Talk:Uranus/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Contents

Picture

That picture is really crappy. It looks like it was made in photoshop. Is there another one you can put up there?

As you can gather from the picture's description, it is in fact highly "photoshopped". Also from the description it states that in NASA's opinion this is what Uranus would look "as human eyes would see it". If all artistic depictions are excluded this propably is the best picture of Uranus. - Laisak 00:20, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Uh, I thought Uranus had rings? Like Saturn but not as big. This picture just looks like a blue ball. Oh, here is a Hubbel Telescope pic of Uranus http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA02963

You would not be able to see Uranus's rings with the naked eye, because they're thin and dark. That Hubble picture is in false colour, so it would be better to put it further down the page, not use it as the main picture. The Singing Badger 16:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Also, because of the axial tilt, from Earth's view the rings form a target shape around the planet and do not cross the disk. The picture is cropped too close to show them, even if the resolution was high enough. CFLeon 22:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I do not think it wise to change the English language because a few of your students may snicker during the Uranus lecture. Is there any way to pronounce the name of this planet, without feeling embarrassed? I saw your anus last night. Hmm. Maybe it's just a matter of maturity

Try "yer an us".
Yeah, put the stress on the first syllable not the second. I've heard people say it that way. -- Tim Starling 02:18 30 May 2003 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that the first syllable of that is 'urine', I think that really, we should put both pronunciations up there.
I have heard that many scientists, as well as me, (I am unfortunately, not a scientist) pronounce Uranus as YER-nus. This really seems to be the best way to say it without feeling dumb.--Apollo2011 20:29, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Never heard anyone pronounce it like that, astronomer or not. Is that just perhaps YOUR-a-nus without much emphasis on the 'a' syllable? I am an astronomer, I say your-AY-nus and I see not the slightest reason to feel dumb when saying it. Worldtraveller 21:19, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I pronounce it 'oo-RAN-us.' if anyone cares.

That's basically the Latin pronunciation (Uranus being the Latin form of a Greek word), probably the best way to avoid giggles when discussing the seventh planet from the Sun. That or your-annus, with a short a. Either is likely to be understood -- though the Latin pronunciation is more clearly an attempt not to be silly or perceived as such, or else the mark of a nerd -- not that that is a bad thing at all ;). Jeff Anonymous 05:01, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
How about YOO-ran-us as if to say, "YOU were the one that ran us over? Drahcir my talk 21:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Whoever named this planet should've put a bit more thought into this.JesseG 19:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The usual pronounication at the time did not lend itself to scatological jokes- which were not the first thing most people thought of. The pronounciation problem is more a comment upon OUR generation than a past one. CFLeon 02:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Why is it that everyone always assumes their ancestors were stupid? Seriously, you think NO ONE ever noticed, ever, until just recently? Howdoesthiswo 21:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"YOOR-a-nus" is listed as being the first pronounciation. Is this really how the majority pronounces it? I'm not sure we should be placing something first (i.e. advocating it) just because we're embarrassed about a homonym. Asbestos | Talk 12:59, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm planning on swapping the order of pronunciations such that the more common "yər-AYN-us" is placed first (see [1], [2] or [3]). Does anyone think otherwise? Asbestos | Talk 12:32, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, good idea I think. Worldtraveller 12:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Out of interest I think it was Patrick Moore who invented or popularised the alternative pronunciation.
Actually, I've heard that it's the other way around; Europeans always pronounced it "YOUR-in-us" and it didn't become an issue until Americans started with the stressed 'long a' in the early 1900s. The original Greek name is more "yoo-ah-NOOSE", with a very soft or even non-existant "y" sound at the beginning. CFLeon 01:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
No: The original Latin pronunciation would be "ooRAHnus" (it would be OOrunnus if the second syllable were short). The word is a latinized version of a Greek word which would be pronounced very similar. Pronouncing the letter "A" as "AY" (instead of the usual flat "AH") is a peculiarity of the English language ...
I think they say it more like you-rin-is or you-rin-us on 'sky at night' -hexhunter 26/10/06 17:00

OED

The OED has (ˈjʊərənəs, jʊˈreɪnəs), in that order. The Latin is Ūranus, so the regular pronunciation would be to have the stress on the first syllable. (The penult only gets stress when heavy - closed or with a long vowel.) As for why the irregular "your anus" pronunciation exists, I don't know - but the earliest quote in the OED uses the form uranius, which would be stressed on the ra. kwami 09:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Everyone's favorite "Schoolhouse Rock" skirted the issue by pronouncing it "yoo-RAH-nus" in "Interplanet Janet." Of course, I'd go for "Georgium Sideous" after our Commander-in-Chief.

Moons

Is there any (good) reason why, in the moons table, Miranda, Ariel, Umbriel, Titania and Oberon are in bold? -- looxix 10:06 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)

Not sure. Gotta ask the person who put that in. --PY
I'd think it's because those are the five biggest, which were discovered by telescope before it started getting visits from probes. For instance, in my Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, dated 1988 (and not the most authoritative source for astronomical data, admittedly, which would explain why it doesn't include those a year or two after the Voyager visit), those are the only five moons listed for Uranus. -- John Owens 10:26 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)
make sense, thanks. -- looxix 11:03 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)
I'm the one who bolded them when I created the table, so yeah, I can confirm that that's the reason. They're the big ones. Bryan

Data check

Revolution period 84y 3d 15.66h
Synodic period 369.7 days

Are those the right way round? 'Synodic period' is the 'year', and revolution period is the 'day', right? Surely the outer planets have a much longer year than Earth, not just a few more days -- Tarquin 18:06, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The synodic period is the time that it takes for the object to reappear at the same spot in the sky, relative to the sun, as observed from Earth. This is the time that elapses between two successive conjunctions with the sun and is the object's apparent orbital period. The synodic period differs from the sidereal period since Earth itself revolves around the sun. Since Uranus is very distant from the sun and is moving very slowly compared to Earth, however, the synodic period is only slightly larger than one Earth year. "Revolution" is usually used to mean the planet's motion around the Sun, whereas "rotation" is usually used to mean its day (for Uranus, Rotation period is -17h 14m). Looks alright to me. Bryan 01:17, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

More on Pronounciation

re Pronunciation: I agree that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. But Wiktionary is a dictionary, and can go to great lengths to discuss the issue. It's about the word, while here is about the object. So, refer to Wiktionary with a brief note, if there is anything of interest about the word itself, such as the pronunciation or etymology or cultural variations. —Długosz

I disagree. First, I visited the Wiktionary entry, looking for the pronunciation, and all I saw was a bunch of unviewable characters, which is completely useless to me. Second, the pronunciation of hard-to-pronounce words is a perfectly valid fact for an encyclopedia article. Why make people go chasing a link when a few words here can be informative? The Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy is just to prevent skimpy articles that only consist of definitions. It doesn't forbid any pronunciation anywhere. I'll revert, but let's please discuss further and see what other people say. -- hike395 05:21, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
I agree with your disagreement, I think it's quite reasonable to have the pronunciation in here. It's not important in most articles, but Uranus is the butt of many jokes regarding this matter and so it's a very relevant piece of information here. Bryan 06:57, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Apparently, this very pronunciation has been discussed on the WikiEN-l mailing list [4], where several people, including Jimbo, have come down in favor of keeping the pronunciation. Jimbo's posting says:
Timwi: Should Wikipedia articles, in their first paragraph, explain the pronunciation of the word that is the article title?
Jimbo: Doesn't it depend on the context? Some words are difficult to pronounce, or commonly mispronounced ("Uranus"), so that it's worthwhile to include it. Other words ("United States") are not difficult to pronounce and are not commonly mispronounced.
Jimbo: It'll be a judgment call in most cases, right?
Timwi: Also, what makes the pronunciation of Uranus more mention-worthy than that of, say, "planet"?
Jimbo: "Uranus" is commonly mispronounced, "planet" is not. That strikes me as being relevant to our editorial decisionmaking in cases like this.
I feel that Jimbo has summarized the argument for keeping the pronunciation extremely well (at least in this case where it is very relevant information). -- hike395 07:02, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Naming

The planet must surely be the primary meaning of "Uranus" – should we follow the lead of Mars and make this a primary disambig? violet/riga (t) 20:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this should be the primary disambiguation. - Laisak 00:23, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, actually it's an even split now. Uranus, Mars, Venus, and Jupiter are direct links to the planet pages, while Mercury, Saturn, Neptune and Pluto are all disambiguation pages. I'm not counting Earth because it's exceptional. I think that we should be consistent, somehow. I'm fairly indifferent, but I guess I'm slightly leaning towards making the disambig's all primary. Should we maybe have a vote on Talk:Planet#Naming? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:54, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Editing [was: That Stupid Joke]

Should we have something about that joke? From User:68.38.113.242

(NOTE: I'm kidding, there's no need to acknowledge the joke). --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:01, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, seems like we run a tight ship here. At any rate, newbie here who wants to add something to, not edit, "Uranus in Fiction," but apparently failed on my first attempt.

