User talk:Serendipodous/User talk:Serendipodous archive 5

Image:Uranuscolour.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Uranuscolour.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC) —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titan (moon)

Hi Serendip. You'll notice I've done quite a lot of editing on this one. I know I'm parachuting in after others have done so much of the work, but often an article that's almost there just needs one last heave before an FAC. Do you mind checking the talk occasionally for questions of mine? In general, the prose is competent but I've noticed some difficult phrasing. Cheers, Marskell 13:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can send you the FORMATION AND EVOLUTION OF TITAN’S ATMOSPHERE pdf, if you like. (I rely on a friend's library account.) Haven't read it (and, of course, much of it will be over my head). It looks like a very comprehensive examination of the atmosphere but it's pre-Cassini. I can't do an attachment through the Wiki function but if you e-mail me I'll reply. Marskell 19:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sent. Let me know if there's a problem. Marskell 05:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Sorry I didn't get back to you on that e-mail. I'm actually just reading the paper at this moment. You're rewrite of the "esoteric paragraph" seems fine to me, except I think I'll change "rule out contributions from cometary impacts" to "rule out cometary impacts as a significant factor." The source doesn't clearly state that comets literally contribute nothing. I'll also add that accreting the gas from the proto-Saturn disk doesn't appear likely.

The liquids section does tend to tease in the opening lines and it has a sort of breathless quality, so ya, a change in tone may be in order. I've gone over the top, then the bottom, and am now moving through the middle of the article. It'll be liquids next. Can you check how I've done up clouds? I brought the two paras on the north pole together and added my own on the south pole; the ref for the latter is accessible.

Interesting the paper uses 'Kronian' as the adjectival form. I think 'Saturnian', judging from google. Marskell 12:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this has got to be an amateur mistake on my part:

"Since the solar photolysis irreversibly converts all of the atmospheric methane in hydrocarbons in a relatively short time compared to Titan’s age of about 50 My (Strobel, 2004, this volume), CH4 must then be continuously replenished from a local reservoir either on or under Titan’s surface."

Is this suggesting that Titan is only 50 million years old. That's obviously not right. Marskell 12:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is very strange. I copied and pasted the above sentence from the PDF itself (I had noticed the in/into thing). *Scratches head*. I'm now not in front of my laptop but I'll check later.

I believe it was 1% to as much as 8%. The link should be accessible at the bottom. Marskell 14:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked again at the PDF attachment I sent you. Again, I find the sentence I posted above "...in a relatively short time compared to Titan’s age of about 50 My..." But that makes no sense. Is it possible we're looking at different versions? Marskell 15:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bugger. I suppose I'll have to see if I can find the Strobel paper that's cited for the sentence. Marskell 15:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Harry Potter roll-call

Hi there. Your username is listed on the WikiProject Harry Potter participants list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active on the project. Your name has therefore been moved to a "potentially inactive" list. If you still consider yourself an active WikiProject Harry Potter editor, please move your name from the Potentially inactive list to the Active Contributors list. You may also wish to add {{User WP Harry Potter}} to your userpage, if you haven't done so already. Conversely, if you do not wish to be considered a member of the WikiProject, leave your name where it is and it will be moved to the Inactive Contributors section. If you wish to make a clean break with the Project you may move your name to the Known to have left section. Many thanks.

Kuiper Belt Image

It displays fine for me. What browser are you using? Wily D 02:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uranus

Wow, you and Ruslik have done a heap of work on this article. It's a pleasure to give it a thorough read. Deuar 13:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Definitive evidence"

I suppose we should use the Nature paper itself for the final claim. I'd like to get the wording right in the lead especially. Marskell 13:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The abstract will do if the "definitive" claim is made within it (I don't actually track down the full paper for every journal cite I do). A ctrl-f suggests it's not in the article at this point. Marskell 13:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here we are. Arguably the most important claim about the ~~planet~~ planet-like satellite and we're eight months late with the paper! Marskell 14:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead and add it. I'm watching the end of a B movie.

Guess we're almost there with the real ninth planet. With due respect to little Pluto, Titan is far more interessting. Marskell 14:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More quibbles

I keep thinking "done" and then something else bugs me. Do you think that "To date, only three impact craters have been confirmed" is sensible? That whole para is sourced to image pages. Also, we've expanded cyrovolcanoes but we're talking about water and ammonia and don't mention methane once. It creates contradiction on the page, given the emphasis in atmosphere.

Now for a question that will make you doubt my sanity: what does "two times smaller than" mean? In my brain at the moment it could plausibly be a factor of two, three, or four. Marskell 18:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, of course it's a factor of two. I really am crazy. You ever stop and think about a word you've said a thousands of times and think, "golly that's a weird word." Ah, nevermind. Marskell 18:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't touch the image. Some other editor snuck in there while I was editing so you might look at the history. I was going to check them all when the copy is done.

