P

Could you help me understand? --Starstriker7^(Talk) 06:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! I'm not always the best at explaining, so please let me know if something isn't clear. [Fe/H] is a logarithmic measure of the amount of iron in the star compared to the amount of iron in the sun. So to get a normal comparison to the sun, you have to calculate 10^[Fe/H]. For Kepler 7, which has a [Fe/H] = 0.11, its actual abundance of iron is 10^(0.11) = 1.288 times that of the sun (or 28.8% more abundant).

It's seems unnecessary to measure metallicity this way, but I think it's used because there are many stars that are very metal poor, with [Fe/H] as small as -3 (or one one-thousandth as much iron as the sun) common, and a few stars with [Fe/H] less than -5.

And in case you're curious, [Fe/H] is only a measure of the IRON in a star, but it's called 'metallicity' because elements heavier than Lithium tend to be similarly enriched or depleted in a star as iron (although that is a broad and often incorrect assumption)

Does that answer your question? Nstock (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It answers it quite fully, actually. Thank you. :)

So, to recap (it tends to help me if I try to explain what I've seen), the [Fe/H] system is a comparison of the amount of iron in the Sun and the amount of iron in a given star. It is measured logarithmically (this is the only part where I'm confused, as you used an exponential expression to calculate the metallicity of Kepler-7) by putting 10 to the [Fe/H] power. It, however, is not the best way to do so, because it only measures iron and not the abundance of other metals. It tends to be used because metals heavier than lithium tend to follow the same trends as iron, and because there are many stars that tend to have low concentrations of iron.

Did I understand everything correctly? --Starstriker7^(Talk) 02:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think so! I'll try to clarify the part you say you're confused. [Fe/H] is a logarithmic measurement because to calculate it, you would say [Fe/H] = log(abundance of iron in star compared to abundance of iron in sun). That's why if you want to go back the other way and find the abundance of iron in a star, you need to raise 10 to the [Fe/H] power.

The only other thing I'd say is that using iron as a proxy for all metals is not perfect, and may not even be all that great, BUT in many ways it's the best we have (short of measuring the amount of each metal, which as you may guess is not practical). It just means that shortcomings have to be kept in mind.

I hope that helps, but if not please let me know! (also there's a wikipedia article metallicity that may be helpful if I'm not) Nstock (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It did indeed. Thank you so much for your explanations. :D

Now that I think about it, would you consider working the Kepler articles with me? Having someone to work with would definitely make getting Kepler topics up to WP:GA a ton easier. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 05:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Though I don't have a ton of free time, I can definitely address comments in GA reviews (such as what is currently up for Kepler-10b). Just let me know when an article is being submitted for GA status and I'll keep an eye on it. And if I have a chance, I'll do what I can to get articles closer to being GA-reviewable (for example, I've expanded Kepler-4b to something other than a stub).Nstock (talk) 07:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. :D

By the way, I've cleared the last of Nergaal's requests on Talk:Kepler-10b/GA1, and I did some work on Kepler-4b as well. I think it looks ready for GA, so I'm going to start by nominating that. Nice work on it! --Starstriker7^(Talk) 03:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I robbed you of the choice of nominating Kepler-4b. I apologize; I should have left that at your discretion. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 14:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all! I like the idea of recognizing those articles that are certifiably good, but I'm happier NOT nominating articles, personally. Nstock (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, alright. :)

Once again, thanks for working with me on all of this. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 22:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hot companion

As I suggested on March 5, obviously there wasn't and isn't consensus to delete the article, so the more productive use of editors' time is to work Hot companion into Binary star (or something else) through a merge process. Now that the AfD has been closed, that's the next step. Since I felt it would look better for you guys if someone who !voted to keep proposed the merge (not that it would be 'impermissible for you, of course), I have done so.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be significant support for its existence, and I probably have a bias that is not tuned to what other users expect. It seems appropriate to create similar articles about other types of companions and somehow link them all together. From a quick search on research papers, the following may also be worthwhile articles: cool companion; massive companion; giant companion; compact companion; and believe it or not faint and bright companions. They probably can never be much more than stubs, but by including examples people can get an idea about what is being talked about. I'll see if I can throw some of these together in the near future. Nstock (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler-10 nomination

Just to let you know, I've put Kepler-10 up to WP:GAN. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I'll keep an eye on it! (though I'll soon be away from Internet connectivity for a few days) Nstock (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler-8b nomination

Kepler-8b is up at GA. Just thought I'd let you know. :) --Starstriker7^(Talk) 01:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also put Kepler-9d up at GA. Kepler-8b has passed. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the articles are all passing right off the bat! Nice work. Nstock (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to tell you before, but welcome back to Wikipedia. How did your excursion go?

Trip was good; it was nice to get away from technology for awhile. Thanks for asking! Nstock (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I definitely know what you mean! How refreshing it feels.

And you are most welcome. :D --Starstriker7^(Talk) 01:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, Kepler-11b and Kepler-11c are currently up for GA, and the Kepler-9 planets and star are up at WP:GTC, if you'd like to keep a watch on them. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 23:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler-11e is up for nomination! --Starstriker7^(Talk) 03:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! Nstock (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler-11g is up for nomination now also. I could use some help with the review. :)

Also, it looks like there are only three planets discovered by Kepler left. Could you help me make that final push and finish out the set? --Starstriker7^(Talk) 06:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler-11g should be just about ready to go pending the results of the density discussion. As for those final planets, I've put some work into Kepler-6b, and a very little bit on 5b, but that's all I'll be able to do for the near future. I hope it helps! Nstock (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, thank you for all you've done. It helps a great deal. :) --Starstriker7^(Talk) 01:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some stroopwafels for you!

Stroopwafels are perhaps the best snacks I've ever had. Here are some (virtually) for you! It's been a while since we last communicated, but I am glad to have received your help in months past. Whether or not you come back to editing Wikipedia, I am honored to have worked with an editor as helpful as you. Starstriker7^(Talk) 23:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They do look mighty tasty! It was my pleasure working with you to make the astronomy related articles here on wikipedia better. The work you put in on these articles (and many others from the looks of it) improve the site and expand the knowledge base of all those people who desire to learn. So really, thank you!

As for me, I'm adventuring for awhile, but I still have Internet (and even check it sometimes!) so let me know if there are things the could use a second set of eyes. Nstock (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]