So then, how do i present the potential addition, and who to, and how do i find them??? Thanks to anybody who can help me in this matter. BTW, as an opener, Wayne Dyer wrote a science fiction book titled Gifts of Eykis about some folks from Uranus who had Stranger in a Strange land qualities and, i would like to share a very interesting experience i had when i wrote him with a question about same and received a fascinating response from him... Richard s.

You don't present potential additions to anyone, you just make them! Welcome to Wikipedia, it's crazy but it might just work!ZoFreX 07:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, is not someone going to prevent irresponsible anarchy? And if not, what makes Wikipedia safe from such incursions? Richard s

Other users, that's who. By the way, don't put spaces at the beginning of your paragraphs, it turns them into a weird font (don't ask why...). I fixed it for you. The Singing Badger 01:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Plus a history of pages is saved, so vandalism can be quickly reverted. Btw, if you have a user typing 4 "~"'s (without quotes) will put your tag, like so: ZoFreX 20:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I added a line about it to the "Uranus in Fiction" section, near the first reference (which happened to be the "That Stupid Joke" in Futurama). I thought it was important, since not all readers may understand the reference, and it looked better than before the first item, or as a footnote, or collecting all "schoolboy humor" into a subsection. JohnWhitlock 19:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

North/South definition

The article mentions the two different definitions of which pole of Uranus is which, but it does not state which of these definitions is being used when it says that the south pole was pointing at the Sun in 1986. Anyone got any information on this? Chaos syndrome 11:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Last I heard, the definition of North was the pole which rotates counter-clockwise as seen from space. This gives Uranus slightly more than a 90 degree tile, and makes Venus rotate upside-down. CFLeon 01:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Different sources sometimes seem to have conflicting definitions of North and South for planets with over 90 degree tilts, such as Venus, Uranus, and Pluto.
The "official" position endorsed by the IAU/IAG[5] is that the North pole of a planet or satelite is that the north pole is that pole of rotation which lies on the north side of the invariable plane of the solar system.
According to this definition, Uranus should be regarded as having an axial tilt of approx 82 degrees, and a retrograde rotation. The fact that Uranus's tilt is almost always stated as 98 degrees, however, perhaps gives the (logical) idea that its north pole is being defined as the pole which rotates counter-clockwise as seen from space, just is so with the Earth. Inconsistant definitions I know. At one time maps of the Moon's surface used a definition of East and West which differs from that for the Earth's surface - in the early 1960s, the definition of East and West on the Moon was altered.Roo60 21:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Asian cultures/mythology

I have doubts about the sentence on the "Sky King Star" and the link to a sailormoon site. This planet is not visible with the unaided eye, how can there be a mythology about it any culture?? This look bogus to me!! Awolf002 15:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that was put in by User:WilliamKF, in some bizarre edits. This edit put in the reference, replacing the Kanji characters "天王星" that are supposed to be Chinese for Uranus, as well as deleted a link to a MSNBC story about the newly discovered rings. He's done something similar on the Saturn page, citing discussion on this talk page.
I'm going to restore the Kanji on both pages, put in the link as a simple [1] type of link. Being a game site it's not terribly reliable, but we can just assume it's not a cartoon version of the truth for now. It's quite possible those are the chinese names for these planets, but for Uranus out they're probably not ancient names. JamesHoadley 16:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
... and Neptune and Jupiter too. Edits are here, here, here and here. Now we have retained the Kanji, but have 4 links to a questionable reference, but not too bad. JamesHoadley 16:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I (WilliamKF) just found a reference to Hamilton Amateur Astronomers which says
"Because knowledge of the outer planets came in comparatively recent times, the Chinese names for them are simply translations of the Roman ones. Thus Uranus is known as "sky king star" and Neptune as "sea king star". Even though the concept of Hades is not common to Asian cultures, Pluto's translation ("dark king star") is still quite apt."
[Reply to WilliamKF], OK, better references is good, although it's not a big point.
I see you've removed the Kanji, is it showing up as question marks in your browser? Basically all modern browsers should handle it fine. --JamesHoadley 23:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes in my Mozilla Firefox browser v1.0.7 it was not Kanji. WilliamKF
Yeah, now I know why you wanted to get rid of the Kanji. Can I just put it back in without getting into a revert war? I think it's pretty normal to have Kanji like that, and you'll encounter lots of other sites on the internet that show up characters (like european ones) as question marks. According to the History_of_Mozilla_Application_Suite article you're browser is 3-4 years old now, so it shouldn't be problem for other people. JamesHoadley 21:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I upgraded from v1.0.7 firefox to v1.5 (the latest stable release) and I still get the ???s. I won't remove them (although they are presently gone) but I'd like to be able to see them. Anyone else getting them to show up okay in Firefox? WilliamKF 19:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
That is weird, I thought you were talking about Mozilla (v1.0 is from 2002) not Firefox (v1.07 is only a few months old). The wikipedia code tells the browser to use the UTF-8 character set, so Firefox should be trying to display those characters. Either you've set it to always display in a different character set (like Western), you don't have any Unicode fonts installed, or something else weird. You should probably go to the help desk, Help:Contents is the place to start. --JamesHoadley 19:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, will do that, but I wonder what happens when someone edits the page who does not see the Kanji, do the characters get lost and replaced with question marks? If so, we should probably use a template to bring in the characters to avoid this issue. I'll edit the page now, can you check to see if the Kanji is retained? Thanks. WilliamKF 17:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure they get preserved. JamesHoadley 09:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
The Chinese characters are (or at least were) correct. The five visible planets were named after the five elements, and the European weekday names named after those planets were calqued using their associated elements. For example, Mars was the fire star (presumably for its color, the reason it was named for the god of war in the west), and Tuesday (Marsday) is therefore fire day in Japanese. Similar calquing (not translation) was done with the three modern planets: Each name is an encapsulated desciption of the deity the planet was named after.
And let's restore the kanji, shall we? It's rather useless to describe them in English words. (If you're worried about them not being correct, click on one of the Asian language article links to check.) kwami 19:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I did. --JamesHoadley 23:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Someone changed the literal translation from "Sky king star" (which is correct) to "Emperor star". Before changing it back, I checked the references to see if they had an explanation, but both cited articles translate it as "Sky king star". Any Kanji dictionary (I used Nelson's) confirms that 天 means "sky" or "heavens", 王 means "king", and 星 means "star". PopsHunsinger 20:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Trojan/Centaur/Co orbital

Has the following object: 83982 2002 GO9 (Crantor) ever been confirmed to be the first Co-Orbital centaur for Uranus?

Pronouciation (one of the moons)

Isn't Titania supposed to be pronounced tie-tay-nia and not ti-taan-ya? Drahcir my talk 22:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

We had a long discussion about this on the Titania talk page. Short answer: we went with ti-taan-ya or tye-tan-ia because that is the Shakespearean pronunciation of the character's name. The pronunciation tye-tay-nia might be an influence of the pronunciation of the element titanium? (The effect goes the other way - one Shakespearean at least thought the element was pronounced ti-taan-ium !) kwami 02:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The unsightly section 'Uranus in fiction'

This section has quite a lot of 'trivia', that is unverifiable. Can we agree on what should be in there and what not? Its current state is a bad mark on this article, IMO. Awolf002 15:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: The 'Uranus in Fiction' section. Is it REALLY necessary to include so many references that have nothing to do with the planet, but just repeat the joke? Another one for you: The Secret of the Ninth Planet, by Donald Wollheim has the Magellan land on one of the Uranian moons. I think it was Titania, but I'm going from memory here. CFLeon 22:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like it to be moved out in its own article, Planet Uranus in fiction or some such, and just have a link to that article in the "See also" section here. Sort of sweeping it under the rug, or at least away from here. I don't want it removed completely, or even kept tight and short, as I think there is merit in having popular culture on this elaborated on somewhere. The fiction article could very well be a good one, with real prose (not just a list like the section is now) and have elaboration on, say, how the planet's role in fiction has evolved from the first sci-fi novel to mention it, potrayal of life on it and so on. Not uninteresting and unencyclopedic stuff at all, but not something we want to expand much on here. So I'd like the fiction part to be split out in its own article. Shanes 05:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

No, URANUS IN FICTION, NOT MINE geoff 12:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistent physical composition descriptions

The Physical Characteristics / Composition section states that "It appears that Uranus does not have a rocky core" and is composed of hydrogen, helium, and methane, but the Life on Uranus section claims it *does* have a rocky core plus water oceans. These two descriptions are in conflict. Also, the bit in the Life on Uranus section about pressure being a problem is an unsupported and (IMO) dubious assertion. Fasrad 01:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's nonsense. I deleted it. The Singing Badger 01:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why is it said that Uranus is a gas giant. Astronomers re-classified it as an ice giant instead, like Neptune.

