User talk:Serendipodous/User talk:Serendipodous archive 6

Mythical creatures[edit]

First of all, that is unfair. People are actively trying to improve wikipedia by eliminating fan stuff, and keeping encyclopedic materials. And that needs to be remembered by all, fans and the public alike, otherwise wikipedia will never have any credibility.

As to your question, I think administrators have access to deleted pages, otherwise a bureaucrat must have that access, so just one of them. All the best, Judgesurreal777 17:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking of leaving the mergist group, and starting my own, called the referencist or verifiablist, or notabilist, which says "I favor articles that can be referenced". I was never a deletion fan, until recently when I realized that there are now large fan wikis, which would make sure that these great articles survived. I even started a Lone Wolf (gamebooks) wiki since there wasn't one in existence! I still have to get around to deleting some of my Lone Wolf fictional articles, so I know your pain.

By the way the best way to save the harry potter articles now is to find interviews of rowlings and find out where she talks about these things. If we can establish concept and creation solidly, the rest of the article should fall into place...Judgesurreal777 18:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unclaimed reward[edit]

Any reason you didn't want to try to win the $25 for making Uranus a featured article? Remember 20:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coll I'll ask him. Remember 20:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Sputnik day![edit]

Fifty years! Dammit, we should have an astro article on today's featured article. Marskell 20:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potter[edit]

A collaboration sounds great! And as a matter of fact, we have found something. :-) We found this morning some info about the books being banned in Melbourne, Australia. Here's an English ref. I think the English article doesn't mention it. We're trying to put together a few more international data (so it's not too US-centered), I'll get back to you with a list of them if you want. ;-) Cheers Raystorm (¿Sí?) 22:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're trying to find info about Spanish-speaking countries (it *is* the Spanish Wikipedia after all), and we'll see if we can find a bit more about Europe. Cheers! Raystorm (¿Sí?) 10:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just found this. :-) Might be useful. I'm gonna check it out now. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 11:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Callisto[edit]

Recently I submitted Callisto article to FAC. However FAC seems to be semidead now—only two reviews in five days. So, may I ask you to review this article? Ruslik 17:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parodies vs. list[edit]

No problem, I'll take a look at it when I get out of work. From what I remember being there I think I'll agree with you, but I'll try to be objective. Hewinsj 19:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've gone over everything in the first portion. I looked at the videos and a few just looked like amateur video projects, or things made at home on a web cam, neither of which are notable. I also searched each in Google and in almost every case turned up no references for most of the videos, except that a few are posted on multiple video hosting sites. A few production companies had been mentioned on other sites, but not for these videos. Given a detailed rundown below so let me know what you think. Hewinsj 02:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep[edit]

I'm cool with Potter Puppet Pals. Maybe we could include some info on the people that make it or the fact that they did PPP at a potter convention on top of the info mentioned, but it is fairly well known.
Walmartwatch.com has gotten some news coverage on morning shows but not related to this. I can't find any news articles talking about this video, and only very few mentions of the group as it is. I'd stick a ^{[citation needed]} after that, but I don't know if anyone would fill it in.
HP in the Hood has a news story to go along with it, so I guess it has some notoriety. Not sure if it's worth keeping, but it has that behind it.

Don't keep[edit]

All I can find anything referencing Barry Pooter look like other Copies of the same video on different video sites. I can't see any significant reason to keep it.
HP and the Magical Dick just looks like a kid made something up in his room with a webcam. Again, can't find any reason for it being significant.
HP Intervention was made by a group of friends who formed a sketch comedy group calling themselves "Drunk Girls Love Us". I can't find any sources on them besides their web site and various accounts they've set up in video hosting sites. Probably don't need it.
The video for Wand Wars is just a slide show of movie poster images that have been photoshopped to resemble Harry Potter. I wouldn't call it necessary.
Potter Potter Potter could probably be mentioned under the Badger article as a spin-off, but I don't know if it's significant enough to be posted here.
Welcome back Potter was made by an indie film maker and posted to youtube, can't find any reference to it outside of this article.
I found a few references to Wowie Kazowie Productions, but none to the two movies listed here beyond the group themselves.
I can't find any references to BP and the PP outside of this article, and what look like mirrors of this article. Another amateur video.

