User talk:Serendipodous/archive 12

Clean-ups of Planet's sky article

To me this article needs tons of work. Most of the section especially planetary satellite sections have no citations at all. For magnitude, I don't know how editors got those codes. Plus many of planet's moons sky is off course black, lack of atmosphere makes the sky black. plus I think we should merge all Jupiter through Neptune's section all into one subsection. From the link I posted on the talkpage, the diagram shows gas giant's sky is many degrees of blue, some of these planets may have upper sky of lighter blue some deeper blue. For Pluto section is totally uncited. if I have to avoid original source, then I have to uproot alot of unsourced statements.--I-405 (Free way) 23:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That article needs work badly, I say. I'm not so into astronomy as I formerly was. Also Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune is marginally pure hydrogen and helium, so there is nowhere Voyager programs can touchdown. I had spent alot of time digging for source, and trying to challenge over guessess, I have to dig futher then the way you have to answer my questions.--I-405 (Free way) 23:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is just to say...

Hey, huh? What? Things weren't contentious at all! I just disagreed with a particular point. Don't make a big deal out of it! :-) Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PBN

I will do this after 14 September. Currently I have difficulty accessing internet (the place is too remote from civilization) and I am too preoccupied with the conference I am participating in. Ruslik (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scattered Disc

Congrats - and sorry I didn't end up helping as much as I wanted to - life intervened. Needless to say, well done. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 02:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ditto from me—congrats! You kick butt. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 04:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! Wish I had helped more, but real life got in my way. -- Kheider (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Harry Potter

Hi there,

Great work on Harry Potter! Thanks for helping out to tidy it up and make sure information is in the correct sections. You've been working on the article since 2005, so it seems you have quite a bit of experience! :) When the article goes under an FAC, would you like to also nominate, as you are one of the major contributors, with me.

Thanks, The Helpful One ^(Review) 09:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the article's currently under Peer Review - though I'm waiting for some more comments from users, but FYI, it's located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Harry Potter/archive3. Thanks, The Helpful One ^(Review) 10:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update, there are some more comments on the PR page if you need anything to work on. The Helpful One ^(Review) 19:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure -- looking at the PR..

Looking at WP:WEIGHT, it still seems to me that the first two paragraphs in the Books section go into much more detail (are given more weight) than the plot summaries of the remianing seven books. I also think each book should have a summary that is about the same length, but the current summaries vary considerably in length (one to three lines on my screen).
The same section also suffers from overlinking (Voldemort is linked at least twice in three paragraphs) and has a direct quote (McGonagall on the Dursleys sp?) that needs a ref.
I still think refs that are just an ISBN are odd
Is this about the books or is it about everything HP? I think your answer is everything, but then both the Achievements and Criticism, praise, and controversy sections focus almost exclusively on the books, and almost all of the material on the movies, games, etc. is at the end in an Other media section. What about the achievements and reception of these other media?
Also should there not be some mention of the overwhelming tidal wave of Harry Potter tie-in merchandise - lunch boxes and stuffed Hedwig the owls toys and who knows what else?

Remains. If we are going to keep it more relating to the book, then I think the article needs a cut down on the other media? What's your opinion? :) The Helpful One ^(Review) 18:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! You've done quite a bit of work! :) Do you mind copying your comments onto the PR with a {Done} template? Also, I could help converting the ISBNS to cite book if required, and then we can go to FAC. :) The Helpful One ^(Review) 18:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I could find the information for the Books from pages such as Amazon or Google Books, therefore - for the Books I require Last and First Name, Publisher, Full Publication Date and ISBN? The Helpful One ^(Review) 18:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get onto it soon! :) The Helpful One ^(Review) 19:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some one has removed the refs as ISBNs, therefore - do you think that the article is ready? Also, do you use WP:IRC - as that way I can talk to you live, if you do join the #wikipedia-en channel, as whenever I'm online, I'm usually in there with the nick "Thehelpfulone" :). The Helpful One ^(Review) 13:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I'll go onto the bloomsbury and scholastic websites to find references for the publication dates of the books. Does anything else need doing? If not, I'll nom it for FAC - and leave a comment saying you can co-nom at the moment. RyanLupin also might want to take part with the FAC, as he has helped out recently with the article. The Helpful One ^(Review) 13:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Found the references and linked them. Does anything else need doing before I go ahead and FAC nom it? :) The Helpful One ^(Review) 14:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does that need to be completed before the article goes to FAC? If not, I'll nom it and then let the FAC go in progress while I try to find some information. The Helpful One ^(Review) 14:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harry Potter. The Helpful One ^(Review) 14:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can, please join IRC (that's a link to a Java IRC Client if you don't have one!) so I can discuss with you what needs to be done on Harry Potter, if you have time to do the FAC - I saw that you commented on one of the points. Thanks! The Helpful One ^Review 20:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I asked around and saw how much work it actually was, not one person can do it by themselves, it seems like draining work too! The Helpful One ^Review 16:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whuuuuh?