Prediscovery observations

Is there interest in posting a list of the sightings before 1781? I have made such a list, although it's lacking in some detail (such as precise dates for some of the sightings), and can put it up. CFLeon 21:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

How long is that list? We already mention some of them, and if it's a long list we're probably better off with just stating the number and details on some of the more interesting ones. I guess there could be some sightings on your list that are disputed (I don't know), and in that case we should be carefull and not start doing stuff bordering original research. But if it's not too long, and the sightings are uncontroversial, I wouldn't mind mentioning them in full here. Shanes 06:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
As of 1982 (date of my primary source), there were about 25 known and I know of no others found since then (the last one found was in 1968). I have them sorted both by date of observation and date found; also a total by observer. No major controversies: two sources give different numbers by Lemonnier; the spelling of Lemonnier's name varies slighty depending on the source; and one of the astronomy magazines had an article about the hairbag story several years ago. CFLeon 21:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Since there hasn't been any objections to posting it, here's my list of prediscovery observations:

By date observed:

  • 1690 Dec 23- John Flamsteed; catalogued as 34 Tauri [J. E. Bode, 1785]
  • 1712 Apr 2- John Flamsteed [J. K. Burckhardt] [2 times in 1712?- 2nd may be typo for 1715]
  • 1714 - J. Flamsteed (perhaps actually F's ass, J. Crosthwaite) [D. Rawlins, 1968]
  • 1715 Mar 4- J. Flamsteed [Burckhardt]
  • 1715 Mar 5- J. Flamsteed [Burckhardt]
  • 1715 Mar 10- J. Flamsteed [Burckhardt]
  • 1715 Apr 29- J. Flamsteed [Burckhardt] [may be typo for 1712]
  • 1748 James Bradley [1864]
  • 1750 J. Bradley [1864]
  • 1750 Oct 14- Pierre Charles Lemonnier
  • 1750 Dec 3- P. C. Lemonnier
  • 1753 Dec 3- J. Bradley [F. W. Bessel, 1810]
  • 1756 Sep 26- Johann Tobias Mayer [Bode, 1781- 1st prediscovery found] Aquarius
  • 1764 Jan 15- P. C. Lemonnier
  • 1768 Dec 27- P. C. Lemonnier
  • 1768 Dec 30- P. C. Lemonnier
  • 1769 Jan 15- P. C. Lemonnier
  • 1769 Jan 16- P. C. Lemonnier
  • 1769 Jan 20-23- P. C. Lemonnier (4 consecutive nights)
  • 1771 Dec 18- P. C. Lemonnier

By date observation found:

  • 1781- J. E. Bode: 1756, Mayer
  • 1785 - Bode: 1690, Flamsteed
  • 1788- Pierre Charles Lemonnier found 9 of his observations; publishes only the 3 earliest (1764 & 1768 (2x));
  • 1810 (1813?)- F. W. Bessel: 1753, Bradley
  • (by 1820)- Burckhardt finds 2 by Flamsteed (1712, 1715 Apr 29)
  • 1818 (published)- Alexis Bouvard finds 3 new Lemonnier sightings; publishes ALL 12, claiming most (9) as his own findings, including the 4 on consecutive nights. [The dates given for Bouvard's work vary: Ley implies c 1808, the date of his first tables on Jupiter and Saturn: Rawlins says 1818; Grossner gives 1820. The 1820 date seems to be a confusion with that of B's updated tables.]
  • sometime after 1820- Burckhardt finds 3 more by Flamsteed in Mar, 1715
  • 1864-  ??  : 1748 & 1750, Bradley
  • 1968- D. Rawlins: 1714, Flamsteed

Running Total:

  • Lemonnier (or LeMonnier): 12
  • Flamsteed: 7
  • Bradley: 3
  • Meyer: 1
  • Total: 23

Sources:

  • Grossner, Morton; The Discovery of Neptune (1962)
  • Hoyt, William Graves; Planets X and Pluto (1980)
  • Ley, Wiley; Watchers of the Skies
  • Littmann, Mark; Planets Beyond (1988)
  • Rawlins, Dennis; "The Unslandering of Sloppy Pierre" Astronomy Sep, 1981, pgs 24-8 (discredits the hair bag story)
  • Standage, Tom: The Neptune File (2000)
  • Tombaugh, Clyde (with Patrick Moore); Out of Darkness: The Planet Pluto (1980)

-This probably should be in tabular form, but I don't know to put it that way. CFLeon 21:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up the list a bit and incorporated some newer information. CFLeon 00:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Name

What was it called while the british were calling it the Ge[o]rgian.

Most of the rest of Europe (and America) called it 'Herschel'. BTW, please sign your posts with 4 tildes (~). CFLeon 21:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
It actually was more complicated than that; France called it 'Herschel' for awhile, but Germany and most of the rest of Europe went with 'Uranus' almost as soon as it was proposed in 1782. It was 'Georgian' in Britain as late as 1850.CFLeon 01:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

GA Nomination - Issues

A couple of cites are require early in the article(discovery & naming). I have tagged them with [citation needed] . Gnangarra The Discovery and naming section also needs to be copy edited, under the current lay out the size of the paragraphs makes this part a hard slog to read. Suggest that the comment in brackets where it mentions Lemonnier's observations, be made a seperate para. With another break around Finally, Bode Gnangarra 04:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

in the section on physical characteristics, the use of it appears speculated probably disputed now non-existant all need to clarified and cited. I know that actually measured facts aren't available on the planet but this part of the article needs to show who is making the speculations, who's disputing them. Gnangarra 05:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

More issues for GA nomination :

  • The table needs ref.
  • This line : Uranus was the first planet to be discovered that was not known in ancient times, is in need of referencing
  • Lemonnier is often called careless or even "sloppy" for this, but it is important to know that he realized 9 of these within a short time of Herschel's discovery and most of his observations occurred at the stationary point in Uranus' orbit. is too pov by itself if not citing references.
That line's mine. I was actually trying to re-establish balance with comments made by other authors condeming Lemonnier for missing the planet and then throwing in his personality or the discredited hairbag story. My major reference is the Rawlins article given above. CFLeon 21:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't that line just be removed, unless someone can find a reference?Cromdog 22:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • ("a globe surmounted by your initial") : could it be explained in a bit more details or changed.
  • ...was readily adopted by French astronomers. : who were they
  • Prosperin, of Uppsala, proposed the names Astraea, Cybele, and Neptune (now borne by two asteroids and a planet), for what? Uranus or Neptune.
  • this pole as "south" is actually in some dispute between whom and whom?
  • odd orientation? Could this be more NPOV?
  • It is speculated that perhaps during the formation of the planet it collided with an enormous protoplanet, resulting in the skewed orientation. who said that?
  • Needs a thorough copyedit.
  • Needs more citations.

Thus failing the GA nom. Lincher 05:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Why no good photos were taken of this planet?

Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune all had nice photos taken of them by the man made satelites that flew past them. Why not Uranus? They all look pretty bad, and in false color I heard. Malamockq 13:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The main picture at the top of the article is real color.. it just really did look that bland and boring when Voyager 2 went by. --Patteroast 15:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
What is annoying is that Hubble has identified more interesting cloud formations in the last decade, indicative of Uranian atmospheric conditions changing between when the planet is "pole-on" to the sun, and when it is half-and-half; the half-and-half seems to be the far more interesting, but Voyager 2 caught it during the lull time. -- 75.2.6.115 04:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Two symbols?

Why are there 2 different symbols? Which one is more common? I seem to see both. Which one is more official?--Sonjaaa 22:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC) http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/multimedia/display.cfm?IM_ID=167

Death of a Moon?