Tony Sidaway blanked Wizard People and put in a redirect, but didn't put the info anywhere else. Do you think it should it be reverted or inserted back into the list? Hewinsj 12:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formation and evolution of the Solar System[edit]

I moved quickly through this article and changed something in it. However the article is still far from perfection. In fact it contains information about very diverse subjects. I think that a wiser approach is to start with daughter articles like Nebular hypothesis and bring them to FA. After that the Formation and evolution of the Solar System can be simply written in the summary style. I believe this piacemeal approach will be more productive. Ruslik 13:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not know about the previous discussion. However my suggestion is still sound one, because the first section of Formation and evolution of the Solar System is actually about Nebular hypothesis as applied to Solar System. So if we start working on Formation and evolution of the Solar System then, to avoid contradictions between articles, it will be necessary to change Nebular hypothesis as well. Therefore to minimize the amount of work it is better to do Nebular hypothesis first and then to summarize it in the first section of Formation and evolution of the Solar System (as applied to Solar System). The second section (now called Subsequent evolution) can deal with speciallities of Solar System and the third section with future evolution. Although Future evolution is more about the stellar evolution theory then about Solar System.

As to the explanation I removed. It was not completely wrong but for me as a physisist it sounded strange. In addition in this article the explanation is not necessary — it should be preserved for an article about stellar evolution theory.

Now I am actually planning to start a search for reliable sources of information. Ruslik 08:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moons[edit]

I'll gladly give Europa my all—when I'm done my current trip to Germany trip. That could be four days or as much as two weeks. If I'm too tied up, I'll be the junior contributor who comes in at the end to look things over. Marskell 20:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planet passed its GA nom![edit]

Just thought you should know.

And it only took us two years. Serendi^podous 06:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to hear. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farsi[edit]

Answered you on my talk page. --woggly 10:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Murphy[edit]

I tried a few searches and this one had it on the 3rd page. Just to confound things, I saw a few rumors that Rowling credited Murphy's influence, and also that there was a lawsuit. Not substantial enough to reprint though. Libertycookies 18:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC) http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Jill+Murphy%22+%22rowling%22&hl=en&safe=off&rls=GFRC,GFRC:2006-52,GFRC:en&start=20&sa=N[reply]

B's Star tomorrow[edit]

Hey Serendip. Barnard's Star is on the mainpage tomorrow. If you've got a spot on your watchlist, it would be appreciated. Hope all is well, Marskell 21:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter[edit]

Hey there. :-) I wonder if you've heard? Do you think it should be added to the 'Religious debates over the Harry Potter books' article? It certainly seems it will be another point of contention based on religion... Cheers! Raystorm (¿Sí?) 15:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was my point. X-D It will start! Raystorm (¿Sí?) 18:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! 'Monitors the homosexual agenda directed at children'! *Whistles* XD I'm still waiting for the Mallory's et al to weight in, this promises to be big! Spanish newspapers are slowly picking up on this, let´s' see what happens XD Cheers! Raystorm (¿Sí?) 10:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rowling[edit]

Don't worry about it, I was glad you prompted me or otherwise I would probably have forgotton to tidy the citations. The ref list is looking much better now anyways. Maybe editors could start looking into promoting the article to a higher class. Eagle Owl 17:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see that you've nominated J. K. Rowling for FA status. I'll be glad to help with any suggested improvements to promote the article. Eagle Owl 17:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything look familiar?[edit]

See this lecture slideshow from the Monterey Peninsula College (a California Community College). I thought you'd be interested — it seems to be made up almost entirely of images from Wikipedia.--Pharos 20:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: HP Book challenges[edit]

That was fast! :) Aleta 20:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uranus[edit]

I want to nominate Uranus to the main page. So I prepared an adapted version of the lead. Could you look into it?

