User talk:Serendipodous/archive 22

2012 phenomenon

Hi! I've proposed this for Jan 1st TFA, see Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#January_1. I think if you sign up to the nom we get an extra point, if you've not had a TFA before. Hope you are happy to join this, but please comment anyway. Johnbod (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

Please leave an edit summary when you're archiving a talk page. Otherwise it looks like blanking. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What Jeraphine said. If you want to archive, put it in the edit summary. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you archiving recent posts? The last one archived was from November. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 13:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2012

Thanks for your note. I'm going to add additional citations to a radio show about the book as well as an excerpt from it on Pinchbeck's web magazine realitysandwich.com. This is a lot of work for me to add all the references so please don't delete it again without discussing it with me first.Yonderboy (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Ruslik_Zero 20:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous Opinions on 2012

Apparently you don't remember, but those sentences you reinserted are inaccurate or the sources do not hold up to scrutiny. This was explained at length in what is now the talk archives. Please do your due diligence and do not compel me to revisit what has already been addressed. CoyoteMan31 (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum after some research: This Martin Sacalxot you quoted was actually responding to a tourism campaign to promote 2012. The group he represents, PDH (http://www.pdh.org.gt/), does not believe the world will end OR that 2012 is the last year of the calendar (if I'm translating this correctly). Rather than rely on news reports, why not search the PDH site to see if they have taken an official position on 2012? The news articles you are sourcing seem to all have New Agey stuff in them. CoyoteMan31 (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Neptunerings.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Neptunerings.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Neptunerings.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Neptunerings.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. Stefan2 (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nostradamus

There have been a countless number of people who have predicted the end of the world. None of whom have been correct. OKelly (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User talk:OKelly. OKelly (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse

DrK has done a lot of works towards salvaging this article at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Solar eclipse/archive1; would you be available to help him pull it over the line? Happy New Year, Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Online Ambassador, Spring 2012

Hi, Serendipodous! As you may know, the Wikipedia Education Program has instilled a new set of standards that courses must meet to officially join the program for the semester. As you can see, one of the requirements is that at least one ambassador or professor is a Wikipedian, as this should give students more access to helpful information about contributing to Wikipedia and creating good content. You are listed on the Online Ambassador page; are you still interested in remaining active this semester? Some of these classes will have to remove themselves from the program should they fail to meet these standards, but we would like to ensure that new students are receiving proper support during the editing process. Please let me know if you are still interested in mentoring these students this semester and/or visit the Online Ambassador talk page to select a course that still needs an Online Ambassador. Thank you! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revision history of Oort cloud

Thanks for supporting my edits, Serendipodous! – IVAN3MAN (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited List of fictional universes in literature, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Wizard of Oz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pluto

I've got an IP request to reinstate the priority claim by the Wise Observatory (Israel), which you reverted here. The original request is here. I have no interest in this matter - if the IP is incorrect, please reply to them at talk:Pluto, if your revert was accidental, please fix so that he stops bugging me at my talk :-). Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My question is only about the observatory change. Click your dif, <CTRL-F>, Wise Observatory. Materialscientist (talk) 10:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll through this dif and look at all the changes marked in red. Materialscientist (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take it as any pushing, I'm just trying to explain my chain of actions when I changed that observatory: click that dif again, find the corresponding sentence, it is sourced to ref. 90, which says, "N. Brosch and H. Mendelson, Wise Observatory, telex that their photoelectric observations on Aug. 19 indicate that Pluto occulted a 12.8-mag star .. This may be the first detection of an atmosphere around Pluto". This may well be a weak source, but it should at least be consistent with the article text. Materialscientist (talk) 11:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maffei 1

Are you interested in extragalactic astronomy? Ruslik_Zero 12:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway can you look at it? If the writing is good enough? I have significantly expanded it. Ruslik_Zero 15:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited List of fictional universes in literature, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Victorian, Samuel Butler and Paul Stewart (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Serendipodous. You have new messages at Charlr6's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nomination of First planet for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article First planet is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First planet until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Satellite-planemo candidates

¹How so nowhere near big enough? You didn't look at their size estimates did you? --JorisvS (talk) 11:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean when you say 'these are not confirmed'? Obviously, satellite planemos are not dwarf-planet candidates plainly because they're satellites. --JorisvS (talk) 10:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is always the possibility that satellites could be classified as dwarf planets in the future. The original IAU proposal called for Charon to be included among the dwarf planets. Serendi ^pod ous 13:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's speculation about whether the definition of the term "dwarf planet" will change, thus crystal ball. Satellites currently aren't, even Charon isn't.

