Talk:Uranus

Merge from 34 Tauri

I propose the stub-class article at 34 Tauri should be merged into this article and the page 34 Tauri turned into a redirect. Icalanise (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Serendi^podous 07:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You should put more in about culture

I mean, can you not elaborate a bit more on the San Franciso gay scene, especially about the Cockettes and the Club Uranus, tell me more! I'm sure it's really useful information to everyone who comes here to read about a planet. Stroll on! Call this an encyclopedia. I think not. Mister Flash (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved to a link on the disambig page. Jminthorne (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Good move. Thanks, I would have done it myself but not being a regular here it may have been reverted. Mister Flash (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's odd how long this nonsense lasted in the article. It was discussed in a thread on the Wikipedia Review forum over a month ago. Ottre 13:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Civility.—RJH (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Colloquial 'your anus' reference

Don't you think the classic joke about Uranus sounding like 'your anus' should at least be mentioned?128.100.71.45 (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"Humorous" comments regarding the name of this planet are inappropriate content for this talk page. This is an ecyclopedia, not a place for fart jokes. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 17:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe it relevant. gonads³ 17:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The use of the name as a joke needs demonstrated notability, substantiated by reliable citations. I think it somehow needs to be demonstrated that the joke, as such, is culturally significant. Otherwise it is just a humorous anecdote with little encyclopedic value.—RJH (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Although I disagree about elaboration on the San Francisco gay scene (as it is not universally known as relating to the word "uranus", and is more likely, a marketing attempt to build off the name Uranus), I do concur with IP address 128.100.71.45 that it is quite hilarious that the word Uranus sounds like "your anus". I don't think that universal concepts should be disregarded simply because they're "humorous" as User:Tbhotch pointed out. With relation to "relevance" as enlisted by user:gonads3, I'd say it is highly relevant, as in most schools, conference of the word "Uranus" would cover "your anus" as a childish (and really, nonsensical) joke. I'd actually say to User:RJHall that the statement is culturally significant, as well as notable. I am sure we can substantiate it with reliable citations. Here are some notable educational sources:

* University of Pennsylvania

* NF Observatory

* Northwestern College

* Stanford University

* University of Ballarat

* Penn State University

* Massachusetts Institute of Technology

* D'Youville College

* LaTrobe University

There is a whole heap more you can find with the search query "ur anus" uranus inurl:".edu" on most search engines.Twigfan (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I propose that in the 11 In Culture section, what perhaps can be written could be:

The english word Uranus is often used in a comedic manner as a result of its commonality of sound with a bereaved body part.

I would say also that Wikipedia is not the place to outrightly state the word "anus" - it just isn't civil. Twigfan (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing uncivil about the word "anus;" after all, Wikipedia has an article on it. :0) The refence to "your anus" was moved to a note. I wouldn't mind putting it back, however.Serendi^podous 08:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a great insight, User:Serendipodous. I wonder if there's any anthropological connection between the word Uranus (from the Greek root "deity of the sky") and the word anus (from the Latin root "ring"). Without having deep insight into Greek/Latin, I'd even tend to think the Greek word may have been derived from the Latin term? Twigfan (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's a few literary citations that might be viewed by some as a little more reliable:

• De Wire, Elinor (2002), The Florida night sky: a guide to observing from dusk till dawn, Pineapple Press Inc, p. 155, ISBN 156164238X, http://books.google.com/books?id=0NK98MUpOG4C&pg=PA155 
• Elster, Charles Harrington (2006), The big book of beastly mispronunciations: the complete opinionated guide for the careful speaker (2nd ed.), Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, p. 480, ISBN 061842315X, http://books.google.com/books?id=YtojrMr0Ft4C&pg=PA480 
• Meredith, Dennis (2010), Explaining research: how to reach key audiences to advance your work, Oxford University Press, p. 27, ISBN 0199732051, http://books.google.com/books?id=M3ZRW07TRgUC&pg=PA27 

Regards, RJH (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Tilt of the moon's orbits