Thanks. Ruslik 11:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, I know. I simply asked you to read the shortened lead before I moved my request to that page. Ruslik 08:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asteroid belt[edit]

First, let me say thank you for your good humour in allowing me to stomp all over your article. Second, I was wondering if you thought there was anything drastic that still needed to be done before I nominated asteroid belt for FA. Good job on getting it up to GA! Serendi^podous 21:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I thought you were doing a fine job of expanding and re-arranging the article. I didn't have any major concerns, other than perhaps some too-brief paragraphs in the "Largest asteroids" section. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formation and evolution of the solar system[edit]

I recently add about 9 more citation, especially future section. I eliminate numbers of spurious statements, and repeating phrases. How many more citation before we can remove the yellow clean-up tag? --Freewayguy--Let me know what's up? 01:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JK Rowling[edit]

I promise I am going to get back to the JKR FAC!! I've been busy but didn't want you to think I was ignoring your hard work. Karanacs 20:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nebular hypothesis[edit]

I created a draft version of the article here Talk:Uranus/new_subpage. The draft is only semi-complete now. If you are interested I would appreciate you comments. And don't ask me why it is a subpage of Talk:Uranus. I made a mistake here. I really wanted to create it in Talk:Nebular hypothesis. Ruslik 19:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of uranus[edit]

Hello Serendipodous, is it possible to upload "your" pictures regarding Uranus to wiki commons. (I translated the Uranus article into german). It is still on my testpage: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:FrancescoA/Workspace/Uranus_Eng_Translation I will left the comment unchanged. regards, --FrancescoA 07:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HP reply[edit]

At some point we're just going to have to stand and fight for our sources. This is ridiculous. We should be able to set aside our personal beliefs and highlight what the sources say. Maybe something that would dampen the blow would be a small sample of responses to these Christian ideas, even if they aren't religious responses. I think those samples would be important in providing context to the opinion. Wrad 15:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we're cool. Of course we're cool. Wrad 17:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JKR[edit]

Sorry, I did cross off some of my objections, but in the process I accidentally unwatchlisted the page, so I didn't see that you had made more comments. I'll take a look at those this afternoon, I promise! Karanacs 18:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the last few citations that I saw needed help myself. Thanks for your hard work -- the article really looks great! Karanacs 19:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least things are happening at your end. :-( So far, we have blog comments in Spain, for example. Might be because the seventh book won't be translated until next year. But I have noticed a definite increase of info on the net on the subject. Who knows, maybe by next month there will be reactions at this rate, heh. I'll be paying close attention to any reactions native to Europe. So far they're echoing what's going on at the U.S. Let's see what happens... :-P Cheers Raystorm (¿Sí?) 00:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JKR[edit]

Fair enough. I was a bit unsure about whether it ought to be included in her article, which is why I put it in both. I figured if it didn't belong, someone would remove it. Looks like I was right. :) Cheers, faithless (^speak) 08:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rowling[edit]

Just a note to say great work on the J.K Rowling article, it's looking really good now. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that it will be passed for FA, but things don't seem to be moving too quickly their end. It will be a triumph for Wikipedia if it is made into a FA as I've just found out that the article gets about 1 206 000 hits a day, and is the 323rd visited article on Wikipedia! Eagle Owl 12:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here, it does say it can be misleading but I tend to think it's very accurate. Eagle Owl 13:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the new legal disputes version is fine. You're right, this does fit summary style better. Karanacs 14:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titius-Bode law[edit]

Sorry if I got in your way on Titius-Bode law. I saw a section blanked without explanation, and reverted it. When I saw you re-add the section further down in the article, I undid my revert. No harm done. Sorry for the confusion, ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem at all - As soon as you re-added the section, it became obvious what you were doing. I'm glad this article's getting some attention, as well. Thanks, ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Belt[edit]

Ya, I'll try to help with that. I'll start from the bottom and probably do it in dribs and drabs over the next few days. Marskell 16:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Discworld languages[edit]

Discworld languages, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Discworld languages satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discworld languages and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Discworld languages during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Pilotbob 05:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I you have concerns about merging or whether this should be deleted you should discuss it in the AFD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Discworld_languages. Pilotbob 14:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auction[edit]

Sotheby's Bets J.K. Rowling Fairy Tale Will Set $103,000 Record http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088&sid=aXzc1Bp1PZiw&refer=home

Hey Seren, I'm sure you're tracking this...how far off do you think Sotheby will be? I'm thinking this has to top $1M at least.... Libertycookies (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

....and money well spent for Amazon.com. Smart marketing by those guyz....Libertycookies (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Have you seen this?[edit]

...(shattering silence as a tumbleweed rolls by)... I'm genuinely lost for words. I'm just hoping this doesn't mean that the seas are about to start boiling! Aula ^TPN 20:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Thanks[edit]

No my account wasn't hacked. But I can see how annoying newbies can be. Anyhow I still live in fear that the article will be deleted and all that work will be for naught. Seems like the published theory angle works...had there been more published theories when I started to post, I doubt we would have been in conflict. I still wish people would ask Rowling the right (or leftist if you please) questions.

