User talk:Serendipodous/archive 11

Scatttered disc - PR?

Should we submit it? I think we should, just in case, and RJ would review it, I'm sure. --Meldshal [T] {C} 20:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Makemake

Refs need attention: first name -> last name (some refs are in reverse order), some refs lack publisher or author information, in some places ndash should be used. It is better to link to adsabs.harvard.edu instead of journal's cites—it is usually more usefull. Ruslik (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Re FAC: I went through RHJ's comments and I need extra help with 4 of them: the distance from the eliptic, the H= +1 one, the 0.4 arcseconds, and the temperature note. Nergaal (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I got your message - I would be happy to look at the article tomorrow. Thanks for the invite. PhySusie (talk) 03:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The calculations that are used in planetary articles are trivial—surface area, volume are much easier to calculate than to find in papers. Ruslik (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The calculations may be regarded as Subject-specific common knowledge see Wikipedia:When_to_cite. Ruslik (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

GAN:2006 definition of planet

Hi. There are two tags that I am not sure where to find the refs for them. Maybe you can take a look and find something.

Nergaal (talk) 09:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I think until a FAC, the blog link should be enough. Nergaal (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to submit the FT to receive some feedback and it looks good until now. Nergaal (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Great Red Spot

I was wondering, what do you think would be required to get this back to GA status? It seems almost there. Serendi^podous 12:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple of significant paragraphs with no references: "It is not known..." and "As the hot gases that...". The "Structure" section doesn't talk about the fine-scale structure of the system.[1][2] Higher level of difficulty: the final section seems inadequately developed; it makes no mention of Rossby solitons or other models. Also, if these storm systems can last such a long time, why is there no corresponding red spot in the other hemisphere?

I hope this was helpful.—RJH (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If you look into Category:Jupiter, you will find other atmosphere related articles: Oval BA, Cloud pattern on Jupiter. I suggest creating Atmosphere of Jupiter article and merging all three into it. Ruslik (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I merged them all into Atmosphere of Jupiter. Ruslik (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Mercury's core

I thought Mercury's core is like about 75% Does outer core counts as inner core? In the article it said the core is about 42%, and Earth's core is 17%, to me Earth's core is like possibly 35%. isn't mercury's sky always black,and the globe color is always gray. Thats what I've learnt, because lack of atmospehre. From what I've understood, Mercury's atmosphere cannot even achieve to Triton's level, and most of its atmosphere is just fake gases. Isn't Mercury's core hot-at least 100 C? --Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 23:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ice

A useful piece of knowledge for the novice. Which is why I put it in Solar System Terminology, at roughly the same level of detail as other terms. -HarryAlffa (talk) 11:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Solar_System#Terminology_section -HarryAlffa (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

TFA: August 24

I have nominated planet or dwarf planet for today's featured article on August 24. You are welcomed to leave our thoughts. Nergaal (talk) 11:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If you expect that it will be heavily vandalized, ask for the article to be protected for 2 or 3 days around the TFA. Nergaal (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not worried about them. I just think we should pre-request the full protection of the page for a week, starting a day before the TFA. Nergaal (talk) 11:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Scattered disk PR

Hi,

Here is a possible re-write of the first two paragraphs:

The scattered disc (or scattered disk) is a distant region of the Solar System that is sparsely populated by icy minor planets known as scattered disc objects (SDOs); a subset of the broader family of trans-Neptunian objects (TNOs). The scattered disc objects have orbital eccentricities ranging as high as 0.8, inclinations as high as 40°, and perihelion distances near 35 astronomical units (AU). These extreme orbits are believed to be the result of gravitational "scattering" by the gas giants, and the objects continue to be subject to perturbation by the planet Neptune.

The nearest distance from the Sun approached by scattered objects is less than 40 AU, but they can reach distances well beyond 100 AU. This makes scattered objects "among the most distant and cold objects in the solar system". Eris, the largest dwarf planet in the Solar System, lies within the scattered disc. The innermost portion of the scattered disc overlaps with the Kuiper belt, but its outer limits extend much farther away from the Sun and farther above and below the ecliptic than the belt proper. Although the numbers of objects in the Kuiper belt and the scattered disc are thought to be more or less equal, observational bias due to their farther distance means that far fewer scattered disc objects have been observed to date.