A question I didn't find answered on this article (or on the Moons of Uranus article) is why the alignment of orbital plane of the planet's moons matches the axial tilt of the planet? Naively it would seem that a collisional event that knocked the planet on its side would leave the orbits of the moons (or the orbiting material) in the previous alignment.—RJH (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The idea of a collisional event is somewhat out of date. Uranus's axial tilt is now believed to have happened gradually as a result of gravitational interactions with Jupiter and Saturn. Serendi^podous 06:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Are you referring to this Brunini (2006) paper? If so, then note that the article has been retracted.—RJH (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The answer is that satellites formed after the collision. This is discussed in this paper. I actually know the only other way an obliquity can be generated—interaction between the planet and its interplanetary disk as described here (for Jupiter). Ruslik_Zero 18:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that is interesting stuff. I noticed the Mousis (2004) paper makes no mention of any pre-existing disk, like the one that presumably formed the moons around the other gas giants.—RJH (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

So how should we revise the Uranus#Axial tilt section? Serendi^podous 06:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Since the article has been retracted, there is currently no sources for the claim that obliquity can arise purely from gravitational interactions with J. and S. Therefore this claim should be removed. Though there is another paper that advances a different collisionless model. Ruslik_Zero 17:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

A little blimp

I don't know much about wiki code, so I'll probably screw it up more if I try to fix it, but half way down the quote's formatting is all screwy. Just letting you guys know! 116.212.212.41 (talk) 04:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Screwy in what sense? (It is fine on my PC) Materialscientist (talk) 04:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The quote halfway done runs over top of the picture of Herschel. 134.7.248.131 (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Try now. Materialscientist (talk) 03:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That works, thank you =) 116.212.212.41 (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Can someone re-write the beginning of the section labeled "Internal Structure"?

Can someone re-write the beginning of the section labeled "Internal Structure"?

Here's a copy paste of the problem paragraph that is impossible to understand -

Uranus's mass is roughly 14.5 times that of the Earth, making it the least massive of the giant planets, while its density of 1.27 g/cm³ makes it the second least dense planet, after Saturn.[9] Though having a diameter slightly larger than Neptune's (roughly four times Earth's), it is less massive.[7] These values indicate that it is made primarily of various ices, such as water, ammonia, and methane.[11] The total mass of ice in Uranus's interior is not precisely known, as different figures emerge depending on the model chosen; however, it must be between 9.3 and 13.5 Earth masses.[11][57] Hydrogen and helium constitute only a small part of the total, with between 0.5 and 1.5 Earth masses.[11] The remainder of the mass (0.5 to 3.7 Earth masses) is accounted for by rocky material.[11]

I totally understand the concepts of size, weight, mass, and density, - but I am scratching my head trying to understand to the first two sentences - this is what I understand - Uranus is 14.5 more massive that Earth, but the end of the second sentence ends with "it is less massive" - huh?

This section needs a readability edit. ____________________________________________________________ It says that Uranus is the smallest of the GIANT planets.

USE YOUR BRAIN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarnainanzig (talk • contribs) 16:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.91.94 (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It is less massive than Neptune, not Earth. Serendi^podous 08:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph could use a little work to improve the flow. How about this:

Uranus's mass is roughly 14.5 times that of the Earth, making it the least massive of the giant planets. However, its diameter is slightly larger than Neptune's at roughly four times Earth's. A density of 1.27 g/cm³ makes Uranus the second least dense planet, after Saturn. This value indicates that it is made primarily of various ices, such as water, ammonia, and methane. The total mass of ice in Uranus's interior is not precisely known, as different figures emerge depending on the model chosen; however, it must be between 9.3 and 13.5 Earth masses. Hydrogen and helium constitute only a small part of the total, with between 0.5 and 1.5 Earth masses. The remainder of the non-ice mass (0.5 to 3.7 Earth masses) is accounted for by rocky material.

Still some room for improvement, I think. Also, the final three sentences don't quite make sense. Is the "remainder of the mass" meant to be the non-ice mass or the non-hydrogen/helium mass? I changed it to say "non-ice mass" for clarity.—RJH (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Subbed. Serendi^podous 18:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely we can get a better image showing Uranus's internal structure (one in English for starters)? In such a good article it sticks out like a sore thumb. Wasn't there once a similar NASA-sourced image on this page or does my memory deceive me? There are a few decent pictures on Commons such as File:Opengewerkte ijsreuzen.jpg and File:Uranus cutaway (pl).svg, but they'd need to translated into English. mgiganteus1 (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

And so it begins... again.

