User talk:RandomCritic/Archive 1

Re: Image:ThePlanetDefinition3.png

Sorted. Thank you for rasing this point. (Eurocommuter) 25/8/06

Warning

You have violated WP:3RR and I have taken this opportunity to file a report on the administrator's noticeboard. Have a nice day! Kyaa the Catlord 16:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC) My error. I added the fourth. My report stands. Kyaa the Catlord 16:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not violate the 3RR again. As this is your first offense, I think a warning will be sufficient, but please do not take this as an endorsement of your behavior. Please continue to use the talk page and add a listing at requests for comment if you wish more editors to participate in the article. Thank you. Gamaliel 16:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hi - No worries. All is good. I got a bit frustrated and heated earlier myself. :P Kyaa the Catlord 02:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: planet

I have been talking on this page. You haven't. In fact you are falsely accusing me of something you are doing yourself. With my revert I added an extra comment that seemed to be the underlying the point cuddlyopedia was having issue with. You are just reverting without compromise. 192.17.229.43 21:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just understood your complaint. I'm sorry I don't know how to revert the introduction without the whole article reverting. I hope it's ok now. 192.17.229.43 21:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inner sats

Regretfully, I’m (temporarily) off-line. Inner moons have been recently speciality of User:Deuar. Please try with him. Eurocommuter 06:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

RandomCritic, you appear fairly new here so you may not be aware, but parenthetical naming should be kept as simple as necessary to avoid any naming conflicts. Hence Nemesis (star) should be preferred over Nemesis (hypothetical star) unless there is some real star bearing the same name that presents a conflict. Similarly for planets, moons, and all manner of other things. We use categories to categorize things, while naming tags should only aim to avoid existing conflicts. Dragons flight 20:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

category parenting

Plese be advised that categories *REQUIRE* parents. If you remove all the parent categories, you've made a top-level category, which is not allowed. If you feel the category should be deleted, use the WP:CFD process. If you feel that a category has the wrong parents, but do not know what the proper parents should be, you can use the template:cleancat process. 132.205.44.134 22:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

category redirecting

Please note that you are NOT allowed to use "#redirect" with categories. Categories do not work properly with the article redirect. You should use the template:Categoryredirect instead. And also leave a note at WP:CFD explaining your usage of such a redirect. 132.205.44.134 23:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical Planets

RandomCritic, I appretiate your efforts to help, but your wholesale deletion of many hours of my work is not helpful. If you would like to help, I really need people to start reading through sitchin's work and sourcing things. Thanks. Mrwuggs 16:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. However, if one is looking for a larger, broader category, they need but go a step up the ladder. Example : I am looking at the Lillith (moon) article and thinking "Gee whiz, these people are nuts. I wonder if any other hypothetical moons exist?" I scroll to categories and click hypothetical solar system natural satellites. I notice that there are others after all, around Mercury and Saturn. "Thats interesting," I think. "What about those outside our solar system?" At this point, I click up one category to hypothetical natural satellites. This list is a broader one, as you prefer. It contains all hypothetical natural satellites, in our system or not. If I wanted to narrow it again, but this time to just extrasolar ones, I can. Conversly, I can go wider still and look at all natural satellites, hypothetical or otherwise. The reason this is ideal is that it gives navigational freedom. You are correct in pointing out the problem of empty categories. The reason there are empy categories like extrasolar minor planets, categories where no known astronomical objects yet exist, is twofold:

1. It gives a category for them to go in at the time of their discovery.

2. When this section is finished, there will be explaination in each empty category that states that no such planets have been found as yet. This answers the question for those who are in minor planets and wonder if there are any outside our system yet.

This purposes serve to make everthing more user friendly by providing connections and access betwen articles. I understand your goals in removing things from those categories, but all that does is depopulate wikipedia, not create a user friendly interface. It limits access and destroys the purpose of such a system. If you would like to help me out by going to the articles and adding them categoies, this will rapidly creat the broad upper topics you seek. By having Tiamat in both planets and hypothetical solar system planets, the page is connected in more places and rendered more relevant. Here is a post I have been giving to people who want to help.