According to the article at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/22/tech/main1159048.shtml : "Scientists also measured changes in the orbits of Uranus' inner moons since 1994. The new measurements suggest the moons are in a 'random and chaotic' fashion, said Jack Lissauer of the NASA Ames Research Center." Any truth to the theory/story? -- Kheider 20:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC) – consider this article to update on this http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/04/06_bluering.shtml

References

Title: URANUS Author(s): BERGSTRALH JT Source: REVIEWS OF GEOPHYSICS 25 (2): 251-259 MAR 1987 Try to get it!--Stone 16:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects#Planet_infobox_conventions_.28km_vs._AU_vs._miles.29 on standardizing the planet infoboxes, as well as the possibility of changing the planet diameter to radius. If you care about these things, let your opinion be heard there. Lunokhod 10:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalized?!

Somebody reset this page! It's been vandalized! I was going to lookup the Greek God and the planet, but someone put the stupid joke in!!! -- Stone 17:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear! You mean a Wikipedia article based on a planet who is the butt (literally) of hundreds of schoolyard jokes gets vandalized? No way! Stupid kids! --SpyMagician 05:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised

This page isn't vandalized more. Is the "your anus"/"urine us" joke finally old?

Nah, there are always good jokes for it, example :There are smelly cold gas clouds on Uranus, classic
Is there life in Uranus? How big is Uranus? What colour is Uranus? Has a man ever been in Uranus? ...etc. Good, clean family fun :) — Jack · talk · 16:28, Tuesday, 10 April 2007
The problem is that to six-year olds, the joke isn't old, and there will always be enough people turning six to keep this joke alive. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 04:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the "Your anus" at the beginning, but do not know how to properly correct the "...named after the God of booty sex..." w/o possibly making things worse (although I really doubt that's likely). This page really should be protected.

Grndrush 20:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

protection

Is this page permanently protected? 132.205.44.134 22:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  • It's probably semi-protected because of so many anonymous vandalisms. Just register if you want to edit this article. — Pious7TalkContribs 00:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Expansion

Here's a few thoughts for further development of this article:

  • The organization could be more consistent with the FA'd planet articles.
  • How does the Uranus compare density-wise with the other planets?
  • The role of Uranus in the discovery of Neptune should be described. (Measurement of Uranus' orbital perturbations, the role of John Couch Adams, &c.)[done] Serendipodous 23:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Is the listed composition by number of atoms, by number of molecules or by atomic or molecular mass? Is the portion of hydrogen by single atom or is it molecular hydrogen, for example? (Presumably the later since hydrogen-rich molecules like methane and ammonia are listed.)
The only source I've been able to locate which is unequivocal about this is Britannica Online, which presumably, is not a valid source. Serendipodous 18:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What is the internal structure?
  • The article could discuss why Uranus is depleted in hydrogen and helium, and the formation scenario.[6] [done] Serendipodous 23:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The article could explain why Uranus has a blue-green hue.
  • There are too many one-paragraph sections. "Explanation for bland atmosphere" and "Cloud features" could be merged, for example.
  • It needs an "Orbit and rotation" section, as in the Jupiter article.
  • Why does this scientific article need an astrology section? That seems distinctly out of scope.
  • All of the references really should use cite templates. Currently they are highly inconsistent in format. Some are little more than links; Patrick Moore's note is missing a title; The Cornell University reference has the author's names in upper case; the IAU reference is all in upper case and lacks any other information, &c.[done] Serendipodous 23:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Another image or two wouldn't hurt. Is there an image we could use that includes details of the clouds? [Done] Serendipodous 06:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The article should cover every topic mentioned in the World Book Encyclopedia article. For example, this article does not include much of a discussion about the planet's magnetic field.[done] Serendipodous 23:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Some interesting informational links: [7] [8]

Thank you. — RJH (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Astrology

Why is there a section called "Uranus in astrology"? If you use Jupiter (the only featured gas giant) as an example, astrology is just a link to the astrological article on it. I think that that section and several other references make this article is too astrology-leaning when this is supposed to be about the scientific (not pseudoscientific) view of the planet. — Pious7TalkContribs 00:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely right on this one, Pious7. I was bold and went ahead and removed it. Pseudoscience is rightly marginalized because of the WP:WEIGHT policy of Wikipedia. --ScienceApologist 20:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The other planets have links to their respective sections in the Planets in astrology article, and I think that it makes sense that Uranus have one too; but no, it definitely should not be mentioned in the article. Serendipodous 19:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

The article says:

"...the other planets (from Mercury out to Saturn) have been known since ancient times, since they are visible to the naked eye."

(implying that Uranus is not visible to the naked eye), and then later:

"...under dark sky conditions it can be seen with the naked eye as a faint star."

Ideally this needs fixing. Matt 01:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Another slightly confusing paragraph

I had to read this several times:

"The record belongs to a French astronomer, Pierre Lemonnier, who observed Uranus at least twelve times between 1750 and 1769, including on four consecutive nights. (Lemonnier is often called careless or even "sloppy" for this, but it is important to know that he realized 9 of these within a short time of Herschel's discovery and most of his observations occurred at the stationary point in Uranus' orbit.)"

The missing information – presumably the reason why he has been called "careless" or "sloppy" – seems to be that he observed Uranus twelve times without realising it was a planet. That needs stating. It's also not at all clear what "he realized 9 of these within a short time of Herschel's discovery" means. "Realized" as in "executed"? Realized that his earlier observations were the same object later identified as Uranus? Matt 19:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Good Article Status

How do we improve this article so it meets the criteria for good article status again? I'd like to see this big blue world (and Neptune as well) recieve GA status. RingtailedFoxTalkStalk 16:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing data

I'm a first time contributor so I'm not sure if my method of adding my two cents is right or not so just let me know if it isn't. But this article doesn't contain simple data such as length of orbit around the sun and length of rotation on its axis. This information is readily available in the articles about the other planets and should be in this one.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.68.109 (talkcontribs) 22:39, 14 May 2007

This is exactly what the talk pages are for, so don't worry! Adding your comments to the bottom of the talk page with a header makes them easier to find, though- use the "+" tab at the top of a talk page to have the software do that automatically for you. As to your thoughts about the article; while the information you mention is clearly marked in the infobox at the right side of the article, you have a point in that it's not mentioned in the body of the article itself. Perhaps it should be. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 06:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Mean density

Why doesn't the infobox's "mean density" figure match the infobox's mass divided by the infobox's volume? 8.6832x1025 kg / 6.834x1013km3 equals 1.2706 g/cm3, not 1.318. Is this some kind of typo? The mass figure is likely to include the atmosphere, while volume and mean density would be meaningless for the atmosphere because there is no defined upper limit, but adjusting the mass downward makes the mean density go below 1.2706, not above. NASA's Uranus Fact Sheet says 1.270, although most of the other numbers don't match, even where both figures are for 2000 - presumably because the infobox's unnamed sources were different. However, one would expect the infobox's density figure to use the same assumptions as the infobox's own mass and volume figures. Art LaPella 06:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems odd to me

that this article is still not GA class, when Neptune, which is far less organised and well-sourced, is. Serendipodous 08:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article has been vandalised!! If you block all the text you can see there are way too many spaces in the article (sometimes dozens after each other), can someone get them out please? 129.125.165.88 12:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to contact the person who protected the page from editing, but even his discussion page is protected, how am I supposed to discuss then. 129.125.165.88 12:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see where you see the vandalism, and I don't understand what it means to "block all the text". Could you please explain? I'm sorry about this page being protected against IP-edits, but mainly due to the planet's name, this article is being vandalized so often that we have to keep it semi protected for most of the time. But if you sign up an account (it's free, you'll be even more anonumous if you do, you don't even have to enter any e-mail address), you'll be able to edit this and every other semiprotected page on Wikipedia within 4 days. But if you could explain where you see the vandalism you're refering to, I'll fix it right away myself now. Shanes 12:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I've made a screenshot of what I mean. As you can see there are way too many spaces, making the article bigger then it should be. I can't believe this is done by accident, but maybe I'm wrong. Nevertheless I think those spaces need to be removed. 129.125.165.88 13:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
(This is also seen on the User talk:MartinBot page. I tried to get them away but I messed up, can someone else do that one properly also? 129.125.165.88 13:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC))
The blank line is to show a paragraph in the article: the MediaWiki software ignores a single carrige return. Thanks for your concern though. Soaringgoldeneagle 08:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Featured topic deadline

Per the new resolution at Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria, the Solar System featured topic will be eligible for removal after 1 January 2008 if Uranus is not improved to GA or FA level. Thanks.--Pharos 03:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It is somewhat ridiculous that Uranus is the only solar system article that is not GA or FA. Probably due to the constant vandalism. Soaringgoldeneagle 15:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why it isn't already; it's as good as any GA on the list. Serendipodous 13:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Then nominate it and fix any minimal problems if it doesn't make it. — Pious7 13:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

OK

I've added two new paragraphs and 12 new citations, but before I can submit it for GA consideration there are a number of issues that still need to be resolved:

*The historically incorrect pronunciation [ jʊˈɹeɪ.nəs ], with stress on the second syllable and a "long a" (ūrānŭs) have become very common, however, perhaps through the influence of the related adjective "Uranian" (always pronounced [ jʊˈɹeɪ.ni.ən ] or the similarly-pronounced name of the element uranium, or from a mischievous delight in homophony. This sentence could be unsourcable: leave it in or take it out?