Yes, "half the size" is vastly preferable, colloquially. Marskell 19:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, no problems :). Marskell 19:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck

Serendip, I've been emboldened by a couple of fizzy drinks this evening and recklessly gone ahead and nominated Titan. (With you as co-nominator, of course). Perhaps ahead of the gun by a few days, but I think we've looked over the meat (Atmosphere, Climate, and Liquids), and we're basically down to the stuffing. I think it serves the article better to open it up on FAC now, rather than edit intermittently over minors. I'll check the history and alert other contributors tomorrow. Marskell 20:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: List of Harry Potter parodies

If this AFD is not closed as too early after the 1st one, and the result of the discussion is not to delete, then there will be plenty of time to address any issues. I can certainly have a look, but a quick glance suggest the entries for each individual item is already well sourced. The most obvious question is notability which will of course be addressed at AFD. So it's difficult to say how it can be improved much. KTC 14:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More on Titan

I've got e-mail open and am sending the ref as I type (not literally, but I'll move into the e-mail as soon as I type this :).

The first thing you'll notice, I'd guess, is that they write: "They [clouds] are also found clustered at some preferential longitudes" immediately in the intro, but they then go on to break it down in terms of latitude. So I'm all like, what the fuck?... It can't be longitude--what does longitude matter on Titan when Greenwich was arbitrary here? Next thought: are amateur art grads really catching these mistakes in journals on Wikipedia or I'm seriously over my head (is there some other measure referred to that I know nothing about)? Second time it's happened with this article, and I'm just not sure.

Anyhow, the e-mail should arrive shortly. Marskell 20:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, dummy moment: longitude can be non-arbitrary on a tidally locked body. But read and you'll see what I mean. There's the sentence I quote above, but the next time '40°' is mentioned it clearly refers to latitude. Marskell 20:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, for your watchlist

Just started Jonathan Lunine. Why do all these "famous" people not have articles? As an ulterior motive, I was thinking of using it as an excuse to e-mail the fellow. I've tried that with pros before, with not half-bad success (at worse they don't reply, so what have you lost?). My main thinking (aside from the 'am I capable of this?' mentioned above) is that there are so many recent papers on this body, that it's really hard to know if we're accidentally missing something vital. (We only sort of stumbled across the surface liquid paper, after all.) If he doesn't work, I'll move down the list :). Marskell 21:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uranus' Atmosphere

I actually meant what I did, i.e. that is good as a lead for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruslik0 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC) I shortened the section some. Let me know if this is enough. Ruslik 17:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Let it be in the present form. The article I think can be renominated now. The only thing that may nead attention is lead: it ought to reflect the content of the article as it exists. Ruslik 19:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hogwarts Staff

You had a right to move the page, but you had absolutely no right to blank either of the pages. You also spelled the words wrong and if you do the slightest bit of vandalism again, I will report you. Therequiembellishere 17:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You blanked the page! You could have changed the page name and left it! I was planning in changing it myself! There are loopholes around the discussion, which I have done, so please god, just stop! Therequiembellishere 17:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that something must have gone wrong, since you have so many barnstars, but when I saw bothy pages blanked, I thought it was malicious. Therequiembellishere 17:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Harry Potter parodies AfD

Do you know how long the AfD will remain up? There are currently two separate pages on Harry Potter parodies; List of Harry Potter parodies and Parodies of Harry Potter. Wikipedia doesn't need two, so I intend to merge them. I can't however, while the AfD is in place. Serendi^podous 11:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may vary a bit, but I believe it'll be two days from when you posed that question. Note that the latter is a collection of previously independent articles of major parodies, apparently made without knowledge of the former's existence; I advocate undoing this, returning them to their own articles and making sure that these are linked to on the list. All (except probably Porri Gatter) stand perfectly well on their own, reducing them to a sentence or two on the list would be a massive and pointless loss of information. --Kizor 23:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an offside, I direly suspect that Wikipedia's coverage of fiction will tear itself aparta and collapse in a year or two. Just FYI. --Kizor 00:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North pole cloud

I massaged the wording on this to avoid definitely asserting that they are different clouds. It seems weird to me to suggest a huge cloud in September and then a wholly different one in December (clear skies in Oct. and Nov.?). I also threw the headline back in. Does that bother you at all? Marskell 10:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True mass

I just created a short article for true mass that I'd like to invite you to contribute to and/or fix. I created it after being confused by the term "true mass" in the definition of planet and performing a little research combined with my own personal, but limited, knowledge. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry on the influences/allegories