So the world changed...not me!) Libertycookies (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Aula, could you do me a teeny favour, pleeeez? [smiles and blinks repeatedly][edit]

Absolutely! Although I haven't done an FA copyedit before. I'm assuming there's a WP guide you could point me at? Aula ^TPN 12:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - I've been down with terrible flu for the last week and I come back to find that the article has passed FA - congrats! Are you still looking for a copyedit or did you manage to find someone else to help out? Aula ^TPN 23:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about fixing up Wiki[edit]

I agree with your comment that we can't stop Wiki, even if we wanted to, so we have to make sure it works right. That means accurate, unbiased, thorough, trustworthy, and not a playground of crackpots and egotists. I have a few favorite entries on my watchlist, including some I've contributed to, and some I haven't. Vigilence... Timothy Perper 16:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Europa[edit]

I've been bad with promises lately, so I don't want to make one here, particularly as I'll be flying home in ten days and will be less active over the holidays. I will go through the prose as I did with Asteroid belt, though, and in the new year will be happy to help with anything. I've been bad the last two months, wandering off into non-mainspace debates and not editing articles as much as I should; I'd like to finish Giant Otter. Marskell 17:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Kudos on Asteroid Belt. Quite a long FAC. Marskell (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Serendipodous, since I watch Marskell's talk page, and saw your conversation there, I'm butting in :-) I had a heck of a time reading through those FACs because of all the non-indented "done" replies, which make it very hard for me to see who said what and who stands where :-) I can read through a FAC much faster if the reviewer's comments are left intact, and responses are added after them; perhaps Raul's brain sorts that sort of thing better than mine does. I'm finding on some FACs I actually can't decipher where things stand without resorting to sorting through the diffs, so anything you can do to make it easier is welcomed :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud[edit]

Where does the Kuiper Belt end, and the Oort Cloud begin? is the "Scattered disc" an intermediate area?

50,000 AU is pretty darn far out (around a light year) even for the cloud to begin. i thought it ended there. I did some sniffing around, and i see that apparently, 50K AU is the *beginning* and it extends up to 1.6 light-years out... so, should we clearly mention that the oort cloud extends up to 1.6 light years out from the Sun to avoid any confusion?

I've seen on several pages on Wikipedia that list the Kuiper Belt as ending at 50 AU, and the oort cloud (inner part) starting there, with the outer boundary somewhere between 50,000 AU (1 light-year) and 75,000 AU (1.6 light-years). An example of this conflict is Orders of magnitude (length). RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 05:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting my information from wikipedia's other pages (which seem to be in a consensus with what i've been trying to synchronize the other articles with, and from several websites. http://www.novacelestia.com/space_art_solar_system/comets.html, http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part5/section-24.html, http://astro-canada.ca/_en/a4201.html, and http://planets.mywap.o2.co.uk/go/sites/mview/planets/12435645.

The wikipedia articles i'm trying to at least synchronize are: Solar System, Oort Cloud, Kuiper Belt, Scattered disc, Orders of magnitude (length), and its measurements pages 1 E+12 m, 1 E+13 m, 1 E+14 m, 1 E+15 m, and 1 E+16 m. I just feel that if they're not at least saying similar things, then they are contradicting each other or confusing people. One article says the oort cloud ends at 50,000 AU, another says it BEGINS there... ick. I just thought we could use a little bit of consistency between the articles.