*in India it is named Aruna (Devanāgarī अरुण), the charioteer of the sun god Surya in Hindu mythology. Can't find a good online source for this. Any thoughts?

  • I'm not sure that the article should necessarily need to carry the modern non-English-language names of discovered planets. They're often difficult to reference and the name is already covered by the links in the "In other languages" table along the left-hand column. Any connection to ancient mythology is surely of no consequence in this instance. Just my opinion, of course. — RJH (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll keep it in. Neptune and Pluto already have their own versions of that line, and if I get rid of this one I'd have to get rid of theirs too, which will bring on the Indian Brigade. I'm too tired to deal with them. Serendipodous 17:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Err... I wasn't aware this would cause a diplomatic crisis. All I can suggest then is to move that sentence onto this talk page, in a separate section, and request a reference so it can be put back. That'll at least temporarily resolve the issue in terms of getting the page up to GA. (That approach has worked for me in the past.) — RJH (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

*Between 1797 and 1977 the rings are rarely mentioned, if at all. This might be the result of the unfavourable inclination of the ring system for part of the intervening period, or due to a reduction in the brightness of the ring system. I don't see how to source this.

That's a problem not only for this page, then. The material first appeared on Wikipedia in Voyager 2 and I split off huge parts of that page for Exploration of Uranus. I then used a summary of that page to expand the exploration section of Uranus. All the involved pages need to be fixed, not just Uranus#Exploration. I can assume that more of Voyager 2 than just the second on Uranus was plagiarized. — Pious7 17:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
That may be so, but our priority right now should be saving the solar system topic from being deleted. Once a better draft of the exploration section is written, it can be exported to the other articles. Serendipodous 17:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I've reworded and broken up the exploration section, so it shouldn't be much of a problem now. Still I would appreciate an examination of all the paragraphs marked with citation 42 just to be sure I haven't missed anything. Serendipodous 09:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

*I can't verify anything in the Visibility section.

That site works for Jupiter because Jupiter has a 12-year orbit, but Uranus's orbit is seven times longer. I think I'll need an ephemeris that gives absolute values for its apparent magnitude at any point in its orbit. Serendipodous 07:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Screw it. I'll stick to the one thing I can verify and delete the entire bloody section. EDIT: found a good source. Redrafting section. Serendipodous 16:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Once these issues are resolved, I will go ahead and nominate it for GA. Serendipodous 16:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved Hindi comment here

until it can be properly sourced

while in India it is named Aruna (Devanāgarī अरुण), the charioteer of the sun god Surya in Hindu mythology.[citation needed]

Does anyone know how to contact any of the various Indian language Wikipedias to see if we can get this (not to mention similar lines in Neptune and Pluto) sourced?

Serendipodous 00:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This is stating the obvious, but of course ancient Indians wouldn't have known anything about Uranus, and any name from Hindu mythology would be of quite recent origin.--Pharos 22:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, yeah but the ancient Greeks didn't know about Uranus either. Serendipodous 11:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
As it's an English-language, the Greek mythology is relevant because of the etymology of the planet's name in English. For foreign-language names to be included, it's probably necessary that a reference be included. — RJH (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
You could always use http://nineplanets.org/days.html as a reference. It has the names of the planets in various languages. Doesn't seem to have Indian though... Dazcha 23:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

OK - I'll list comments here as I go..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In LEAD, Jupiter is a good model to go on. I'd expand it like that one. Maybe put derivation of name down a sentence or two. No hard rules but have a bit of a play with how in pans out. It is a bit abrupt as is.
Uranus is the first planet discovered.. --> "was discovered..."
Sir William Herschel formally discovered the planet on March 13, 1781. The discovery of Uranus expanded the boundaries of the solar system for the first time in modern human history. - "formally announced"? also "expanded the known boundaries" (?) - also "for the first time in modern human history." sounds clunky but I'm not sure how to rephrase it.

I guess you will have a tilt at FA with this at some stage so the sections will need some reorganizing. I've looked at Pluto which is a good model. In which case Discovery and naming should be next section while Visibility' would be subsection under Physical Characteristics section next down the list. This also gives it some more hierarchical headings which is good for future FA.

..never recognised as a planet by any ancient civilisation. - "by ancient stargazers/observers" or something. Sounds funny as is.

:This name was not acceptable outside of Britain -> "not accepted"

:The historically incorrect pronunciation [ jʊˈɹeɪ.nəs ], with stress on the second syllable and a "long a" (ūrānŭs) have become very common, however. --> "has become very common" (verb agrees with singular pronunciation) and drop the redundant "however"

Composition goes under Physical Characteristics section

:Like Neptune, its diameter is roughly four times Earth's, though Neptune is more massive and thus denser. - reword to avoid reduplication

resemblence --> "resemblance"
it has roughly ten times less mass than Jupiter and far less elemental - eek, try "it is roughly a tenth of the mass of Jupiter and has far less..."

:cagegory - typo

from the original nebula and commence a runaway increase in size. - explain the "nebula" and rephrase the colloquial sounding "runaway increase in size"
One of the most distinctive features of Uranus.. - try "unusual" as adjective instead.
Astronomers had initially expected Uranus's magnetic field to be in line with the solar wind, since it would line up with Uranus's horizontal poles, but, due to its lopsided nature, the field in fact lies in a position similar to those of the terrestrial planets- break this sentence up - too many commas.

Place Atmosphere under Physical Characteristics section

Place Rings under Physical Characteristics section

Place Magnetic field under Physical Characteristics section

Rename Natural Satellites Moons

Overall, I feel the prose is ok for a good article (but would need quite a bit more tweaking for FA) and it otherwise qualifies in other areas.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Issues dealt with. Let me know about prose problems, though you might want to tell me on my talk page, just so we don't end up swamping this one. Serendipodous 16:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if someone went over the lead; I'm finding it very difficult to put Uranus's axial tilt and the orbits of its moons and rings into words. Serendipodous 18:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
OK I made the last two tweaks myself as they were straightforward. I feel it passes now, though the prose would need a further going over for a proper tilt at FA.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


Peer reviewed sources

I found only three of them and they are not formated propely. I think it's important not to forget that they are the most reliable. They are also primary sources in a sense that all other references are ultimately based on them. Ruslik 08:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've got my hands full with Kuiper belt at the moment. Could you do it? Serendipodous 13:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to add ~20 of them in a few days. Ruslik 13:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Direct vs. Retrograde

Should the article contain some discussion about whether the rotation of Uranus is direct/prograde with a tilt of ~98 degrees or retrograde with a ~82 degree tilt, and perhaps how that would relate to the ambiguity about which pole is North? Contrast with Venus, which everyone agrees has retrograde rotation, not a 180 degree tilt. 76.5.27.25 21:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC) Fwiffo

It does, right below the solstice table. Serendipodous 05:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Recognition of Uranus as a planet

The article says:

"Although ... Uranus is visible to the naked eye ...its small angular diameter (between 3.4 and 3.7 arcseconds, compared with between roughly 16-20 arcseconds for Saturn and 32 and 45 arcseconds for Jupiter[1]) and slow motion across the sky meant that it was never recognised as a planet by ancient observers."

This implies that the five classical planets were recognised as planets at least partly because a visible disk was noticed. Is this really true? I would have thought brightness and motion relative to the stars were the only necessary criteria. Putting it another way, if Uranus were somehow much brighter and moved much faster, while retaining the same apparent size, then it would have been recognised as a planet in ancient times along with the others, wouldn't it? Matt 19:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC).