Mr. Wuggs speaks

Hi, Wuggs with a little info on my hypothetical astronomical objects work. I am glad you are interested. This is some crazy stuff. You wanted to know a little more about the category work I was doing. Here is a breakdown.

category:Astronomical objects is way at the top. This is the offical wikipedia term as opposed to "Astronomical bodies" or "celesial bodies," etc. There are proper redirect pages for these other terms now. This includes all planets, moons, etc. currently thought or once thought to exist in space.

Category:Hypothetical astronomical objects is the next broadest category. This deals only with the objects that are disproven or unconfirmed. From here we break it down a little more into category:Hypothetical solar system astronomical objects and category:Hypothetical extrasolar astronomical objects. My current stage of the project is make sure there are proper categories for the non-hypothetical ones as well.

Next we break it down into category:planets, category:natural satellites, etc.

Further down, these categories go to things like planets branching into category:minor planets and minor planets into dwarfs. You get the idea.

Thanks again for your interest. If you really want to help out, start reading Sitchin's crazy books and help me source some of the really wierd stuff people are wondering about.

Well...

I suppose one could throw everything onto one page and call it good. That would be simple enough. The trouble comes when someone says:

"God, there is so much crap on this page, and I cant tell which of these things are supposed to be in the solar system or not ... and what is with dwarf planets? Is pluto hypothetical? What about the others? Are any of them dwarf planets?"

At this point they have the option of clicking through all of the articles to find which ones they want, or avoiding the category system entirly and hoping the dwarf or exoplanet articles have good links. This way, those who want broader categories would be able to click once on the least specific category the article is attatched to in order to skip strait to the category they are looking for. Others, with specific areas of research will also be facilitated. After all, you dont need to start at the bottom and click all the way up. You just go instantly to the level of specialization you are looking for.

"Major edits"

Hi RandomCritic,

Perhaps if you're planning "major edits" of a template...

Apologies; I forgot that {{inuse}}'s message can sound perturbing. I reckon it's probably simplest if I finish the alterations I'm currently making and if there's any (or all) that you're not keen on, discuss their amendment/reversion. Hope that's okay...? Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...Okay, have finished amending the template with the exception of reducing the table's rowspacing; I can't recall or seem to be able to find how to do so... A reminder gratefully received! Yours, David (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Venus spacecraft

MESSENGER has already given a Venus Fly-by according to its trajectory map. — Alastor Moody _{(T + C + U)} 18:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SolarSatellites Footer

Hello, RandomCritic... I saw your note at the template page. I agree with you about the duplication, and possibly about the plurality of "system" (another of those somewhat indistinct terms used in astronomy). I have temporarily restored the Moon to the top row, however, because I am concerned about leaving the template in what could be considered a confusing state. (I've changed "planetary systems" to "planetary moons" to address that particular issue at least.) There is now a discussion open here to consider how to redesign the template to eliminate the problem with the top row (i.e. "Where's Earth?") while avoiding duplication. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

astronomical body colours

Hi, I feel it's good you're getting rid of the pervasive yukky brown for asteroids. Now unfortunately we have similar colours for Saturn and asteroids. A possible idea is to introduce some kind of orange, perhaps? I dunno. Good fun and good luck! Deuar 19:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter's natural satellites

You asked « What's the relationship between the NSES data on inclination and the numbers given here? ». The answer should have been obvious, given the column's caption: they were inclinations with respect to Jupiter's equator, whereas the NSES orbital elements use the ecliptic as the reference plane. It would be nice of you to undo your damage, either by putting the old values back in or recomputing them. Urhixidur 03:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Natural satellites of the Solar System

Hi RandomCritic,
What do you make of this...? Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's very impressive! ... If there was a "show all/hide all" button at the top, that would be ideal.RandomCritic 12:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you approve! I agree that a "show/hide all" button would be useful, but in lieu of one (I don't know how or whether it's possible) would you be happy for the template – with corrections – to replace the current {{Natural satellites of the Solar System}}..? If so, I'd appreciate your making these corrections as I'm not an expert. If you approve, I'm confident most other folk would be happy with the new layout. Thanks again for your input, David (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS Have tweaked the template further. I also think it would make sense for the "[hide]" and "v·d·e" buttons to swap sides on the templates within, so will find out what's required.

