User:Iridia/Archive1

Haumea

Hi. In this edit of yours to Haumea (dwarf planet), you restored a lot of {{fact}} tags which had been removed from the article already. Was it your intention to renew the request for references, or were you just the victim of edit conflicts? - Mark 05:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that! I'd fixed up one section, and didn't realise that there were {{fact}} tags being redacted all through it while I was working. My apologies. Iridia (talk) 05:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If Haumea goes to FA

would you be interested in being listed as a co-nominator? It would mean you can be called on to improve the article if the FAN demands it, but on the plus side, you get a credit on the FA nominators list. :-) Serendi^podous 18:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, thanks! :D I'd be happy to keep working on the article - have been meaning to add and clarify a few things in the science sections, but am under a pile of work at the moment. Will try to get to it after next week. Iridia (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Anything I can do to help! :-) Serendi^podous 11:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There's an opening

Raul just did a series of updates to Today's Featured Article, so right now there's openings on the main discussion page. You might want to get your dwarf planet nomination up now.Dave (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice model

I've added a couple links to Nice model. I'd hoped you'd have an article there already, but see you haven't worked on it in months, so I copied over your intro. If you'd like to keep your article history intact so you get proper credit, you might want to do a page move (or ask me if you can't do that). Meanwhile I just wanted something to help us coordinate articles on the evolution of the Solar System, since the Nice model is cropping up in more and more places, and what you'd written was better 'n anything I'd've come up with. kwami (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Added a link to a nice lay-level article that supports the flipping of U and N.[1] kwami (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ooo, thank you. Yes, real life got a little in the way, plus I had a better look at the various Solar System formation articles and thought there might have been enough there already about the Nice model without necessarily mentioning it by name, so I put it on the back burner and worked on Moons of Haumea instead. I can put more into it if you think we'd find it useful. Iridia (talk) 05:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I put Nice model up for speedy deletion with a move request, too. Not sure how long that normally takes. Iridia (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Also made a collaboration page, if you find a reference but don't want to put it in immediately. Iridia (talk) 05:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I can move it. I just didn't want to do so without your permission: I figure if it's on your user page, you still own it. kwami (talk) 06:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Nicely done - and thank you for asking :) Iridia (talk) 06:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and yes, of course, any expansion on your part would be much appreciated. So much nicer to have everything in a central location. I've only read a few basics, so I expect there are all sorts of nifty little ideas about this. kwami (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of nifty implications and ideas - and also controversy of the mild academic bunfight kind. It would help if the "Nice model" was a little less fluid, but at the moment it morphs every few months. Iridia (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Does Uranus ever get knocked on its side in any of these simulations? That's a smoking gun that something violent happened. Wish I knew what. kwami (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Not that I know of, but these kinds of simulations don't have the detail that would show such a thing. You'd have to trace it through disruptions to the satellite population. Iridia (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that fits. Most of these scenarios posit huge numbers of satellites for Uranus and Neptune, whereas we see rather impoverished systems. Some catastrophic disruption knocking Uranus over might explain that case, as Triton explains Neptune. kwami (talk) 09:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Kuiper

Hi,

I've followed your advice and read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kuiper_belt, but the only discussion I see regarding the pronunciation of Kuiper is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kuiper_belt#Pronunciation_of_Kuiper, in which Ilse@ confirms my correction, and Serendipodous's reply that the mentioned website has Kuiper pronounced as Kyper is wrong, it is clearly pronounced [œy], which is correct, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_language#Vowels. [œy] being not a native vowel in English may have caused this confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Upquark2 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You claimed by your IPA link that it was the English pronunciation, which by your own admission is impossible. The Dutch pronunciation is provided in Kuiper's bio. kwami (talk) 10:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, now I'm confused. Do you mean that in English, non-English names should be pronounced as if they were English? So Kuiper should be pronounced /ˈkaɪpər/ while it's actually a Dutch name? Confusing... but if it's the case, thanks for having learned something new. Upquark2 (talk) 10:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Please check that Dutch link again. If you go down to where it says "scientists", Gerard Kuiper's name is listed next to an audio file. Listen to the audio file, and the voice clearly says, "kyper." Presumably, Kuiper changed the pronunciation of his own name when he went to the States and, since he was in the States when he wrote his paper, it follows that that was the pronunciation he used at that time. Ergo, it is pronounced "Kyper." Serendi^podous 11:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the voice (native Dutch speaker) really says [œy], like 'ui' should be pronounced in Dutch. I agree it's close to 'Kyper', though. Upquark2 (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Even if that weren't the case, his name has become fully anglicized by English-speaking astronomers, and we would still use their pronunciation. kwami (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Reasonable argument, I can live with that. Upquark2 (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for the pleasant discussion while I was away for the day! If no-one objects, I will copy this discussion to Talk:Kuiper_belt so it is available for future reference. Iridia (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Haumea

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 6, 2009. Nergaal (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Haumea moons

Freshly motivated (thank you!), I plotted a draft view of the orbits of the moons for the article.

BTW. I’ve been absent from wikipedia for a long while, only refreshing my diagrams twice a year. I’m delighted that such a good team of TNO editors got built since the times when the 'icy rocks' had quite modest editorship. Now every single paper (pre-print included) seems to be read and the conclusions included on the wikipedia pages the next day! Hard to contribute anything new... Given that, it is quite rewarding, while surprising, to see some of the facts / diagrams I included 3 years ago still there. Eurocommuter (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That's a really nice plot of the orbits. Yes, I only started editing near the middle of last year, and found the other editors in this area good to work with. It's kept me interested in continuing to edit here - that and the urge to have the articles better. Up-to-date science is important - I mean, we had 44k people look at Haumea when it was on the front page! Iridia (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

pronunciation in info boxes

I agree that having the pronunciation in a footnote or infobox is probably a good idea for the flow of the article. However, IPA symbols can be a bit difficult to differentiate, and having them at a reduced font size makes things worse. Can we have the IPA at normal reading font size? kwami (talk) 05:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I have put a note to this effect on the template talk. Iridia (talk) 07:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Dysnomia (moon)

I really don't know how often people get blocked, but I guess Franklin Demenge has caused enough trouble in the past on other pages that they felt it was deserved. I agree that I did not see any blatant trouble causing. With Dysnomia, he only seemed guilty of considering personal communications as a reliable source. -- Kheider (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

ITN for Alan Turing

On 11 September 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Alan Turing, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

BorgQueen (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Orcus image

Yes, I believe HST images are PD. Of course describing how you came across the image (sourcing) might be difficult. I was hoping MB (or one of his students) would put one on his website so that it could be easily referenced. I say go for it. Perhaps we can convenience MB to put it on his website soon enough. File:Makemake hubble.png is listed on commons (claiming an e-mail from MB) and File:2003 EL61.jpg is claiming fair use and is ripped from a Keck image. -- Kheider (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The difficulty would mostly be in reconstructing the search path I took to get it, but then it can be referenced to the original HST images. Iridia (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

WISE sensitivity

Hi, nice work on the WISE article, which should go way up in views as launch date nears. You put in the sensitivity numbers in the science section (1,000 and higher) yet the numbers in the lede still say 500. If yours are accurate, could you move them into the lede, even the first paragraph, as many readers and journalists will be taking a peek at the page at launch and during the mission. It was nice doing duo same-time edits with you on the page awhile back. Oh, someone put up a very nice artists conception, which I enlarged a bit. (although it should say 'artists conception'). Thanks, Randy Kryn (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, I obtained those numbers from WISE's detector specifications (no calculations, it's in the source document). Now updated. Iridia (talk) 08:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)