I'll repeat the question part because I would like a (plain) answer to it: "What do you mean when you say 'these are not confirmed'?" --JorisvS (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Their radii estimates are too uncertain. The error bars are too high, so there won't be a consensus on their size for some time. Serendi ^pod ous 17:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that. What makes them candidates is that their best estimates place them within or above the size range in which icy bodies will become round. They may turn out to be smaller and not be round, but that is taken into account by calling them candidates. --JorisvS (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have anything to say in response to what I have said? --JorisvS (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My gut reaction to this is simply that we have a whole list of objects whose shapes have been determined to a fair degree of accuracy, and a group of objects that have not, and I would rather keep the page focused on those objects with determined shapes, while limiting those that have not. Serendi ^pod ous 12:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can understand why you would. There is currently, however, one problem with that: The same applies to the DP candidates section. These objects' shapes are not known (some do have known light-curve amplitudes, though others have not), otherwise these would be considered DPs, not candidates. --JorisvS (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I said "limiting" and not "excluding". This list was made years ago, when it was pretty much assumed that the IAU would make Sedna, Orcus, Quaoar and OR10 dwarf planets any day now. Because in the literature, those objects are often referred to as dwarf planets anyway, it seemed best to have a place for them to avoid confusing readers who thought they were. Serendi ^pod ous 07:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This rationale still makes the DP candidates section rather problematic, IMHO. Why some are included while others get excluded eludes me. 2005 QU₁₈₂ may be bright, but it is also very poorly known (I haven't been able to dig up much more about it than info on its orbit and a tentative spectrum). On the other hand, Ixion and Varuna are (probably) relatively small, but better studied. (Of course the inclusion of Sedna, 2007 OR₁₀, Quaoar, and Orcus is obvious). --JorisvS (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I then think it would be best to have this based on actual measurements that suggest that the object is a DP, like in this study (if you can access it) (a similar table is also included in this paper (in which Eris's listed size is worse but Sedna's and Makemake's are better than in the former)). --JorisvS (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather base the criterion on something concrete and uncontroversial, rather than one astronomer's conclusions. Especially after the hell we've been through over the whole "Sedna's a dwarf planet/no it's not" debate. Serendi ^pod ous 13:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you know of something more appropriate than measurements, then please, be my guest... And of course we would use as many sources as we could find (not just Tancredi) and include only those objects they agree on. --JorisvS (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Main page appearance: Titan (moon)

This is a note to let the main editors of Titan (moon) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 13, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 13, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Titan is the largest moon of Saturn, the only natural satellite known to have a dense atmosphere, and the only object other than Earth for which clear evidence of stable bodies of surface liquid has been found. Discovered on 25 March 1655 by the Dutch astronomer Christiaan Huygens, Titan is the sixth ellipsoidal moon from Saturn. Frequently described as a planet-like moon, it is the second-largest natural satellite in the Solar System, after Jupiter's moon Ganymede, and it is larger by volume than the smallest planet, Mercury. Titan itself is primarily composed of water ice and rocky material. The dense, opaque atmosphere prevented understanding of the moon's surface until the Cassini–Huygens mission in 2004. Although mountains and several possible cryovolcanoes have been discovered, it is smooth and few impact craters have been discovered. Owing to the existence of stable bodies of surface liquids and its thick nitrogen-based atmosphere, Titan has been cited as a possible host for microbial extraterrestrial life or, at least, as a prebiotic environment rich in complex organic chemistry. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Firstly, thank you for keeping up with the fictional universe articles, most lists go untended and accrue cruft fairly quickly. I wanted to bring something to your attention and see your thoughts. The list of universes in fiction is getting longer (bound to happen and definitely not a bad thing). That's not a problem, though I could see it potentially becoming one sometime in the future. In any case, I was wondering what you personally think would be the best way to split it, when and if the article reaches a point that requires some kind of splitting or do you think it would be better left unsplit? Ncboy2010 (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand. I believe that we should come up with a checklist that would define a fictional universe by a series of traits or characteristics. What do you think about that? Something similar to the checklist to determine if a geo-political entity can be considered a sovereign state. If I remember correctly, our views weren't very different as to what actually defined a fictional universe. After looking at fictional universe I noticed it's also fairly vague in definition. Ncboy2010 (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be original research because it's more like... limitations on inclusion criteria. Anyway, a fictional universe should be notable, it should be consistent with something (laws, physics, characters, history or events through different iterations of the work), I want to say that it should be distinguished from a fictional city but.. any fictional city must exist in a fictional universe, right? anyway, the article on fictional universes says that the history and geography of a fictional universe are well-defined. So there's really not many defining traits of a fictional universe. It can exist in as little space as a single room or as far and wide reaching as the entire universe or more than one universe. No wonder it's so hard to define.. It gets especially difficult when you realise that even one-shot stories are technically fictional universes. Ncboy2010 (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more familiar with Middle Earth than I am with Isaac's, but I'm not quite sure what you mean by template? do you mean like... something we can use as a standard? Sorry, I feel stupid at the moment. hah. Anyway my next reply might be a few minutes. Ncboy2010 (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sitchin