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the planets twinkle less than the stars because they have a disk, rather than being essentially a point source. In terms of resolving a disk, however, the classical test of excellent vision was to resolve the Mizar/Alcor pair. These are separated by 12 arc-minutes.[9] By comparison, Jupiter has a maximum disk of about 47 arc-seconds. — RJH (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This entire paragraph is uncited

Lalande's proposed name of Herschel was readily adopted by French astronomers. Prosperin, of Uppsala, proposed the names Astraea, Cybele, (now the names of asteroids) and Neptune (which would become the name of the next planet to be discovered). Lexell, of St. Petersburg, compromised with George III's Neptune and Great-Britain's Neptune. Bernoulli, from Berlin, suggested Hypercronius and Transaturnis. Lichtenberg, from Göttingen, chimed in with Austräa, a goddess mentioned by Ovid (but who is traditionally associated with Virgo). The name Minerva was also proposed.

This sentence too is uncited:

Examination of earliest issues of Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society from 1827 shows that the name Uranus was already the most common name used even by British astronomers by then, and probably earlier.

and the Indian comment still has no source:

while in India it is named Aruna (Devanāgarī अरुण), the charioteer of the sun god Surya in Hindu mythology

A lot of interesting material, but where did it come from? If anyone can come up with proper citations for this info, I'd appreciate it. Serendipodous 15:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixlmillner

This info is partially cited, but its source [10] doesn't back up its claims:

The name Uranus was in use in Germany at least as far back as 1791, however.

Maximilian Hell followed suit by using it in the first ephemeris, published in Vienna and computed by the Benedictine priest Placidus Fixlmillner.

About the only concrete information in that page is that Placidus Fixliliner was the first to calculate an ephemeris for Uranus, though it doesn't say when.

EDIT: OK. Found this page in Google translation that sets a date of 1787. Will replace the 1792 date unless someone can show that Fixliliner was wrong. [11] Serendipodous 17:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

alchemy

OK, I may need to backtrack a bit from my comment in the history. Uranus's astronomical symbol does appear to be an alchemical symbol for platinum, but in 70 Google hits I have found only two references to it as such, and both place it next to its more common symbol. Neither was particularly illuminating, and neither said where their sources came from (they could have got their info from here, after all) so I think it's best for now to leave it out until a definitive source can be located. Serendipodous 11:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Core temp

One proposed explanation for this dearth of cloud features is that Uranus's internal heat is lower than that of Jupiter and Saturn; in astronomical terms, it has a low thermal flux. Both Jupiter and Saturn radiate more energy than they receive from the Sun. This causes many powerful convection currents to form in the atmosphere. On Uranus that heat source is much lower; roughly 7000 K[2] compared to 24 000 K at Jupiter's core[3] and 12000 K at Saturn.[4] The convection currents formed in the Uranian atmosphere are not as strong and hence it lacks the atmosphere banding of the other gas giants.

This paragraph seems to contradict the rest of the section. If no one is entirely sure why Uranus's heat emissions are so low (whether it be due to a genuinely cold core or to some form of insulation), I'm not sure how one could arrive at a single authoritative figure for Uranus's core temperature. Serendipodous 16:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Keck images

As I know Keck observatory is strictly speeking not a part of NASA, therefore the copyright tag claiming otherwise is wrong and should changed to smth more appropriate. Ruslik 09:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If they aren't NASA, then they aren't public, so they'd have to be taken down. If there's another option, I'd take it. Serendipodous 09:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
They are public. Please, visit [12]. However credits are different. Ruslik 10:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I probably erred here so I replaced the image. Ruslik 12:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Core mass

Ruslik, are you sure that Uranus's core is only 0.55 Earth masses? That seems remarkably low. Serendipodous 11:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Radius of the core is less than 1/5 of the planet, therefore volume is less than 1/125. Density of the core is 6 times higher than the average density. So the mass is normal and both refs 41 and 43 agree on this model. Ruslik 12:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

bar/bars

We need to make sure which is the standard plural to use for that unit. Serendipodous 11:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think 'bar' is correct form. Ruslik 07:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"Fourth of July fireworks"

Serendipodous, I think the apropriate place for this paragraph is a climate section, and I did not delete it yesterday but moved. Today I noticed that you reinstated it in the 'Seasonal variation' subsection. So I deleted its duplicate from the climate section. However I continue to think that it should be moved to climate section. Ruslik 07:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice it there. But I think it belongs in seasonal variation, first because the picture in "seasonal variation" relates to it directly and second, because it is about climactic change with the seasons, whereas the "climate" section is more general. Serendipodous 08:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Which two spectral bands?

What compound do they represent? Serendipodous 11:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

They don't correspond to exactly any compound. They simply chose two filters: one centered at 550 nm (y or yellow) and the second centered at 470 nm (b or blue). Both have width around 30 nm. However the yellow filter includes a part of the methane absorption band at 543 nm. Ruslik 12:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

End of major expansion

I have just finished expanding the article. So now the main problem is copy-edit and figures. I will probably add a couple of graphs. In addition some images can be removed. For example, one of two HST images showing rings and bands. Ruslik 10:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

moons orbits

do uranus's moons orbit uranus the way uranus rotates or not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.206.77.234 (talk) 20:32, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

All the large moons in the Solar System rotate prograde, except Triton. Serendipodous 08:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
This question is answered in the infoboxes: if orbital inclinations are less than 90° (actually close to zero for inner moons), the satellites orbits are prograde. Ruslik 13:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I just want to remind everyone

that this page was semi-protected to stop the jokes, and now that the protection has been removed, the jokes have come back. So we need to come to some sort of agreement as to whether we want to spend the rest of eternity reverting the jokes, or whether we should re-instate semi-protection. Serendipodous 10:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Why was it removed? Looks like asking for trouble. Didn't take them long to start up the, let's call them "jokes", again. It should be re-semi-protected. Deuar 22:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

About one paragraph

I think the first paragraph in 'Physical characteristics' section should be deleted or moved into 'Exploration' section. It actually provides a short summary of exploration. Ruslik 13:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it. It just repeats the info in the exploration section. I also deleted the added paragraphs to exploration; they don't actually refer to exploration, and simply repeats information found elsewhere in the article. Serendipodous 18:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Infobox parameters format

I have restored, with some distaste, the arguably spurious quantities like semiminor axis, spurious conversions to imperial units, and pecuiliar spacing of digits to the orbital quantities in the infobox. If this were an isolated article I would gleefully agree with their removal, but removing them and changing the formatting breaks consistency with the infoboxes for the rest of the planets. Imho, keeping consistency and easy comparability between them is a more important issue. If we want to let's bring it up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects, and/or do it for all the planets in one fell swoop. Deuar 22:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Proper Pronunciation is no Joke

The pronunciation is given as "your anus".

Ask any astronomer, and they will tell you the planet's name is "YOOR-e-nes". Hell, even the Discovery Channel gets it right!

Promoting the "your anus" joke in no way discourages further jokes.

August 27, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.197.117.47 (talk) 16:37, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I agree that that is how it should be pronounced, but the alternate pronunciation has become so common that it can't really be discounted anymore. Besides, "YOOR-uh-nus" sounds like "urine-ous", which isn't much better. Serendipodous 16:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Both pronunciations have been in use for a long time. Both are listed in the OED, which was published in, what, 1910? So it isn't even a matter of it being discounted 'any more'. kwami 05:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarification needed

  • In orbit and rotation we had:
Its orbital elements were calculated in 1783 by Pierre-Simon Laplace and its orbit was calculated in 1787 by Placidus Fixlmillner.
However, calculating the orbital elements is exactly the same as calculating "the orbit". What's special about the work of Fixlmillner in comparison to the umpteen other orbit calculations since Laplace? The references are of no immediate help, since the first has only the preface online (which doesn't reach the 1700's), while the second is in german. Deuar 17:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Fixlmillner doesn't really need to be there, I suppose; the only thing special about him was that he calculated the orbit used in Uranus's first ephemeris, published by Maximillian Hell. Unfortunately, I can't find any citable info that describes Maximillian Hell as the man who came up with Uranus's first ephemeris, so it's better if he's left out. I'll try and rework the link to Forbes's History so that it links to the right chapter. EDIT: OK, it links directly to it now. Serendipodous 17:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Next question in "Structure and composition": in the standard model of the interior, is the core solid or liquid? Liquid seems to be implied by the "no solid surface" statement, but this is never spelled out explicitly.

