User talk:BatteryIncluded

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, BatteryIncluded, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Ghewgill 07:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yamato 000593 (meteorite)[edit]

Possibly of interest => Yamato 000593, a meteorite from Mars found on Earth - seems to have microscopic spheres rich in carbon that *may* have arisen from biotic activity? - per NASA, February 27, 2014 - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Quite interesting. I'll check it out with calm. Thanks. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I was happy to see that McKay was a coauthor, as he is very level-headed astrobiologist and evidence-oriented. Then I was surprised to read he died last year. That is a huge loss to the astrobiology community. BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
The researchers indicate that mass spectrometry may provide deeper insight into the nature of the carbon. It will be another interesting paper, even a smoking gun....
--BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for all your comments - yes, I *entirely* agree with you - followup studies may be interesting - terrestrial contamination may have to be *really* ruled out of course - fossilized biogenic remains on Mars itself may be the best way to eliminate contamination issue? - in any case - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
@Drbogdan I just found out that McKay also found similar microchannels in Nakhlka meteorite in 2006 ([1]), but back then he called them "channels", "tiny cracks" and "branching dendritic material". Later, another team observed a bunch of aromatic and Cn-alkyl aromatic hydrocarbons. but none was proven to be biogenic. Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
@BatteryIncluded - Thanks for the link - great read - and - *very* interesting - *might* make a worthy addition to relevant articles I would think atm - thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, BatteryIncluded. You have new messages at The Herald's talk page.
Message added 11:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Herald talk with me 11:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Red Dragon (spacecraft)[edit]

Thanks for your update to Red Dragon (spacecraft). When I made a minor one or two sentence update to it yesterday and added that citation, I did not realize that anyone had already used that new source about a potential 2022 sample return mission and the study that supported it. I see now that you got there first. Good on you. N2e (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Life Definition[edit]

If interested, added text/ref to Life#Definitions =>

  • Some may even consider that life is not real at all, but a concept instead.< ref name="NYT-20140312">Jabr, Ferris (March 12, 2014). "Why Nothing Is Truly Alive". New York Times. Retrieved March 12, 2014. </ref>

Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

ALSO, another Life-related ref (fuel cell-like processes lead to living cells?) of possible interest => < ref name="NASA-20140313">Clavin, Whitney (March 13, 2014). "How Did Life Arise? Fuel Cells May Have Answers". NASA. Retrieved March 13, 2014. </ref> - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
@Drbogdan, that last link got me thinking of abiogenesis and protocells, as one advantage of compartamentalization is the generation of an energy gradient - think mitochondria and ATP production. I will be working on a draft in my sandbox to expand the section of protocells in "Abiogenesis" article. I will appreciate your help when I finish it and before its transfer to the article.Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment - yes, sounds like a great idea - let me know when you might be ready - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


Hi Battery - it's nice to see you again. Will you be sticking around at Abiogenesis? I think there's a lot of potential for easy improvement. :-) Sunrise (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

@Sunrise - Hi there. At the moment I have no special pet topic than astrobiology related research. Abiogenesis is in the menu. What do you have in mind? Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Nothing in particular at the moment - anything that you feel like contributing. :-) I've written a talk section describing my current thoughts about the article but of course they're subject to change. Sunrise (talk) 07:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
@Sunrise OK. I'll be skiing this weekend so I'll give it a go on Monday. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Great! In the meantime, I hope you're enjoying yourself. Sunrise (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! ...eventually[edit]

Hi BI,

Just wanted to say thanks for the new year wishes! Only 2.5 months too late...? Oops. Sorry!

Things have been absolutely nuts for me lately, so I've been totally out of the WP loop. Hopefully back soon though.

Happy editing...


I miss ya!! --BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Discovery Program[edit]