Not sure where you were thinking that was covered, I removed it from Anunnaki which points to Sitchin's article for such material. Dougweller (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Serendipodous. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 19:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dougweller (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie posting

FYI, I just posted to user talk pages of all the old participants in the zombie move discussion the text below. Given how many hits these articles get, I thought it made sense to broaden the discussion, and that this was an unbiased way to do so.

Hi - You recently participated in a move proposal discussion regarding articles about zombies and zombie pop culture archived at Talk:Zombie. That proposal was not approved, and a new discussion is taking place at Talk:Zombie (fictional) that is narrower in scope, and concerns only whether the older Voodoo and newer Romero zombie pop culture should be included in the same article or whether it should be separated. These are articles that receive a lot of hits, and should probably get more input than just the two editors having the current discussion. I'm flagging all old move discussion participants regarding the new discussion, and your input would be appreciated. LaTeeDa (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional universes in video games

..I'm done expanding List of fictional universes in literature, and am moving onto games.. ..Please let me know if you feel there is any way to condense that list.

I'm a little confused, are you wanting to expand or condense the video game article? Ncboy2010 (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well I'll take a look. Glancing through, it appears to me that everything on the list belongs within the scope of "Fictional Universes" and it looks very good, actually. The length is getting a bit on the long side, though.. Not sure where we could strike a division? I typically don't like the alphanumeric divisions long lists usually follow, but there's not much choice when it gets too long. Fine as it stands right now, I'd rather not divide it just yet. If and when it gets divided I'd like to keep a "full" version of it, alongside the "Subdivided" version. (In order to maintain the usefulness of being able to sort the entire list of fictional universes in literature by work, author and year created). Ncboy2010 (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller

Is on a wikibreak try WP:ELN. 109.111.202.234 (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Main page appearance: planets beyond Neptune

This is a note to let the main editors of planets beyond Neptune know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 30, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 30, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The search for planets beyond Neptune began following the discovery of the planet Neptune in 1846, amid considerable speculation that another planet might exist beyond its orbit. The search began in the mid-19th century but culminated at the start of the 20th with Percival Lowell's quest for Planet X. Lowell proposed the Planet X hypothesis to explain apparent discrepancies in the orbits of the gas giants, particularly Uranus and Neptune, speculating that the gravity of a large unseen ninth planet could have perturbed Uranus enough to account for the irregularities. Clyde Tombaugh's discovery of Pluto in 1930 appeared to validate Lowell's hypothesis, and Pluto was officially considered the ninth planet until 2006. In 1978, Pluto was found to be too small for its gravity to affect the gas giants, resulting in a brief search for a tenth planet. The search was largely abandoned in the early 1990s, when a study of measurements made by the Voyager 2 spacecraft found that the irregularities observed in Uranus's orbit were due to a slight overestimation of Neptune's mass. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the far future

Hi, I'm translating this article into Polish (my progress), because it's a great read; however during the process I've noticed a few discrepancies. Since you're the primary author, I decided to drop you a few words about them:

50 million years into the future, "The Californian coast begins to be subducted into the Aleutian Trench". Well I'm no expert in geology, but this just makes absolutely no sense; first, subduction usually means that oceanic plates are subducted under land plates (should it be obduction here?), and second, I just can't imagine the process that would bend the continent this way, and maps of possible future arrangements of continents such as ones on [1] don't show the West Coast and Aleutian trench anywhere nearer each other than they are currently. The source doesn't seem to be available online, so I couldn't verify the information there.
10,000 years into the future, "Earth's axial tilt reaches a minimum of 22.5 degrees". This contradicts (also sourced) information in Axial_tilt#Long_term, and the source there seems to actually talk mostly about astronomy, instead of glaciers.

Matma Rex pl.wiki talk 15:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, thank you, that makes sense. I clarified it in the article. Matma Rex pl.wiki talk 17:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Timeline of the far future/Archive 2

Thank you for your edit, but when you merge archives in the future, please provide an edit summary and requesting speedy deletion of the now empty talk archive.--Oneiros (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of fictional universes in games

The article List of fictional universes in games has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is an indiscriminate list. Every game has a setting (or "fictional universe"), whether named or not and this list doesn't even restrict itself to settings notable enough to maintain their own articles. This list is unsupportable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]