Deuar 11:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not known. However I can observe that under the pressure of 8 million bar it is difficult to speek about any solid surface. Ruslik 13:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The mixing ratio is much lower in the upper atmosphere due to its extremely low temperature.
Presumably because the saturation point is lowered and the excess freezes out and falls as snow? Is this right? Deuar 12:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is right. This explanaition is given in 'Atmosphere/Structure' subsection.Ruslik 13:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • An inconsistency (Atmosphere - Structure): First we have Ethane and acetylene tend to condense ... forming haze layers, which may be partly responsible for the bland appearance of Uranus. Then, later, it turns out that the haze is actually weaker than on the other planets, which should bring out the detail rather than obscure it: The concentration of hydrocarbons in the Uranian stratosphere is significantly lower than in the stratospheres of the other giant planets. This, ... makes it less opaque .... I'm guessing that the "which may be partly responsible for the bland appearance of Uranus." should go? Deuar 17:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    I don't see any contradiction. The mixing rations of hydrocarbons are lower, but haze is thicker, which means that more hydrocarbons are in solid phase and less in gaseous. In addition haze particles on Uranus seem to be have higher absorption than, for instance, on Neptune. Ruslik 18:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    So, stratosphere is transparent, and haze layers are in the lowest part of stratosphere and in the tropopause, below the layer, where gaseous hydrocarbons are concentrated. Ruslik 19:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    thinking... ah, yes I probably get it. Will clarify the passage to prevent others getting the same confusion as me. Deuar 19:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

can someone please semi-protect this article again?

Seeing the reverted anus jokes is getting tedious. Serendipodous 18:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Atmosphere of Uranus

I think the Atmosphere section is detailed enough to become its own article. I'm not sure an article on Uranus needs to go into so much detail. Serendipodous 17:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds right. Most of the other major sections have their own articles, and the page is getting kind-of long. Deuar 18:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
In fact, it is not so long as it could be. I omitted lots of details. I think it is better to keep it in the main article for now. Ruslik 19:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
However a separate article can be created with possible future expansion in mind. Ruslik 19:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think anything below "composition" is really needed for the atmosphere in this article. The rest could easily form a separate article that could link here. But I'm not entirely sure what the conventions are for dealing with planets. All I know is thatno other planetary article has as much information as this, and, besides Neptune, they're all featured. Serendipodous 20:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure there is any convention. Other article lack this information, because it is harder to find. I, personally, was dissatisfied by the lack of information regarding the structure of atmospheres, which made me eventually write about it myself. However, I want to note, the article about Earth contains structural information in the main text, and by writing about Uranus I wanted to extend this standard to all planetary articles.Ruslik 15:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Created subarticle. Also had an attempt at a shorter atmosphere subsection. Let me know what you think: Talk:Uranus/atmosphere Serendipodous 14:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I will read it. Ruslik 15:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I have read it. You do like composition more than structure. However the last paragraph hangs in the air. It mentions tropopause and stratosphere without explaining their meaning in the case of Uranus. It also mentions acetylene and ethane without providing information about their origin and mixing ratios. In addition the first paragraph mentions 'coronal gases' without defining corona. Besides some content further in the article is anchored to the atmospheric section.Ruslik 15:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I modelled it on the other featured articles. (see Saturn#Cloud layers, Venus#Atmosphere, Mars#Atmosphere). I don't think we need to go into such detail on the finer structure of the atmosphere in an introductory article. Such information is better off in a separate article on the atmosphere. Serendipodous 16:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I actually made some changes in the atmospheric section and removed one figure, because it was too technical. This figure is now in the Atmosphere of Uranus. As to the text you wrote I think it can (with some corrections) serve as a leading section in this article. Ruslik 16:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

mixing ratio

A question probably for Ruslik, who looks to be well versed in this: in the abstract of Lindal 1987 one has the following statement: "... also to contain small amounts of CH4 at ... below-cloud mixing ratio 2.3 percent by number density." Does mixing ratio always compare to hydrogen, or could it be in proportion to the rest of the atmosphere? The journal is not online :( Deuar 23:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The value for helium (0.15) is a molar fraction in pure H-He mixture. In other words, assuming that only H and He are present every 100 moleculars of gas contain 85 hydrogen moleculars and 15 helium. The mixing ration for helium relative to hydrogen is 15/85≈0.18. As I noticed molar fraction is usually used for helium and mixing rations relative to hydrogen for other gases. I can't remember what Lindal et.al meant for methane, but I can look into a hard copy of this article tomorrow. Assuming that 2.3 is mixing ratio and adding this ammount to the mixture leads to an adjustment of molar fractions of H and He. Roughly they should be decreased by 2 %. So for hydrogen we have 83.3≈83 and for helium 14.7≈15. Ruslik 06:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I looked into Lindal et.al and found that 2.3 % is actually a molar fraction, not mixing ratio relative to hydrogen. The phrase in the abstract is inaccurate. Ruslik 19:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for looking it up. I'll fix the values in the infobox and text. Deuar 22:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Atmosphere and Climate

The Climate section appears to contain much material that looks like it could just as well be in the "Atmosphere" section - discussion of global clouds, temperatures, energy balance even (this should go in the "internal structure" section, perhaps). It seems a bit messy at first glance, especially considering Rings and Magnetosphere intervenes between the two sections. Was there a rationale according to which one sort of information made it into Atmosphere and others into Climate? Deuar 21:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well the atmosphere section discusses its composition and structure, the "Climate" section deals with dynamics, heat transfer, and movement. They could possibly be merged, but then the atmosphere section would balloon again. I think maybe a single paragraph on the blandness of the atmosphere and a single paragraph on the seasonal variation might be sufficient, with the rest going into the atmosphere article. However, I think that if it is included, the atmosphere section should be trimmed even more, since it is already three sections long. I still think that cloud features/seasonal variation are more important than structure, and that if we do merge the two sections, then the structure should go. I'll do a revision, and you tell me what you think.

Talk:Uranus/climate subpage

(I've also copied the Climate section into the atmosphere article)

I really don't think that detailed discussion of the structure is necessary with the Atmosphere of Uranus article now dealing with that. This article mentions that Uranus's atmosphere consists of a troposphere, a stratosphere and a thermosphere and where they are, and that's all it needs to do. The atmosphere article can do the rest. Serendipodous 05:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Be cautious with references. Ruslik 12:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, actually I don't really see the need to trim the atmosphere section any more in comparison to what is in the main article. For instance we have the article going on and on for pages about all the minor details of discovery and naming, and that isn't seen as a problem. After all the atmosphere and clouds account for most of what can be seen on Uranus, and for all the changes that can be seen during a human lifetime. Maybe they deserve a fair amount of treatment. Moving the old "climate" into "atmosphere" and shortening of that section is good, though. For the present length of that section we should, however, mention the South polar hood somewhere. The heat transfer discussion doesn't really seem to fit here either - maybe it should go into "Structure and composition"? Deuar 22:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't really know what to do. I don't like the current format, which was mandated by GA reviewers because it matched the format of other featured planet articles. I don't see why "atmosphere", "magnetic field," and "structure and composition" have to all be subsections, especially when the atmosphere section is so huge. That's why I split off the climate section; to avoid the Characteristics section becoming an atmosphere section with bits dangling off it. Serendipodous 07:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the best solution is to finish copy-edit and go to FAC. If somebody opposes on the basis of the length of a section or because there is a separate climate section, it is always possible to trim and to merge. Triming is much easier than lengthening. However, as I noticed opposition is more likely to be based on commas, dashes etc. Ruslik 17:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh. ... looks like there's a little problem here.

Someone reaaaaaalllllly has some time on their hands. Every reference to the proper name Uranus has been changed to, well, you've seen it.

Sorry. I don't know how to use wikipedia well enough to inform those that should know.

Naming

"The name Georgium Sidus or "the Georgian" was still used infrequently" Is it? I have never heard it called this. Unless someone can come up with a reference this should be removed. Mtpaley (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've revised the phrasing to make it clearer. Serendipodous 23:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

About the Moon Names

Article says the moon names were taken from Shakespeare & Alexander Pope -- incorrect. These names as listed were indeed present in Midsummer Night, but they're names from the Fairy Queen "universe" of fables, which predate Shakespeare. It should say the names come from Medieval fairy romances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.118.190 (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That could be said about the large moons, but not about the smaller moons, which are drawn exclusively from Shakespeare. Serendipodous 02:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation, again

I've moved this here:-
"The stressed syllable in the name Uranus is properly the first, because the penultimate vowel a is short (ūrănŭs) and in an open syllable. Such syllables are never stressed in Latin.[5] The historically correct pronunciation of the name by English speakers is therefore [ˈjʊ.rə.nəs]. The historically incorrect pronunciation, [jʊˈɹeɪ.nəs], with stress on the second syllable and a "long a" (ūrānŭs) has become very common."
First, it’s superfluous:

  • the IPA pronunciation is at the top of the page/ in the first sentence
  • there is a lengthy discussion on the talk page about it; if you feel it’s important, why not footnote a link to that?
  • this is just digging a bigger hole for yourself.

