Talk:Uranus

Typo, Can't 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 me^{Stalk me} 00:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Blanked reference section

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 me^{Stalk 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

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 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

"Axial tilt" addition

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

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. Serendi^podous 15:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Mantle pressure

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

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

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. Serendi^podous 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)

According to the rules in Traditional English pronunciation of Latin, the paroxytone pronunciation is simply wrong. Latin Uranus has a short a, which is therefore unstressed according to the Classical Latin stress rule (and even the Old Latin initial stress rule, as well as the Greek stress, just in case you were wondering). I have no idea why the paroxytone pronunciation has ever been used by anybody in the first place. No competent Latinist would stress Uranus on the second syllable, so the joke shouldn't work in the first place. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Ice

"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"

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

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

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. Serendi^podous 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)

Numbers Don't Quite Match?

Hi. I just noticed that on the basis of the quoted semi-major axis, eccentricity and orbital period (in the infobox) the average orbital speed is very slightly lower than the figure we cite: 6.80km/s (to 2d.p.), rather than the 6.81km/s figure quoted. Comments? RomanSpa (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Probably just a function of different epochs being used. At perihelion in 1966 Uranus was moving at 7.1 km/s wrt the Sun. As of 17 Sept 2014, Uranus is moving at 6.5 km/s wrt the Sun. -- Kheider (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure I understand your reasoning. All the figures in the infobox seem to refer to the same epoch (it's mentioned at the top), so I don't really see why there should be any inconsistency. The average orbital speed is a simple function of the orbit's semi-major axis, its eccentricity, and the orbital period (so long as your calculator gives elliptic integrals), so I don't quite see what you mean... RomanSpa (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Most of the infobox orbital numbers come from JPL Horizons using epoch J2000. But the "Average orbital speed" comes from the Uranus Fact Sheet, which is a different source. Actually checking the 2nd source the number is 6.80 km/s. -- Kheider (talk) 12:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. RomanSpa (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Spelling

Are we supposed to be in UK or US spelling here? At the moment we have both. --John (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

This 2001 revision is in British English, so I guess we should use British English, unless there was a special reason to change to US. --John (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I have standardised on British English based on the above rationale. --John (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Lexell

Anders Johann Lexell wasn't Russian, but Finn-Swede who moved to St. Petersburg on king's permission. Please check the wikipedia article.Noseball (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead image

I disagree with the recent change of the lead image of Uranus (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uranus&diff=644167146&oldid=644105109). The old image was taken in the vicinity of Uranus by Voyager 2, and is correspondingly a very high resolution photo. It is also very close to how Uranus would appear to the naked eye, providing an accurate depiction of the planet to the average wikipedia reader, who probably just wants to know what the planet looks like and doesn't know much about astronomical imaging. It is such a nice photo that it was POTD in March 2013. By contrast, the new image is much lower resolution. It is the only lead image of a planet on Wikipedia that is not in approximate visible light and true color. Furthermore, it is very similar to several other images already in this article. So, if there are no objections, I will shortly change the lead image back to the visible-light Voyager photograph. A2soup (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, I have changed the lead image. Please discuss here before reverting. A2soup (talk) 05:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

FA status

Given the amount of easy copyediting I could just do (especially [1] and [2]), I question the correctness of FA status. I haven't gone through the whole article and even where I have it does not always flow as well as it should. --JorisvS (talk) 10:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

You could always copyedit it; it shouldn't take too long. I'm not a good editor of my own work, so it would be best if someone else did it. Serendi^podous 11:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Only I think that my usual copyediting may not be enough. --JorisvS (talk) 11:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, then submit it for FAR. Get some other people on it. And it would be cool if you could explain further what you mean. Serendi^podous 12:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Except the ease with which I could copyedit it, I currently can't. It's a general impression. I was/am hoping for some comments to clarify it. --JorisvS (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit request, section Atmosphere/Composition: methane is not an element.

Since methane is not an element in the chemical sense, the following sentence is confusing:

  The third-most-abundant element in Uranus's atmosphere is methane

Probably should be:

  The third-most-abundant gas in Uranus's atmosphere is methane 

Or:

  The third-most-abundant component of Uranus's atmosphere is methane 

--Ibarrac2 (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed, thanks for catching it. --JorisvS (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2015

The text states "Uranus is the only planet whose name is derived from a figure from Greek mythology rather than Roman mythology...". Yet neither is Earth. I believe a correction is in order.

99.93.13.190 (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

"Earth" isn't from Roman mythology. Stickee (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The point is that the version as is suggests that Earth is from Roman mythology. Simply writing "Uranus is the only planet whose name is derived from a figure from Greek mythology" wouldn't suggest that. --JorisvS (talk) 07:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Correct. I would suggest simply "Uranus is the only planet whose name is derived from a figure in Greek mythology." The rest are either Roman, or, in the case of Earth, German. The current sentence as structured seems to ignore Earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.93.13.190 (talk) 04:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, mentioning Roman mythology is unnecessary, so this point can be avoided by not mentioning it. This was already done in the body of the text, but apparently the same sentence exists in the lead, where it was not yet changed, until my edit just now. --JorisvS (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Pun

I am surprised that there is no reference to the popular pun in English on the name "uranus", which makes it sound like "your anus". This should be added under the 'name' section or the 'in culture' section. I believe there are substantial cross-references that can be provided with this. And just as reminder, wikipedia is uncensored (in case that has been the reason that it did not make it to the article). - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 17:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)