These edits are an attempt to fill out the references with more detailed information. As you're one of the editors making regular edits to the article I am hoping you can take a quick look and then either flag or fix any obvious typos. Thanks in advance! -- (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Good references and good format make a good article. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks also, that was a lot of references filled in! Fotaun (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
It's helpful if references are fully populated as they are added, but that seems to be rare. It looks like there are hundreds of pages in the Space section in need of similar work. I have made a start on one such page, but won't be able to continue with this until tomorrow. In the meantime, if you want to have a go at filling in some of the blanks, and creating and linking to archive copies, please feel free to do so. -- (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.
Ever since I started editing I have been using this "reference generator" called MakeRef:
If this formatting is deprecated, what other quick system can I use? Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:REFLINKS is useful for filling in bare references; Citation bot fills in refs from ISBN/DOI's, and combines duplicate references, and if you click "cite" at the top of the editing window, you get a number of options. You can also turn on ProveIt in your preferences. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the help. I will study those. Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
@Mdann52, the Citation bot is a tool I could use often as I cite many research articles; but the instructions state to click on the "Citations" button next to "Save page". I have never seen that button when I edit. Is this tool active at all? Is it browser-dependent? Their talk page has the same question asked months ago without having been addressed. Thanks, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It is a gadget - second option under the "editing" header. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52, No luck. Maybe it is a browser thing? What I found next to the signature icon is a button with the symbol {{ }} that pops up several citation 'versions'. Is that the one? I will explore it any way if it produces the current required format. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
While there are many tools, sometimes nothing beats simply pasting in a bare template and manually filling it in. I use something like this:
<ref name="">{{cite web | last= | first= | url= | format= | title= | work= | publisher= | date= | deadurl=no | archiveurl= | archivedate= }}</ref>
and add additional parameters such as language, doi, isbn, etc, where needed.
I find the output from the Reflinks tool needs a lot of work to make it usable. The title and publisher usually need amending and many additional parameters have to be added and populated before the page can be saved. -- (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't previously aware of the MakeRef page at Today, I have spent several hours fixing a number of problems with it, especially replacing deprecated parameters with the new ones. It should now produce better output than before. I also noticed two of the template generators have produced broken output since a botched edit was made in July 2013. I have also fixed those problems. -- (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Old habits die hard. I am still trying to learn WP:REFLINKS ... it seems cumbersome and random at times. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Reflinks can help with editing but it needs a lot of extra work to produce useful references. This is because it only fills in title, author and publisher and this information often needs to be manually edited to remove junk and fix errors. Additionally, you have to manually add any other parameters you need. Looking at your favourite MakeRef tool, this looks to be a lot more consistent and useful, especially so when most of the form fields (boxes) are filled in. -- (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Date-substitution in inline citations[edit]

Hello! Thanks for all your WikiProject Spaceflight edits.

Just a small request. Whenever you use inline citations like {{CN}}, it should be accompanied by a date-substitution. The date-substitution template is used to automatically generate the date, e.g., ''{{Citation needed|date=March 2014}}''.

Thanks again! - Ninney (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


I have almost finished a massive update to the MakeRef tool. This fixes a number of bugs and typos introduced over the last few years and removes various deprecated parameters. I have also added a few extra parameters on some of the ten different templates that it can produce. Please try it out and see how you get on. Are there any extra parameters you want to see added to any of the generated templates? -- (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. At the moment I only have one request: the field for "date accessed" automatically produces the format yyyy-mm-dd, but I always use dd-mm-yyyy. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
If you add the publication |date= in the correct form field, you can and should blank out the |accessdate= field. The date when something was published is unchanging and always trumps the date when someone read it.
However, |archivedate= and |accessdate= should use the same format as each other but do not necessarily have to use the same format as |date=. There's something to be said for using dd Month yyyy (or Month dd, yyyy) for publication dates and yyyy-mm-dd for those other dates, thereby visually separating them.
It appears the date format is hard wired in the program. There's no option to alter it. -- (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Bugs recently fixed in MakeRef[edit]

  • Between 21 July 2006 and 14 August 2012 and between 6 July 2013 and 20 March 2014, the PMID and DOI identifiers generated within cite journal templates were malformed (see below).
  • Between 9 November 2009 and 20 March 2014, filling in the issn parameter on the cite journal form input did not result in the data appearing in the generated template. The data was lost.
  • Between 13 August 2007 and 28 May 2010, filling in the doi parameter on the cite book form input resulted in the DOI data appearing both in the doi parameter value and in the id parameter value in the generated template.
  • Between 13 August 2007 and 23 March 2014, filling in the id parameter on the cite book form input did not result in the data appearing in the generated template. The data was lost.
  • Between 28 May 2010 and 23 March 2014, filling in the doi parameter on the cite book form input resulted in the DOI data appearing in the id parameter value in the generated template. Additionally, no doi parameter was created.
  • Between 17 August 2007 and 14 August 2012 and between 6 July 2013 and 20 March 2014, the PMID and DOI identifiers generated within citation templates were malformed (see below).
  • Between 2 January 2010 and 25 January 2013 and between 6 July 2013 and 20 March 2014, filling in the trans_title parameter on the cite web form input did not result in the data appearing in the generated template. The data was lost.

All of the above issues found in the MakeRef tool have now been fixed.