Uh, what peer review are you talking about??? (I haven't gotten much sleep, so maybe I'm entirely missing you here.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right, FAC. I'll get to checking back with you on that score sometime tomorrow, I'm off to the middle of nowhere soon and won't have internet access. No offense taken. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FT:Jupiter

The atmosphere is on my to-do list for some time now, but I felt lost in the article so I stepped back for a while. My main problem with the article was how should the article be structured? Once there is a clear plan for the layout for the article I should have an easier time to add stuff. Ah, and one more thing: do you think the trojans are GA-able? Nergaal (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By GA-able I meant if the article is going to be possible to be brought to GA (it is obviously not near a GA now). I wasn't sure if enough is actually known to expand it enough to become a GA. Nergaal (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and especially thanks for the help given during the nomination! We are now one step closer to the FT. :D Nergaal (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, in the line now is the atmosphere? Nergaal (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: don't worry. I basically placed on the second row what I thought might be included in the future. Only the second row is necessary for the initial nom (imho). Nergaal (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re:Haumea

I just noticed 5 mins ago about the change. Ye! :) I am not worried, and in a way I like it. The only possible drawback is that other stuff might have to wait now. Nergaal (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)re[reply]

I felt that the talk page of the main SS topic needed some clearing out. Take a look and feel free to change/undo/comment. Nergaal (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. I did not take a retreat to Ancient Rome :). I wanted to start working on the article but the mainpage issue came up (see talkpage there). Nergaal (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bye for a while

RL commitment has become too stressful, with three assessments a week and a project due almost every other day. I'm semi-retiring, for now. I hope to come back soon, my friend. —§unday {Q} 23:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor review

Would you mind commenting on my editor review? Thanks. —§unday {Q} 15:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atmosphere of Jupiter

I have almost finished it. I will add a section about vertical structure today. Then the lead will need an update. I planning no more major additions (except two diagrams, which I will add later). Ruslik (talk) 06:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished with this article. Please, feel free to copy-edit it ask me if find that something is unclear. Ruslik (talk) 09:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found a paper with necessary infromation, so I think the graphs with be ready in a few days. Can you say what was too technical? Ruslik (talk) 09:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Io plasma torus has actually no connection to the atmosphere. So I think it is not necessary to mention it. Ruslik (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it has no connection to lightning. Io plasma torus has some connections to aurora phenomena—it is responsible for Io's footprint (bright spot to the left of the main oval in [1]). Ruslik (talk) 13:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark creatures

The Dark creatures section had only two sources, one of them was about Dementors, and can be moved to the Dementors section (JK Rowling: Canadian Press Conference, 2000). The other one followed speculation from the HP Lexicon: The Harry Potter Lexicon speculates in its essay on the subject that dark creatures, as opposed to normal magical animals, are those that use dark powers for more than mere survival.Harry Potter Lexicon: Dark Creatures. As far as I know, speculations made by websites are not considered canon. The rest of the section was unsourced (as seen in the last edit prior to the removal of the section). Also, the list of dark creatures was not fully referenced, nor complete. It listed "Some possible Dark creatures:", which was also speculation since neither Fantastic beasts nor JKR's site have any list of such creatures. --LøЯd ۞pεth 21:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk

S, I responded on my talk; please cheer up and don't let the little stuff weigh you down. If need be, I'll do that work myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S, I got an e-mail that might have been from you, but I'm not sure. I hope you're well. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's this about cheering up? S, you rock! (or as some say, "you're da bomb!"). If you need anything, you know my number. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you're back; and please don't feel you need apologize to me for one off day! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter and sources

I think I may have gotten a copy of the Stouffer court case from Lexis-Nexis. If you email me, I can send it to you. Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Serendipodous, I was sorry to see that the FAC for Legal Disputes of Harry Potter took a turn down, although I can see how some of the suggestions could improve the article. From your last comment at the FAC, it seems as if you are ready for it to be archived. Can you please leave an official, "I'm ready to withdraw this nomination" statement at the FAC? Then it can be closed now and you can get to work ;) If you aren't ready to withdraw, then ignore this message. Karanacs (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S, hope to see you back at FAC soon ! As you probably know, Awadewit is not feeling well, but I'm sure that once she's back in the saddle, you all will work this one out quickly and have smooth sailing next time through. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter FAC

Hi there,

I think all things are going well except for the section on Themes, which I just added back on. See the FAC comment here.

Do you think you could help me do anything about this, to fix the problem?