Feel free to use it or not, as you wish. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Do you think Eris should get a more prominent mention in the article? Serendi^podous 18:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Shrug. I don't really have a preference either way, unless there is something particularly interesting and relevant to note. Perhaps what might be interesting is a comparative table of the largest known scattered disc objects, showing e, i, a, P and possibly mass, size and/or magnitude.—RJH (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay I gave it another go through and added some more comments to the PR. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ice used for Uranus and Neptune's interior

What does ice means in Uranus and Neptune's mantle. Does it mean like smelly, electrical waste, that looks like white snow? For many years I'm been wondering what does ice means Ice on dict. usually mean cold, solid stuff. They said ice actually means stuff. Uranus color I thought is like baby blue. And anyways, isn't baby blue close to cyan.--Freewayguy ^{Ask? +000s} 20:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyways, I used to be very interested into astronomy, now I no longer study palnets as I used to, I sort of stepped down from my fascinations to planets. now I'm more into highways and roads.--Freewayguy ^{Ask? +000s} 20:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You are a star!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your dealings with HarryAllfa. Keep fighting the good fight. EXPOSING LIES (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		For your spectacular job mantaining the solar system article EXPOSING LIES (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Solar System

In case Splat5572's claims have confused you, his initial attempt to add archive links with {{talkheader}} failed because the archives were in the wrong place (at Talk:Solar system/Archive 1 etc.). He reverted you once having apparently not bothered checking, then noticed the problem and moved all the archives. He then acted as though it had been fine to begin with. Apologies for wasting your time if you'd worked this out already. Algebraist 21:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Scattered

Hey, you still helping me? I need some help — no difficult comments resolved. ;) Cheers, --LordSunday 14:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This is Meld, new username. Forgot to tell you, --LordSunday 14:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, remaining stuff on the PR. I'm working on a volcano article right now, I'll try to help if you are not finished in about 5 minutes. cheers, --LordSunday 14:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll try and work on it, just finished with my everlasting work, man, being active in three WikiProjects is tough. ;) Keep it real, --LordSunday 15:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, we cross-posted. --LordSunday 15:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we are as close as ever to FA. Should we nominate? I really think it's ready. --LordSunday 15:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I would like to bring in a copy editor, by that I mean like expert. I'm contacting Jbmurray first, and if he doesn't answer, we just nominate, i guess. --LordSunday 15:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Are you going to nominate? --LordSunday 16:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, he is not online apparently, so I don't know. i think we should nominate. --LordSunday 18:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

:::I'll get Giggy. I think he can do it well enough. --LordSunday 20:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting on Giggy. --Lord₪Sunday 14:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I've asked RJ to look over. By far the best astronomy copy editor I've seen. --Lord₪Sunday 14:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Minor planet/asteroid

The two pages got de-merged, claiming no consensus. Since it would help the development of a future planet FT immensely to get this sorted, I was wondering if you knew of any direct evidence to show that the term "asteroid" is indeed a subset of "minor planet." I have looked for days and not found any. Serendi^podous 21:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The IAU definition of SSSB clearly distinguishes between asteroids, TNOs, comets and other small bodies. So which of these should be considered minor planets? The entire taxonomy is fuzzy, and I don't know where to draw the line. But it is clear that TNOs are not considered asteroids. Are they minor planets? I think you either have to place TNOs as a subset under minor planets (and separate from asteroids), or else merge/redirect minor planet to SSSB as a historical footnote to the new IAU schema.—RJH (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

As I understand minor planet is something that has been assigned a number (1 Ceres, for instance). The definition of an asteroid is more vague. Ruslik (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The wording of the Marsden (1996) article and here suggest that numbering is something that minor planets can subsequently acquire. Shrug.—RJH (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The IAU: Minor Planet Center description only lists three types of minor bodies: minor planets, comets and natural satellites. The IAU Questions and Answers on Planets says the term "minor planet" may still be used. But generally the term "small solar system body" will be preferred.

Not certain if any of this is helpful. I think my preference would be to make Small Solar System bodies a catch-all and merge minor planet there. I also sometimes see the term "minor bodies" used as well, so that might be mentioned.—RJH (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to treat the term "minor planet" as a footnote, but the Minor Planet Center and the Minor Planet Catalogue are still up and running. Pluto, Eris, Makemake and Ceres still have minor planet numbers. It seems that for a while at least, the term "minor planet" is going to remain in use. Serendi^podous 22:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I am skeptical that it will ever go away. Small solar system body seems too unwieldy. But that's just my unimportant opinion. If it gets merged, I think the term "minor planet" deserves at least a section to explain its historical usage.—RJH (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Planet X

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, as I've been enjoying an unannounced wikibreak for most of the summer. The problem with old scanned journal articles is that the print can be hard to make out, and the name is in fact not Babine"l", but Babine"t", i.e. Jacques Babinet. You can find some details on his hypothetical planet "Hyperion" here; if you need more detail than turns up there and on Google I'd be glad to help further.--Pharos (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Potter deadlinks

The Publishing News article is here at the Internet Archive. I'm having a little trouble with the Chicago Tribune article, but I might have better luck if I knew its title/content. The HP Lexicon 2007 posts can be accessed here at the Internet Archive. Hope this helps!--Pharos (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Forwarding