Additionally, the tool no longer generates the deprecated coauthors parameter and some extra (useful!) parameters have been added.

Malformed PMID, PMC and DOI data in cite journal and citation templates looking something like this:

  • | id = PMID PMC2040096 {{doi | 10.1261/rna.658507}} |
  • | id = {{doi | 10.1126/science.1137541}} |
  • | id = PMID 9742727 |

should be fixed to look like this:

  • | pmc=2040096 | doi=10.1261/rna.658507 |
  • | doi=10.1126/science.1137541 |
  • | pmid=9742727 |


Would you like some help cleaning up edits that were affected by the above bugs? -- (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your work fixing MakeRef, my favorite tool. You are like a Wikifairy!:-) At the moment I am working on abiogenesis and protocells, and yes, next time I have writer's block I will cleanup the articles I have been working on. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
The above message wasn't meant to be a nag! It's just a heads up as to what bugs were fixed, so you might have a clue as what to look for in previous edits. I know I have come across a number of references where |title= was filled in with a non-English title and the |language= was noted, but no English-language translation of the title had been provided. That was because the MakeRef tool was dumping that piece of data and was not adding the |trans_title= parameter to the generated template. -- (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Newly Created Template - Space Molecules.[edit]

@BatteryIncluded - If Interested - New Template {{Molecules Detected In Outer Space}} Has Been Created (at least as a start) - Presently Added To The List of interstellar and circumstellar molecules Article - Comments Welcome - *Entirely* Ok To rv/mv/ce Of Course - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice. Lots of work! Cheers BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
@BatteryIncluded - Thank You for your comment - had the time and interest - the activity seemed to be a lot of fun for me today for some reason - in any case - Thanks again for your comment - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


Between these two points two references seem to have vanished (and two other references with the same name as each other were resolved)). I don't know if the removal was intentional. There were several people editing at the same time and a number of edit conflicts. I have fixed most or all of the obvious conflicts, but have you got time to take a deeper look, especially at the references? -- (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have started to read the article and taking notes. I will have go into the chronology of the discoveries (published papers) and weed out the debunked hypotheses/models in favor of the most current models, and then reorganize the article layout. It will take a long time but it will come into shape with some help. Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Enceladus is looking way better, thanks Reedman72 (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC).

Did you mean to...[edit]

Did you really mean to delete those figures?

One set of figures are for the stratosphere, the other set were for the troposphere. -- (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

NASA - Life & Water World[edit]

Of Possible Interest =>

< ref name="NASA-20140415">Clavin, Whitney (April 15, 2014). "New Study Outlines 'Water World' Theory of Life's Origins". NASA. Retrieved April 16, 2014. </ref>
ALSO related => < ref></ref>
ALSO New Kepler Find (2pm/et/usa-4/17/2014) => < ref></ref>

In Any Case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@Drbogdan Thank you, I will check it out. By the way, this article is fascinating. They encompass abiogenesis as well as environment restrictions:
Westall, Frances; Loizeau, Damien; Foucher, Frederic; Bost, Nicolas; Betrand, Marylene (2013). "Habitability on Mars from a Microbial Point of View". Astrobiology 13 (18). doi:10.1089/ast.2013.1000. 
Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
@Drbogdan Interesting that NASA noticed molybdenum. Please check out the protocell hypothesis called Jeewanu, where its inventor mentions molybdenum as a key ingredient for abiogenesis. Well, as the NASA article states, this team is connecting the dots. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
@Drbogdan, Check this out: 'Most Earth-like planet yet' spotted by Kepler. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
@BatteryIncluded - Thanks for *all* your above comments - and suggestions - they're *all* appreciated - seems we're both presently editing the Kepler-186f article - *very* interesting NASA find - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Titan - References[edit]

The first block of references (currently commented out, and previously marked as dead) have recently been amended to link to archive copies. Would you care to move them back to wherever they used to be within the article? -- (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't know their history and I do not know where they used to be in that article. However, when I have time I could read those references and find an appropriate slot for them. Is that OK? Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
WikiBlame ([2] and [3]) can find where and when they were originally added. Looks like they were in a "notes" section. I'll leave it to you. -- (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Just when I thought people could not invent more Wikigadgets.  :-) I think it will be easier for me to just read those references (messed with in 2005) and assess its relevance today. I may have time tomorrow, as I'm on the move today. Cheers and thanks again for your attention to details. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
No problem! I'll leave it to you. WikiBlame has been around for years. It is very useful for finding out who did what. It's the Revision history search link at the top of every article's history page. -- (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)