Second, it's dubious;

  • “ the stressed syllable...” : You’re saying the Romans said “urinous”? That will take a bit of proving! In all the Latin words I can think of , the “u” is sounded “oo”; it’s only the Brits (and Americans) that sound it as “you”.
  • “historically correct...” ; were does that come from? No-one said “urinous” before 1985, when the media woke up to Voyager arriving; no-one wanted to talk about “the probe to Uranus”, or “the ring around Uranus”, or whatever.
  • “historically incorrect...” : again,who says? It was always “you rain us” when I was at school.The adjective Uranian isn’t said “your onion”; The element Uranium isn’t “yer-un-yum”: So why?

So you have three choices:-

  • “oo-rahn-us”, which is correct, but sounds pretentious, and a bit odd.
  • ”you-rain-us”, which is familiar, but sounds vulgar, so it’s a cheap source of humour.
  • “urinous”, which is even less correct, and just as bad.

And I don't think there's any room to pontificate about it. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Some valid points; a lot of baloney.

  • Discussing the proper pronunciation of names with contested pronunciations is common Wiki practice
  • Linking to talk pages is completely against Wikipedia guidelines. They are neither fixed nor authoritative.
  • There is no fixed standard for pronuncing Latin in the modern context. Every language does it differently. But the stresses are the same
  • Are you seriously suggesting that, in the 204 years between 1781 and 1985, NO-ONE pronounced "Uranus" in the Latinate form? Even when Latin was still a required subject in schools?
  • By your logic, we would pronounce "maniac" "muh-NY-ac" and "miscellany" "miss-ul-AY-nee"


Here's a source. The Oxford BBC Guide to pronunciation lists "YOO-ra-nus" (NOT "urinous") as the pronunciation "preferred by astronomers." Serendipodous 15:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Baloney? why, thank you!

Your points:-

.a) I’ve no objection to discussing pronunciation: my objection was to having a paragraph laying down the law on a point that is at least debateable.

.b) I didn’t know links to talk pages were wrong, so I withdraw that suggestion; though I would have thought indicating there was a discussion on a subject would be a good thing.

.d) I am suggesting that when I did Latin at school I never heard anyone say “urinous”, which I think I would have remembered; which takes us to .c), there isn’t a fixed standard for pronouncing Latin. And, it begs the question that “urinous” is the Latinate form. And anyway, why Latin? It’s a Greek name. If the Romans did say “urinous” then that itself is a mis-pronunciation.

. e) “maniac” is said that way, in “maniacal”; and “miscellany” when it’s “miscellaneous”; I’m not sure what point you’re making, there.

And (f), Yes, I know YOO-ra-nus is preferred by astronomers, (though it still sounds like urinous); but how long has that been the case? Before Voyager? I know when I say “you-rain-us”, I get told “you mean urinous”; Well actually I mean oo-rahn-us, but if I said that I’d just get a funny look. Moonraker12 (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

e) You said that Yoo-RAY-nus was a valid pronunciation because it echoed "Uranium" and "Uranian". I was saying that if you followed that logic to its conclusion, "maniac" would be pronounced "muh-ny-ac" because it echoed "maniacal" and "miscellany" be pronounced "miss-ul-AY-nee" because it echoed "miscellaneous". 18:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serendipodous (talkcontribs)
Ah! With you;
To return to the beginning, though,I notice that now the IPA details have disappeared; Is it worth re-instating them, putting in a footnote with that source you mentioned, and saying YOO-rah-nus is the pronunciation is preferred by astronomers? Would that resolve this? I can give it a go, if you want. Moonraker12 (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Reinstated. IT would be better to discuss the issue in the page, rather than in a note. Serendipodous 03:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I see you’ve put the paragraph back in; it’s better than it was, but this:-
“The preferred pronunciation of the name Uranus among astronomers is (ūrănŭs),< > with the first syllable stressed, because the penultimate vowel a is short and in an open syllable, and such syllables are never stressed in Latin”
is still implying that YOO-rah-nus is the way it’s pronounced in Latin, which I’d dispute, because the “u” is wrong; it would be OO-rah-nus, or UHR-an-us, if anything:
And this:-
“The alternate pronunciation, [jʊˈɹeɪ.nəs], with stress on the second syllable and a "long a" (ūrānŭs) has become very common, however"
skates over the point that most of the English-speaking world says it that way. Moonraker12 (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
As regards your first point, the sentence gives the rationale for the preferred pronunciation, and I don't think it needs to go any further. As regards your second, how do you know that most of the English speaking world says it that way? Have you done a survey? Serendipodous 20:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, you miss my point.
This : “…with the first syllable stressed, because the penultimate vowel a is short and in an open syllable, and such syllables are never stressed in Latin.” is a non sequiter; even if it is correct, "YOO-ran-us" still wouldn’t be the Latin pronunciation because the “u” is wrong.
And yes, I have done a survey, of sorts: I’ve just asked around the room, and 5 out of 5 people said "you-RAYN-us", though one had heard of "YOO-ran-us" when prompted.
So I’ve changed it to something more exact. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


This whole pronunciation issue occurs on every astronomy page, with different conclusions. On the Enceladus talk page, astronomers prefer the English pronunciation over the classical, because
ενκέλαδος is a Greek word but enceladus is definitely an English word, and is pronounced [ɛnˈsɛlədəs] according to the rules of English orthography”,
And
“Wikipedia should not be prescriptive, but descriptive. We have no business telling people what is correct and incorrect”
Sauce for the goose? Moonraker12 (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

As a coauthor of this article I want to make several points:

1) Wikipedia (at least its part related to Natural Sciences) is a scientific encyclopedia, which means that the pronunciation that is common among astronomers should be treated as the main variant.

2) What public actually says is irrelevant and deserves only a brief mentioning. In addition there is no reliable sources that can be cited to support any statement regarding public prefererences. I think nobody has ever conducted any (published) research into this issue. So I replaced 'colloquially' with 'often'.

3) This issue is actually not very important from the scientific point of view especially for non-native speakers. In other languages pronunciation can be completelly different. In Russian the planet is pronounced [u'ran] (spelled: Уран). Element uranium is spelled and pronounced exactly the same as the planet.

I actually want to stop any further tinkering with this page. The current edition is a reasonable description of the pronunciation and I do not want any wars at this page. Ruslik (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's fair enough.
You "want to stop any further tinkering with the page"; ambitious, given the nature of WP, but no, I’m not looking for an edit war either, and yes, the paragraph covers the point well enough as it is. Moonraker12 (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
PS: "Уран"? Really? Not "Юран"? And uranium is "Ураниум"? It really is only the English who have this problem, isn't it? Moonraker12 (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Uranium in russian is spelled Уран and is pronounced as [u'ran]—exactly the same as the planet. The meaning depends on context. Ruslik (talk) 07:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Enormous argument aside, I see an inconsistency here: "with the first syllable stressed and a short a (ūrănŭs)." This shows the second syllable accented, unless my interpretation is quite off. Yet when I changed the boldface to the first syllable to match the text, it was quickly reverted. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to explain why the second syllable is bolded while the first is stressed, according to the preceding description. If the boldness was only meant to draw the distinction between the long and short a's, then accent marks are required, especially since the text describes not one but two differences in the pronunciation. Otherwise many people will assume the bolded letter is the accented letter.

Well spotted. Looks like a mistake to me. Fixed. Serendipodous 09:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

I can't get this page to archive. The current archiving system makes no sense. How is it done? Serendipodous 01:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference ephemeris was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "The Seventh Planet". Retrieved 2007-06-13. 
  3. ^ Peter J. Gierasch and Philip D. Nicholson (2004). "WorldBook at NASA: Jupiter". Retrieved 2007-06-14. 
  4. ^ "A Gas Giant with Super-Fast Winds". 2004. Retrieved 2007-06-14. 
  5. ^ James Morwood, ed. (2005). Pocket Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford University Press. pp. 7–8.