• Per "Although the numbers of objects in the Kuiper belt and the scattered disc are thought to be more or less equal...", to the reader this may be comparing apples and oranges. It may be more helpful to compare the net masses of the two.
• "Due to its unstable nature, astronomers now consider the scattered disc to be the place of origin for most periodic comets observed in the Solar System, with the centaurs, a population of icy bodies between Jupiter and Neptune, an intermediate stage between the scattered disc and the periodic comets." Is this trying to say that comets migrate inward from the scattered disc to become centaurs, then are perturbed into periodic comets? This was not clarified until near the end of the article.
• Please reference the last two sentences of the lead paragraph in the "Subdivisions of trans-Neptunian space" section.
• The lead says "perihelion distances near 35" AU, then "approached by scattered objects is less than 40 AU, but they can reach distances well beyond 100 AU". The body says "Scattered disc objects come as close to the sun as Neptune (30 AU) but at their farthest distances, their orbits reach beyond the edge of the Kuiper belt (50 AU)." Could these be modified to communicate more consistent ranges?
• Likewise, the lead says "inclinations as high as 40°" while the body says, "the orbits of scattered objects can be inclined as much as 45° from the ecliptic." Later it says that, "(ranging up to 40° from the ecliptic)". Which is correct?
• Is the stub sub-section "Resonances" needed? Couldn't that just be merged with the prior text? Or are there plans to expand it?
• Could this be referenced: "a second posits that the scattering took place relatively quickly, during Neptune's early migration epoch."
• The "Beyond Pluto" refernce needs an author.
• The format of authors in the citations section are inconsistent. E.g. "Marc W. Buie" vs. "Schmadel, Lutz D." vs. "RA Gomes". Perhaps some cleanup can be performed for consistency?
• Lykawka/Mukai shows some odd formatting: Kobe volume=189
• Hahn (2005) and Thommes (2002) have an arXiv value in parentheses. Is this needed? I'm not sure most readers will know what that means. The Hahn article has doi: 10.1086/452638.

From RJ. --Lord₪Sunday 23:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

See the ones I've fixed at my user talk. You owe me a big thanks, pal. ;) --Lord₪Sunday 00:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, Serendipodous, I've asked RJ to close the

PR. Do you have any idea if you can close it? Thanks, --Lord₪Sunday 19:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Where do I find this elusive oldid for the PR? ;) --Lord₪Sunday 19:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hehe. Done. here you go. --Lord₪Sunday 19:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(oudent)I like outdenting... ;) Anyway, aren't you going to put your comment as co-nom? --Lord₪Sunday 20:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, sorry dude. I relaly have no idea what Sandy is talknig about. --Lord₪Sunday 20:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake - but I didn't want to nominate that, Editorofthewiki did, but i didn't want to nom it yet. Its alright, but man, this place gets on my nerves sometimes. --Lord₪Sunday 20:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"Scattered disc objects come within gravitational range of Neptune at their closest approaches (~30 AU) but their farthest distances reach many times that." New sentence EOTW wants fixed, ie. I fixed the other two sentences. --Lord₪Sunday 00:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Serendipodous. You have new messages at Ashill's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Badforum

You want me to sign up of Badforum. Do I have to give them my e-mail ad? If I don't want to can I lie by just filling them up with anything I want to?--Freewayguy ^{What's up?} 00:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

email

thou hast. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 08:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

emails

Being a Wiki contributor I have always wondered how does one contact an article 'moderator' email wise, without exposing a sensitive email address?--aajacksoniv (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Look dude

Yes I know "official IAU recommendation" = "official" - means the same ;) just go and argue on this with a lawyer <rotfl> GrzegorzWu (talk) 09:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Time already!

to decide on a new FA drive. I would suggest either Atmosphere of Venus with Ruslik or Sedna. --Lord₪Sunday 23:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

sorry, you are right, I need to take a break. I'm going to wait until scattered's FAC ends, then I'm going to settle down adn work on AFD for a while. And maybe feature some less hi-tech articles. —L.Sunday ^Scribe 11:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Really, i do apologize. Life has been... stressful lately, I've been getting a lot of grief. Ive been getting mentoring for adminship, if I should ever become one. After this I'll probably be focusing on Earthquake articles. Then, i'll be taking some time for an RFA. After that, I'm planning on doing FAs by myself. Collab is nice, but I'd really like to feature some articles all by myself, like you said. So consider this our final time working together for a long time, friend. I hope to work again with you as soon as possible. Cheers, —Sunday ^Scribe 21:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

FLC:Moons of Jupiter

Hey man, thanks a lot for pitching in. I especially forgot about mentioning the rings and their relationship to the moons. I have a worry though about the image: giving the piechart like that might be confusing. I would rather give a "zoom-thing" from between Europa and Ganymede, writing something like 100x or 200x and filling in a small pie in that zoom with the color for the other moons. I am not usre how to do that though. Thanks again! Nergaal (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)