Update

Following your amendments to the "Moons of" templates – thanks! – I've now updated {{Natural satellites of the Solar System}}. Hope all okay, David (talk) 03:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Moon groups of Jupiter

Hi again RandomCritic,

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Moon groups of Jupiter

Templationist is suggesting {{Moons of Jupiter}} makes this template redundant; was there a specific/good reason for it...? I can't remember...! Yours, David Kernow (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS Near this nomination in TfD you'll see Templationist has proposed some other planet/moon-related templates for deletion; I think I'd be inclined to agree, but won't comment as I realize I created the alternatives.

The history is that it started out as a "Jupiter's natural satellites" navigation box... somebody simplified it into a plain "Jupiter"... Then you came along...

Thanks for the reminder; it does look as if Templationist has identified a redundancy. If necessary, I'll add my support to the nomination, but I'm guessing that won't be necessary. Best wishes, David (talk) 08:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interactive images

Hello... thought you might want to check out Template:Solar System and Template:Solar system table. I've made a few changes to add interactivity to the "footer" image, as well as adding the image to the larger "table" template. (Seems a waste to not have the image in the main Solar System article, given the effort that went into creating it.) I've left more detailed notes on the respective talk pages, as well as placing comments about the interactive coding inside the templates. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ckatz (talk • contribs) 20:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Re ...Jupiters ff.

Hi again RandomCritic,

Template:Moons of Jupiter has now superseded all other Jupiter satellite templates. To clean things up, it would be good to delete all of the following templates:

Template: Moon groups of Jupiter
TfD closed and this template now slated for deletion;
Template: Jupiter
Keep as redirect...?
Template: Jupiter Full Footer
Converted to redirect. Keep...?

Can you do something with Template:Moons of Earth, Mars and the Asteroids so that there is a link to the article Mars' natural satellites? Thanks. RandomCritic 04:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have amended so that titlebar links lead to the main bodies (Earth, Mars, Asteroids) and headings within the template link to the natural satellites/moons articles (Mars' natural satellites, Asteroid moon). Hope this okay, David Kernow (talk) 09:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS Perhaps you might contribute to – ideally, close – the "Satellites of Pluto" TfD...? Regards, David (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also...

Have just thought that, for the sake of consistency, {{Mars}} should be replaced by {{Moons of Earth, Mars and the Asteroids}}...? Plus, suggest {{Solar System}} made full width (and renamed simply {{Solar System}}); and whither {{MinorPlanets Footer}} and {{SolarSatellites Footer}} (cf Asteroid moon)...? Thanks for your thoughts, David (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Solar System templates

Thanks, RandomCritic, for your thoughts:

Have just thought that, for the sake of consistency, {{Mars}} should be replaced by {{Moons of Earth, Mars and the Asteroids}}

I think it would look a little odd on, say, the Mars page -- without the context of the larger template, it would be unclear why Earth's Moon and asteroid moons were included.

Yes, on second thoughts I too came to the same conclusion;

Plus, suggest {{Solar System}} made full width (and renamed simply

);

That can be discussed at Template_talk:Solar System, but as that template has relatively recently gone through some major changes and much discussion, the interested people may not be ready for more major changes to the template.

Thanks for this advice; I'll happily hold back for a while. I'm not convinced that resizing the template wouldn't compromise its currently well-proportioned and fine-looking appearance, so I'd want to copy it and experiment – and perhaps decide it's best kept as is.

and whither {{MinorPlanets Footer}} and {{SolarSatellites Footer}}

I think that both of these templates have a role to play, separate from the larger natural satellites template. The latter is intended as a very small navigation guide that allows you to hop from one planet's satellite system to another without any difficulty. RandomCritic 05:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. As I guess you've already seen, {{MinorPlanets Footer}} is now {{Small Solar System bodies}}; hope this is okay. Re {{SolarSatellites Footer}} (now {{Natural satellites of the Solar System (compact)}}, a longer but complementary name), I agree that there's a significant amount of whitespace; your centering and formatting of the links is a neat solution, but before I'd spotted it I'd wondered whether there might be an appropriate image to fill some of the space (e.g. via {{Navbox generic with image}}). What do you think – and, if you like the idea, do any images come to mind...? Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 05:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at a number of moon images, and I think this one - - may be suitable. Rhea is very "mainstream" among the round moons, neither too large or too small, and without a lot of very distinctive surface markings -- which makes it capable of standing in as an "anymoon". RandomCritic 17:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks – it looks ideal. (At full-size, I could easily have been persuaded it was the far side of the Moon, illumination notwithstanding.) Have now installed it within {{Natural satellites of the Solar System (compact)}} per the above. Yours, David (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Pluto

