Talk:Uranus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Uranus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic star Uranus is part of the Solar System series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 7, 2007.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Solar System (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Uranus is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Typo, Can't edit[edit]

In the section Upper Atmosphere there is a typo in the liquid water ratio compostion: "The abundance ratio of water is around 7×10−-9". It should be: "The abundance ratio of water is around 7×10−9". Just one negative sign is all. Otherwise the ratio would be 7×10^9 due to the double negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.52.50 (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Must be s.t. w ur browser. There's no dbl negative. — kwami (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I saw the double negative in the displayed version of the page right after the IP posted. I checked something else got a second, came back to change it and it was gone. This page has been acting strange lately. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 00:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Blanked reference section[edit]

When I go to the current article, the references section is blanked.

When I go to the current article in the 'history' section, however, the references section is not blanked.

This happens with two different web browsers.

Why does the 'history' section not show the current article when it says that it shows the current article?

(Not sure if this question will be immediately 'archived' after it is posted.)

67.206.183.111 (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You probably visited the article first when it was vandalized so that the references section was blanked. This vandalism was later reverted and so does not show up in the latest revision in the history. To see the latest version of the article, you need to bypass your cache. Double sharp (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
@Double Sharp. When was this vandalism you speak of? There doesn't appear to have been any recent vandalism to the reference section and highly unlikely the IP's browser has managed to cache a version from say, several months ago, though Im not sure what is causing the problems described above. Everything looks normal on my end. More likely that the user just happened to be experiencing a temporary bug/glitch. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 04:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Good question. I should have looked at the history before responding. Double sharp (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Uranus2.jpg to appear as POTD[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Uranus2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 13, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-03-13. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day
Uranus

Uranus is the seventh planet from the Sun and the fourth most massive in the Solar System. In this photograph from 1986 the planet appears almost featureless, but recent terrestrial observations have found seasonal changes to be occurring.

Photo: NASA/JPL/Voyager 2 mission
ArchiveMore featured pictures...


"Axial tilt" addition[edit]

If you approach the problem logically, than it makes sense to name the poles not north and south, which is suitable for the ordinary rotated planets, but on behalf of the zodiacal or nearzodiacal constellations targeted by the Uranus rotation axis, to avoid any "north/south confusion". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.34.119.110 (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Naming[edit]

I'm a little confused about the section about the naming of the planet. According to this article, Uranus is the Latinized form of Ouranus, Greek god of the sky. However, when you go to the actual article on the Greek god, it states that the Roman version is Caeluo. Probably doesn't really matter on a primarily scientific article like this one, but i always thought Uranus was the odd one out in terms of being named after the greek, rather than Roman equivalent.141.6.11.18 (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.6.11.20 (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

"Latinised" in the sense that the word was rewritten as it would have appeared in Latin, not as refers to the Roman god; though in truth, if they had simply decided to call the planet Caelus, it would have saved centuries of sniggering. Serendipodous 15:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Mantle pressure[edit]

There were mentioned pressure on the upper level of core and lowest level of atmosphere, but the layer of Ice mantle surface lie far below this "atmosphere". Is there any info or predictions how huge is pressure on the surface of ice mantle or the surface of the ocean? 91.77.251.38 (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 April 2013[edit]

Noahmw25 (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Please include the desired change with the request. —C.Fred (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation[edit]

Could the article make it clear that the 'academic' pronunciation is a deliberate neologism coined to prevent the unfortunate homophony? Also, calling it the "colloquial" pronunciation is incorrect, linguistically speaking, as it happens to be the traditional pronunciation. This section could stand to be more neutrally worded, currently it seems to suggest that the neologism is the only valid pronunciation, and the traditional and far more widespread variant somehow inferior. WP:NPOV please, we are not Strunk & White. 60.242.48.18 (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no "traditional" pronunciation, and the Latinate pronunciation is not a "neologism". Uranus is a Latin word (albeit a Latinization of a Greek word) and so pronouncing it in the Latin manner is about as far from "neo" as you can get. No one knows how the planet's name would have initially been pronounced, since we didn't have voice recorders in 1781. But we can argue that, since Latin would have been better known at the time among those who would have known of the planet's existence, it would probably have been closer to the Latin. Serendipodous 13:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I have heard both Americans and British people say that the second-syllable pronunciation was the only one they grew up with. That is also my experience. Whatever the history, I can't doubt the modern use of the 'urine' pronunciation is a euphemism. 24.131.136.147 (talk) 06:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Ice[edit]

"The ice mantle is not in fact composed of ice in the conventional sense, but of a hot and dense fluid consisting of water, ammonia and other volatiles.[11][57] This fluid, which has a high electrical conductivity, is sometimes called a water–ammonia ocean." If you can't walk on it, then why isn't it called a fluid or a water-ammonia ocean instead of ice? Maybe scientists understand it, but it confuses the rest of us. Ice#Other ices says: "The solid phases of several other volatile substances are also referred to as ices ...", not the "fluid" phases. 67.160.69.105 (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Ice as used in astronomy can mean any volatile chemical, such as water, ammonia, or carbon dioxide, not necessarily in solid form. Most of these "ices" exist in the form of supercritical fluids. --JorisvS (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Confusing description re: "Axial Tilt"[edit]

In the section titled "Axial Tilt," the article states that "Only a narrow strip around the equator experiences a rapid day–night cycle, but with the Sun very low over the horizon as in the Earth's polar regions" during Uranus' soltices. However, this seems confusing (if not inaccurate) because during Uranus' solstices the sun would appear confined to a point on the horizon *only* at DUE NORTH OR DUE SOUTH (depending on which solstice) without moving east-to-west and, instead, uniquely bobbing vertically up-and-down 8-degrees above the horizon (and below the horizon) on near-solstice days (i.e., "remains stationary at the horizon). In contrast, the sun at the Earth's polar regions always travels the full circumference of the horizon which, on Earth, is a continuous east-to-west travel no matter how high or low on the horizon (i.e., "travels the circumference of the horizon"). Accordingly, the comparison to the Earth's polar regions is misleading beyond the mere fact that the sun would remain relatively low on the horizon, whereas the current wording suggests a greater degree of similarity that ignores the very different and unique visual effect (which cannot be seen anywhere on Earth).