No sooner is the protection icon removed from this page then, whaddya know, the jokes come back. Personally I can't understand why it keeps getting unprotected. If there is any article on Wikipedia that deserves permanent semi-protection, surely this would be it? Serendi^podous 18:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

inter

I am very interested about uranus is there more information about it more pictures Alertfiend (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the JPL? VQuakr (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Here are a few links: JPL Photojournal, NSSDC Photogallery, NASA Images, Palomar Observatory. Try to keep these types of requests to a minimum however. The discussion pages are generally intended for discussing contributions to the article rather than chatting about the content. --Xession (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Right sorry i jut wanted to read more about it Alertfiend (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

formation

The topic of formation contains this phrase "...the larger they became; the larger they became..." It seems unnecessary to use "the larger they became" twice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.238.221.22 (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That is chiasmus; a perfectly acceptable rhetorical device. Serendi^podous 19:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Axial Tilt

The section on Axial TIlt comments that "Uranus rotates more like a tilted rolling ball", but this phrase might be misleading. Around the solstices, Uranus will rotate like a ball rolling around its orbit. Around the equinoxes, it will not 'roll around its orbit' but rather move like a rifle bullet. The paragraph does go on to accurately explain the effect on Uranus' days and seasons, but it would be good to clarify the phrase "Uranus rotates more like a tilted rolling ball" clearly but in simple terms - perhaps by including the spinning rifle bullet analogy? --Kyuzo2000 (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Since this section notes that the International Astronomical Union currently defines "north" as the pole that's above the plane of the solar system, it seems inconsistent to have an axial tilt of greater than 90 degrees in the side-bar of planet facts. Instead of 97.77, shouldn't it be -82.23 (negative to show retrograde rotation)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.157.62 (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

It should also be noted that the alternative pronunciation sounds like Urine Us, and would also cause embarrasment. AmericanLeMans (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Needs a citation. Serendi^podous 06:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The "embarrassing" English pronunciation with the long a and accent on the penult is the standard, traditional way to pronounce this Latin word, which has an open penultimate vowel. Cf. the English pronunciation of Latin angǐna. For a parallel on the vowel sound, there's also that other planet Vee-nus, not Veh-nus, despite the short -e-. The version with the accent on the antepenult is, I suspect, a way to avoid the other pronunciation. The text should probably make this clear. Eponymous-Archon (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Uranus exploration

Hi I think we should add a section on sending a metallic probe to Uranus, and about some of the gasses that can be found on Uranus. Also the possibility of a man landing on Uranus someday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.5.14 (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe the first two are already mentioned in the article. As for the third, well there's not really anything for a man to land on. But you could potentially send a manned mission to the planet's moons. RJH (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Uranian or uranian?

At present we have "Uranian". Shouldn't it be "uranian"? We have "Earth" but "terrestrial". --John (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

My Oxford dictionary confirms Uranian (and Jovian, and terrestrial :). Materialscientist (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

No, 'terrestrial' doesn't mean 'of the Earth', it means 'of the land'. Better parallel would be Terran. — kwami (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Good enough. Thank you both. Like France and French. Excuse my senior moment. --John (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Urectum redirects here

Why does "Urectum" redirect here? Kaiserkarl13 (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a reference to a one-liner joke from Futurama. Probably somebody's attempt at humor. That can likely be {{db-r3}}'d. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I know what it's referring to (how do you think I found the redirect in the first place?), but this page makes no reference to that quote, so the redirect makes no sense and isn't funny since those who go there already know the joke. It also shouldn't redirect here---redirecting to Futurama or to "A Big Piece of Garbage" (Futurama) would make much more sense. Kaiserkarl13 (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. Serendi^podous 21:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Although, A Big Piece of Garbage doesn't mention Urectum either. Serendi^podous 21:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It does now Kaiserkarl13 (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomenclature

"Uranus is the only planet whose name is derived from a figure from Greek mythology rather than Roman mythology" This is incorrect. All the five original planets' names were originally Greek and translated into Latin later. Uranus follows that pattern by giving the Latin name for the Greek-based god. It differs in having been named by a modern rather than an ancient. This pattern was then followed for Neptune and Pluto. Earth is the only planet this isn't true for, though often sci-fi writers will call it "Terra," which is consistent. --Eponymous-Archon (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)