I could source that info for you, if you want, but I don't think it's that important, as it's already covered in Definition of planet anyway. Might as well just delete it and save space. Oh, and I notice you've been Eyrianed. Tough break. Serendi^podous 09:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly reminder

		Edit summary reminder
		Hello. I noticed that your edit to Future components of the ISS did not include an edit summary. Please remember to use one for every edit, even minor ones. You can enable the wiki software to prompt you for one before making an edit by setting your user preferences (under Editing) to "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". Thanks, -MBK₀₀₄ 20:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amalthea (moon)

You state in Naming of moons, since your 26 September 2007 edit, that the name Amalthea cropped up in correspondence between Flammarion and Barnard. What is your source, pray tell? Urhixidur (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I see now the ref is Barnard, E. E. (1893). "Jupiter's fifth satellite". Popular Astronomy (1): 76-82. The article is attested in a couple of other places (See, T. J. J., "Results of Recent Researches in Cosmical Evolution", Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 49, No. 195 (July 1910), pp. 207-221; and Paterson, J. A., "Edward Emerson Barnard, his Life and Work", Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, Vol. 18, p. 309 (1924)) but otherwise unavailable. Too bad. Urhixidur (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Footer SolarSystem

other that the 'list of music directors' error, what are your objections to the edits i made? --emerson7 21:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of moons

Hello. How do we know that Mercury, Venus and Ceres definitely have no moons? Have there been surveys for moons that have set an upper limit on the mass of any possible moon such that it would no longer be called a moon? NASA seem to think that Mercury has no known moons, but not no moons at all. [1] Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I've tried to incorporate the references into the article; how is it now? Mike Peel (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of space travelers

I'm sorry, but I don't see the value in having different criteria for two versions of the same list, one sorted by name and one sorted by nationality. Every other list and article on space travel uses the altitude definition, why would the sub-list sorted by nationality be different? Rillian (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're proposing a defintion for one article that is different than that used on all the other lists/summaries/articles related to spaceflight (orbital velocity vs. height), I suggest you seek a consensus before imposing a new standard. Cheers, Rillian (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per your suggestion, I posted my reasoning to Talk:List of space travelers by nationality. Cheers, Rillian (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical trans-Neptunian planets

The only material in that article that isn't in Planet X is the section on Persephone/Proserpina, which isn't sourced, is full of speculation, and is out of date anyway; Persephone is the name of an asteroid, and so can't be used as the name for any future planet. Serendi^podous 12:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moons of Jupiter

I have started working to bring it to featured-level. But since you are the main contributor of the article, I have several questions:

is it ok the way I expandet/setted up the article?
who can help me with the evolution/formation section?
should I go for FLC or FAC?

Nergaal (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but who would be able to help with the "formation and evolution" ?? Nergaal (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of named Solar System objects

I thought I should tell you that I've made a (so far unsuccessful) attempt at deleting this article. I hadn't checked who created it when I did but I thought you should know it's nothing personal. I'm trying to condense the Solar System lists, of which there are way too many, into something more manageable. Serendi^podous 17:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

again, sorry for the consternation. I'm not an instinctive deleter; I prefer merging, but I wasn't sure what to merge that list into. Serendi^podous 09:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmonaut names

Whilst I can see where you're coming from with these page moves, I feel they should be discussed first. In some cases the alternative transliteration is far more common, and hence should use it. Due to this, I feel that the moves that you are making are not uncontroversial. Please could you use the RM process for further moves, or better still start a centralised discussion at WikiProject Human spaceflight. Thanks --G W… 16:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accessdate parameter

I saw in this diff that you added an "accessmonthday" and/or "accessdaymonth" parameter. Please be informed that these are deprecated. The preferred way is to put day, month, and year together in the "accessdate" parameter. Thank you, Debresser (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw today in List of spacewalks since 2000 that you have not yet taken heed of my previous note. Debresser (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note on my talk page. I'll have a look there. Debresser (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]