On a separate note, I think a whole article on the unique effects of Uranus' axial tilt would be welcome. How does the heating/cooling of the planetary surface work? How would life on Earth be different if we had a similar axial tilt? Do its moons rotate the planet in conjunction with its axial tilt of rotation or closer to the plane of its revolutionary around the sun? Because of its tilt, Uranus is one of the most unique and interesting planets in our solar system!

Thank you all for your outstanding work...

-Rick


2605:6000:62C0:BC00:889E:FDE9:6470:77D3 (talk) 04:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: Please supply the text you would like to insert in a "please change X to Y" format. Thanks for the compliment and the suggestions. Wikipedia is edited by people like yourself, so if you would like to see an article like that, find some sources which talk about the subject and summarize them into an article yourself. You will find lots of help with the details once you get started. Regards, Celestra (talk) 04:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Orbital period[edit]

I wonder if it's confusing that the orbital period is given in the infobox as 84.32 yr. Although strictly true, being stated that it's the osculating (instantaneous) value at the J2000 epoch, in fact the period averages out at 84.01 yr (see e.g. NASA Uranus Fact Sheet, currently reference 4). The text, on the other hand, correctly states "Uranus revolves around the Sun once every 84 Earth years" which both is true and seems a more useful statement. As an example, there is an instant just a few years after the J2000 epoch when the instantaneous period was (say) 83.8 yr, but this too is an unrepresentative value. The point is that Uranus will be back to where it was after 84.01 yr, not 84.32 yr or 83.8 yr. The same is true of other orbital parameters but I'd say it's fine for them to be specified for a given epoch (J2000). It just seems odd that the orbital period, whose instantaneous values change quite a bit within just a single orbital period, is quoted for an effectively arbitrary instant. Readers that happen to see the infobox and not the text may think 84.32 yr is the "true" (representative) value of the period, which it isn't -- David Asher (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The period isn't really that bad. The eccentricity is. In this table are five sources. VSOP2013 is the newest in the VSOP series. VSOP87 is the most used (from Astronomical Algorithms ,by Meeus. The elements by Gaillot are probably a century old from Astronomical Formulæ for Calculators, by Meeus. The Horizons site is of course from this page. The 250 year best fit by Standish, the ultimate source of source on the NASA factsheet, comes next. The low Horizons eccentricity together with the a gives a perihelion distance never reached. 18.34 au, according to Solex, is the maximum within two millennia of present.
source period a e perihelion
VSOP2013 84.2514 19.2184 0.04638 18.3270
VSOP87 84.2515 19.2184 0.04638 18.3271
Gaillot 84.2494 19.2181 0.04632 18.3280
Horizons 84.3236 19.2294 0.04441 18.3755
Standish 84.0728 19.1913 0.04717 18.2861

Saros136 (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Without a source that gives all of the orbital elements for a given epoch (or average over a given time interval) the result will always just be an approximation since we are dealing with a n-body problem. Worse case I see for the Uranus Barycenter (around Sun body center) is epoch 2010-Oct-01 with PR= 3.090675052115868E+04 which divided by 365.25 days is 84.6 years. A good solution would be specify the Uranus Barycenter around the Solar System Barycenter (@0) which would be more accurate for any epoch since it would account for Jupiter. Using the Solar System Barycenter J2000 produces 84.01029 years (30684.76 days), which is very close to the NASA fact sheet at 84.011 years.. -- Kheider (talk) 00:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Any method will be an approximation. The proper way to calculate sidereal period would be from mean orbital elements. I didn't do so above. For that, just calculate from the rate of change of the mean longitude with respect to the equinox fixed to J2000 at the instant J2000. I get 30,688.48 days from VSOP87. 84.02 Julian years. The fact and figures page probably uses some mean elements. It has 30,687.15 days, 1.3 days less than VSOP87. Good enough. Standish's bet fit gives 30,687.40 Any of these ways give 84.02 years. Saros136 (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
The solar system barycenter option has been disallowed. You can still get it via telenet and, I presume, email. It doesn't help withe the orbits of other planets. Saros136 (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I received no error using the SSB barycenter "@0". Did you set "Ephemeris Type: Orbital Elements"? -- Kheider (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

addition to culture[edit]

I believe "your anus" joke should be added to the culture section, it is by far the most known dirty joke in english speaking realms, and it is our duty to allow others to beware of this.

thanks you.

71.17.109.113 (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

If you can source such a claim, then sure. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
here is one emphasizing the pop culture of it: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UranusIsShowing 71.17.109.113 (talk) 05:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
TVTropes is a wiki; we can't source other wikis. The "Your anus" joke was moved into a footnote from the main body of the text; I would not object to it being moved back, assuming consensus could be reached. Serendipodous 09:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Well I would object. It's fine as a footnote - it's in the article but not given unnecessary prominence. This is an article about a planet, not childish jokes. andy (talk) 11:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)