I even have a little draft of possible distances from all the articles that i've seen so far with distances you may like (feel free to correct or alter as you see fit):

35 AU: Beginning of Kuiper Belt
45 AU: Beginning of Scattered disk (10 AU overlap)
55 AU: Ending of Kuiper Belt
94 AU: Termination shock between Solar Winds/Interstellar winds/Interstellar Medium
100 AU: Heliosphere
100-150 AU: Ending of Scattered Disk
500-3000 AU: Beginning of Hills cloud/"Inner Oort Cloud"
20,000 AU: Ending of Hills Cloud/"Inner Oort Cloud", beginning of "Outer Oort Cloud"
50,000 AU: possible closest estimate of the "Outer Oort Cloud" limits (1.0 LY)
100,000 AU: possible farthest estimate of the "Outer Oort Cloud" limits (1.6 LY).
125,000 AU: maximum extent of influence of the Sun's gravitational field (Hill/Roche sphere). beyond this is true interstellar space

Some astronomy websites i've seen have simply outlandish estimates of the Oort Cloud at 125,000 AU (2 LY), 150,000 AU (2.5 LY) or even 200,000 AU (3 LY). I think the maximum is 125,000 AU. Beyond that distance, the sun has no real gravitational pull on anything.

I just want ya to know that i'm not trying to vandalise articles or spread incorrect information. I'm just trying to improve articles and make them less confusing to others. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 18:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that there is a "rather sharp drop-off" of objects in the Kuiper Belt and Scattered disk at roughly 50 AU. Perhaps the Oort Cloud begins after a large (I mean HUGE) gap from the Kuiper Belt? This Kuiper-Oort Gap could be from 50 AU out (edge of kuiper belt) to possibly 500 or 3000 or even 20,000 AU (beginning of oort cloud)? Regarding Heliosheath/Heliosphere...yes, i meant Heliosheath. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 23:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tireless contributor barnstar[edit]

Thank you Serendipodous. I'm pleased to see that you have pushed the asteroid belt article through the FAC. It looks like only Neptune and Ceres remain now.—RJH (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ceres became a Featured Article today. Ruslik (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Venus[edit]

It is interesting but lets finish with Solar System Formation now. Ruslik (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got a few articles from Nature about recent results of Venus Express. I will probably read them before New Year. Do you need them? Ruslik (talk) 08:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I sent you a e-mail. Did you receive it? Ruslik (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work![edit]

Thanks for your work making Asteroid Belt a featured article! It's very informative and well-organized. Thanks for all you do on Wikipedia! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uranus, again[edit]

“Original research”? See, now I’m insulted.

I’m putting this here on your talk page because you’ve made it personal

I made an assertion, which I thought was well within the realms of the bleedin’ obvious, that most of the English-speaking world (ie except astronomers and BBC newsreaders) said this as “yoo-RAYN-us”

You asked “Have you done a survey?”

So I did a straw poll, and found I was even more right than I had expected, that even after 20 years of plugging away at this, only one person even remembered ever hearing it said “YOO-rah-nus”.

And yet when I put that to you, you accuse me of Original Research, in the revision history.

So it was just a trick question then, designed to score a point.

I think I have been trying to be conciliatory, and to make constructive comments to what is a very small paragraph in a very big article, but it’s getting beyond a joke, now.

So it’s up to you: you can persist in your bubble of unreality, that what ( I suspect) almost everyone says is merely an “alternate” pronunciation, and that your preferred option isn’t some cobbled-together, pseudo-classical pronunciation that’s less than 30 years old, but I think you’ll be disappointed if you ever actually check.

And trying to put your opinion in an encyclopaedia as fact would be called revisionism anywhere else.

You can answer, or not; here, or on my talk page; stay on your high horse or try being conciliatory: entirely up to you.

Moonraker12 (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying; and I probably owe you an apology for my abruptness before. I was feeling frustrated with the way the conversaton was going.

“attempt to give … special status”: I had thought that was what you were trying to do: If that was how you saw my comments then no, that wasn’t my intention at all. I don’t think that pronunciation is right, just commonplace.

I had assumed it was self-evident, so I was frustrated with being asked to prove it, but if your experience is different, then I can agree to disagree on the point.

And no, I readily admit it wasn’t a real survey; it was just a way of testing the “self-evidence”, and I was actually a bit surprised by the result.

As far as the article is concerned though, I’m OK with it as it is, if you are.

Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Going well of the subject, one of CS Lewis’ Narnia stories, "The Silver Chair", has a minor character called Urnus; Lewis was a classicist, and it occurs to me that UHR-nus, or ER-nus, would be about what the Romans would have said for Uranus, that maybe that's where he got it from. But it’s only a passing thought. Moonraker12 (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]