Glad you're at least talking to me. On the references, I usually only do a poor job because I'm not sure which content will actually stick. Its a lame excuse, but I am a bit lame and especially dislike computer operations that require me to mouse. Its not to annoy you, just a question of how much pain I'm willing to suffer. I'll try to be more careful and maybe will print out a reference of the proper format. On that, I'm off the computer for now. Libertycookies 21:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parodies of Harry Potter

Hi there. I noticed that you have commented on, indeed started, the poll on Talk:Parodies of Harry Potter about the future of the (then) four-way merge. You then extended the merge to five-way, including List of Harry Potter parodies (which I support). You also indicated support of this five-way merge in a comment on my talk page. I am curious, therefore, to see that in the poll you appear to vote against such a merge and advocate a five-way split of this article. This may be as a result of my rephrasing of the introduction to the poll, which more clearly defines the issue at hand and the options available. As you rightly point out on my talk page, the continuation of the four-way merge is unacceptable. I wanted to bring this rephrase to your attention, in case your vote of Break was not a response to the question that the poll now asks. If your response is valid, I'd be interested to hear if and how this view agrees with your talk-page comment (although, of course, you could simply have changed your mind!). Happy-melon 20:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Re: Planet

The only thing I think that's missing is a few citations for the attributes section. Do you think we could fudge a GA without them? Serendi^podous 05:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. I'll see if I can dig up a few citations. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some citations, and flagged the rest with ^{[citation needed]}. I'm too tired to keep going now, but if you could have a quick look, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Serendi^podous 20:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added all the missing citations I can find. Are there any more, or can we go ahead? Serendi^podous 17:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the Interstellar "planets" section contains some conjecture, so I think it should be cited. Otherwise the article looks ready for a try at GA. — RJH (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the last couple citations, removed some speculation, and nominated Planet for GA. Serendi^podous 18:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ageekgal

She undid the revision to the Solar System edit that I made JUST FOR YOU!!! <3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.16.67 (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Question

I just wanted to see why you would opt to redirect List of Harry Potter parodies‎ to Parodies of Harry Potter rather than doing it the other way around. A list typically says list of in the title for ease of identification. I know you indicated that you were going to do it that way until the issue was resolved one way or the other, but it just makes more sense to me to redirect the new article that to the older, more well established one. I've seen you do this twice so far and I just wanted to find out. Hewinsj 03:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Makes sense, it's just the first time I've seen it handled this way and not the other. I'll check in from time to time and see how things are going, and hopefully everything will be resolved without too much trouble. Hewinsj 13:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'll take a look at the list on my break this afternoon and I'll try to comment on it this evening. I found out about this discussion because I had Wizard People watchlisted, and that is the one that I would want to specifically keep. Not to say that it doesn't need work, but there are at least 3 noteworthy news sources on it which is a start. For now though I should be getting back to work. Hewinsj 13:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going to post this here to run it by you...

I still think that Wizard People is notable but could use some copy editing and details from the sources that were posted in the old article's talk page to add detail.
I don't think Tanya Grotter should be considered parody because it doesn't lampoon Harry Potter. It does fit fine in the Legal Disputes article, but the information given indicates that it is a serious work of fiction that just happens to borrow liberally from another serious work of fiction. I also think it's article could stand on it's own to sum up that series with a link from Legal Disputes.
Porri Gatter could probably be trimmed down. Unless someone who has read the books can contribute there's just not much to it. The old article was a stub too. You can probably just get away with mentioning that it parodies Potter by focusing on scientific alternatives to magic, and that 3 books have been printed. Still, the citation they have listed shows that it does exist.
I love the level of detail on the other parodies section, and the level of citation is great. The internet section doesn't have anything though, so it should probably be marked as a stub section (please expand) or removed.
I don't know if we need the level of detail for characters that's exhibited in Barry Trotter and Henry Potty. There's no problem describing the plot and any history to the publication but this level of detail could be considered cruft by some or a reason to give it it's own article by others.

All I've got for now, but let me know what you think. Hewinsj 01:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edits today! I have to say I didn't agree with the merge before, but now I'm a believer. Also, thanks for taking what I had to say into consideration. Hewinsj 13:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats as well

Don't worry, it's listed on WP:FA so it is featured; the bot hasn't gotten around to the talk page. Congrats to you as well!

I suppose Neptune must be done as it's the only non-featured planet. The next obvious moon I'd say is Europa (moon). I had thought of doing another star—maybe Tau Ceti. And finally I have vague plans for a Habitability of Red Dwarf systems. It really could have a separate article. All of this is tentative, of course. I'll let you know when I dig into something. (Do the same!) Marskell 08:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thought Uranus had already made it through. You're obviously very close. Maybe two years ago now, I went to Uranus and added "third largest planet by diameter, and fourth largest by mass" with an equivalent sentence on Neptune. I see that's been removed but I think it important—I hate the way 'larger' gets used with astronomical bodies and would like to banish it.