Thanks,

The Helpful One ^Review 19:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well in that case, does it mean that the FAC can't be completed without the Themes. Do you know of any articles with a good themes section to use as an example? :) The Helpful One ^Review 20:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solar System composition

Reply on my talk page. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 02:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2003 EL61

2003 EL61 is in a 12:7 mean motion resonance with Neptune (inclination type, I believe). Ragozzine's paper on resonant diffusion must discuss this, for instance. Wily D 14:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone disputes this. If they do, I would be highly keen to hear about it. Certainly Ragozzine's explanation for the high eccentricity compared to the family requires resonance - I think there's a paper floating around about identifying the resonance, though this may all still be on the "down-low". because it's so bright and of so much interest, the orbit is known very well (even if 12:7 is a very narrow resonance). Wily D 14:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is not likely in resonance with that planet, nor capable of being significantly perturbed by it, it is likely a classical Kuiper Belt object, the most numerous population of trans-Neptunian objects observed to date.[1] is almost certainly a wrong sentence. The Nice guys would call it scattered disk object (i. e. http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.0553) Raggozine's identification of 12:7 http://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.0328v1 is uncontested as far as I know. I'd definitely call it "very likely" to be in resonance, though I've considered the possibility it's not, of course. Wily D 15:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit?

I know you're not really familiar with this type of subject, but would you mind looking over the prose of Nevado del Ruiz? I'd like to know anything that's wrong now before I bring it to FAC. Cheers, — Ceran thor [Formerly LordSunday] 22:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thank you, thank you! It looks 10 times better with you, Jb, and whoever else will come picking at it. — ceranthor ^(strike) 23:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of planetary objects in the Solar System

Hello... just a thought: is "List of planetary objects in the Solar System" the best title for the page? Reading through the introduction, I think we should drop "planetary" from the title, and lose the phrase "which could be described as planetary". Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat _spy 08:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atmosphere of Jupiter

This is the new home of Great Red Spot, and I was hoping you could go over it to see if it meets your requested level of detail, and list any issues you had with it. Thank you. Serendi ^pod ous 13:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks terrific; nice work by the author(s) and editor(s)! Here's a few observations:

"The abundances of these chemicals are thought to exceed solar values by a factor of about three." I don't think the Sun is cool enough to have chemical compounds, so this statement seems odd to me. Perhaps I am misunderstanding?
"neon" isn't a compound.
There may be a tad too much bold text to satisfy the MoS.
Some cites are re-used in contiguous sentences (see "Shallow models" and "Deep models"). These should be consolidated.
You can probably get rid of a lot of date links in the article body, although some bot will probably do that for you. Those no longer seem to be in vogue.
There may be some overlinking, linking in the wrong order (after the first occurance) and unnecessary linking.
"7 December 1995" and "February 24, 2006" are inconsistent date formats.
Could the article explain why water is thought to originate from comets (rather than being formed by the atmosphere)?

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planets beyond Neptune

Hey, thanks for the barnstar! I really do find a funny sort of intellectual satisfaction tracking down obscure sources, and I'm always happy to help answer these types of questions. It would even be great if we had some sort of section for questions like this on the Reference Desk. And, hey, sorry for not getting back to you sooner.--Pharos (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A deadlink found?

Do you still have access to this site. When I view it, the page is just blank-white with error notice on it. One thing we want to do is avoid deadlinks. The other source about changing of our solar system is not neccessairly valid so does Solar view. They all just speculate. With such a small planet and lack of magnetic field, by adding heat to planet will not help the atmosp but destroy it.--Freeway 9 1 22:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lomn had answer this question for me, the link was not rotten. But does "Greenhouse effect" always mean increasing pressure of an atmosphere? The source said mars will make a greenhouse effect, possibly not a blue planet since mars have no magnetic field.--Freeway 9 1 03:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Jones WikiProject Now Open!

I have finally created a WikiProject for Indiana Jones! Check it out. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 21:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

I've nominated NDR. Please comment here. —Ceran (Strike!) 00:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gone, for a while...

I'm taking an indefinite break. Life has grown more and more stressful with each day, and I'm not risking anything any longer. Hope to see you soon. —Ceran [speak] 01:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early bombardment phase

This article is probably about the bombardement that took place immediately after the formation of the Solar System. It actually can be considered as the last phase of the accretion. The another article (Late Heavy Bombardment) is about a specific event that happened well after the formation of the Solar System.

However Early bombardment phase is rarely used in scientific literature—I have not been able to find any examples. In contrast the use of Late Heavy Bombardment is widespread. Ruslik (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

email

thou hast Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 10:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comet Hale-Bopp

Hey Serendip! How would you like to give a little back at the FA review? I have nominated this comet, here. I can work on it some but can't bring it back to standard alone. No worries if you're otherwise engaged. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]