On the question of what next, I suppose Neptune should be the priority. I had had the same thought re doing all the major moons and have mentally filed it away (it will take a year or two if we wanted, say, to do the top ten or twelve). I've been doing the same with felines over the last year; starting in on Leopard now. Marskell 13:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Religious debates over the Harry Potter series

Hello! Thanks for getting in touch, but I'm afraid I can't give you an immediate answer right now. I'm not muslim myself, I'm catholic, so I really can't comment for the muslim views on Harry Potter, although the franchise has made it to the Middle East and I'm aware of Arabic translations of the books. Let me try and find some information for you and get back to you about this. :) Take care! --TeDejoMadrid 00:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC

Rowling quote

THe one that you put in the mythical creatures article, could you re-post it in the universe of harry potter article? It would be really useful there. Thanks!Judgesurreal777 02:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, I know how it feels to have articles you like deleted. Judgesurreal777 20:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you are upset by the current wave of mergers and deletions; a lot of articles that you enjoy are being axed, and it sucks. Hopefully all the articles in question can be transwikiied to a harry potter wiki, as I had to do with most of the articles I wrote about my favorite book series. Judgesurreal777 17:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's very simple really, we need to make articles that conform to the documents on how to write fiction, and the need for notability backed up by reliable sources. I would love for you to help us decide which articles are notable and which not, as we are still debating that now. Your vast researching for other articles would make you somewhat an authority on the matter. Thus we would keep articles that can be sourced, and merge ones which are unlikely to be anything but crufty fan pages. Judgesurreal777 18:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take for example, Blood purity or Horcrux; very notable topic, everyone wants to keep it, but we still have nothing out of universe; could you help us with that? Judgesurreal777 18:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formation and evolution of the solar system

Are there any reason the purple tags are post? I thought the Future section is fine, then where else needs work? Freewayguy789194 (Any questions? - My updates) 18:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:InnerSolarSystem-en2.png

Thanks for uploading Image:InnerSolarSystem-en2.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Uranus

I meant Atmosphere of Uranus, where there are three 'hanging' references now. I also noticed that Uranus is under peer review now and not in FAC any more. Ruslik 18:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then

Callisto (moon) is practically there; it looks like User:Ruslik0 is planning to FAC it soon. Ganymede (moon) is totally underweight. Europa (moon) is, well, both close and far; it has a lot of refs in place, but needs serious auditing. Triton (moon) is the not too hot, not too cold candidate. So maybe I'll do it. (I used to get it mixed up with Titan when I was a kid.) Marskell 15:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tau Ceti

Hey Serendip. Don't know if you notice but I actually threw this up on FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tau Ceti. RJ had already added most of what was needed, but as he hasn't edited it much this year I thought no harm in giving it the last push. Feedback welcome. Marskell 15:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd had that thought. I may be able to fashion a sentence from Greaves '05, which I have. The main paper, Greaves '04, was added by RJH so I'll post to him. Marskell 15:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yippee

Habitability of red dwarf systems‎. FA by Christmas! Marskell 16:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiters

Don't worry, I added the point in a footnote to Tau Ceti with this. (For some reason your link isn't working for me.) Haven't properly updated Planetary habitabiliy, though. "Good Jupiter" has never made intuitive sense to me (despite my edits to Planet Hab). OK, Jupiter sucks up some asteroids and comets. But the mere presence of Jupiter adds a significant gravitational "attraction" at 5 AU that is going to bring bodies in in the first place. I love Jupiter as much as the next guy but I'm not sure how much of a guardian it is. (You've heard this before: there's only two bodies that really matter in the Solar System—the Sun and Jupiter.) What would be good is to get the actual paper describing it. I think they say, basically, that it can help, but depending on mass and location it can also hurt. Marskell 19:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uranus

Thanks for the star. Now I want to nominate this article to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Do you have any idea about the best date for it to appear? Ruslik 14:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inaugural WPHP barnstar

Moved to vanity closet :-) Serendi^podous 17:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a very reasonable chance of making a featured topic out of the film series - Fbv65edel is ramrodding Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film) towards FA, and Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) is already at GA. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (film) can get up there fairly quickly, as it's pretty comprehensive - I've done a bit of work on that. It needs details of production, casting, and locations, plus the usual cleanup. CoS and PoA are, IIRC, in worse shape. I think if we concentrate our efforts on those five articles, we can have a featured topic by the end of the year. Happy‑melon 17:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plans for future

Currenly I am participating in the good articles sweep (see also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Good_articles/Project_quality_task_force/Sweeps) and it takes too much time. However I hope to finish my work in this project in two or three weeks. After that I will be ready to start working on a new article. As to Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System I will read it.

I also ought to mention that I am going to submit Callisto into FAC soon. Ruslik 11:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]