User talk:Exoplanetaryscience/2015

L.A. event on Tuesday, January 20

Wik-Ed Women editing session (1/20, 6-10pm)

Dear fellow Wikipedian, Please join us at an event this coming Tuesday: the third Wik-Ed Women editing session will take place on January 20 from 6pm to 10pm at the Los Angeles Contemporary Archive downtown. This series of informal get-togethers is designed to encourage Los Angeles women-in-the-arts (though all are welcome!) to contribute their expertise to Wikipedia, specifically expanding content about women artists. Please RSVP here if you plan to attend. I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

GA Cup - The Finals

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 5/Final GA Cup competitors and observers: Get ready, we're about to move into the finals of the inaugural GA Cup! Not nearly as important as another competition taking place this weekend, but significant none the less. No deflated footballs here, though! Thursday saw the end of Round 4. Out of the 8 contestants in the semi-finals, 5 have moved to the finals. The semi-finals continued to be very competitive. The highest scorer overall was Ritchie333 from Pool B, with an impressive 488 points and a total of 36 articles reviewed, the most of any competitor; close behind was Jaguar (last round's wildcard), with 477 points and 29 reviews. At times, the competition between them was a real horse-race, and exciting for the judges to witness. Both Ritchie333 and Jaguar have moved onto the finals. In Pool A, Good888 with 294 points, and Wizardman with 179 also won slots in the final. 3family6 with 285 points, won the wildcard slot. We also had one withdrawal, due to outside-of-Wikipedia priorities. Congrats to all! Although there were just 8 competitors, more reviews were conducted this round than in any other round—148, which demonstrates the commitment and enthusiasm of our participants. The most successful competitors, like in all previous rounds, reviewed articles that languished in the queue at GAC for at least five months (worth 18 points). The Boat Race articles were popular review choices again, with almost 20% of the articles reviewed this month. In other news, we received another report from GA statistics page maintainer User:AmericanLemming. See here [1] for his take on the effect the GA Cup has had on Good Article reviews. He believes that we've made a real difference. AmericanLemming says: "As you can see, ...the GA Cup has done wonders when it comes to getting the oldest nominations reviewed much sooner thanks to the system whereby you get the most points for reviewing the oldest articles." Everyone involved with this competition, especially the competitors, should be very proud of what we've been able to accomplish! The Final will start on February 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on February 26 at 23:59:59 UTC with a winner being crowned. Information about the Final can be found here. Good luck to all our finalists! Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Exomoon list

Don't you think it is a good idea to add references to the items? Tetra quark ^(talk) 17:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

LA edit-a-thons on February 14, 17, and 21

Redondo Loves Wikipedia (2/14), Wik-Ed Women (2/17), and Unforgetting LA at the Getty (2/21)!

Dear fellow Wikipedian, The LA Wikipedia community has three events in mid-February -- please consider attending! First, we have a Valentine's Day edit-a-thon appropriately named Redondo Loves Wikipedia, which will take place at the Redondo Beach Public Library from 10am to 1pm on Saturday, February 14. Join library staff, the Redondo Beach Historical Society, and others to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of Redondo Beach! Second, we have a Wik-Ed Women editing session on Tuesday, February 17 from 6pm to 10pm at the Los Angeles Contemporary Archive downtown. This series of informal get-togethers is designed to encourage Los Angeles women-in-the-arts (though all are welcome!) to contribute their expertise to Wikipedia, specifically expanding content about women artists. Third, we have an Unforgetting LA event put on by East of Borneo in collaboration with the Getty Research Institute. Come help improve Wikipedia's coverage of LA design and architecture, and have an awesome free day at the museum -- parking will be validated for edit-a-thon participants! If you'd like to use particular books from GRI's great collection, be sure to email before 2/13 (instructions at event page). And be sure to check out our main meetup page, because we already have three SoCal events scheduled for early March! I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

GA Cup Feedback Form

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Feedback Greetings, all! 4 months ago the GA Cup began and now as it comes to a close, it's time to start thinking about the next competition! Below is a link to a Google Form with several questions. We want to here from you what you thought about the GA Cup. Just over half of the questions are required while the others are optional. If you don't want to answer one of the optional questions, feel free to skip it. Your responses will only be visible to the three judges. Thank-you to all particpants for making the first GA Cup a success and we hope to see you all come out again for the next competition! 2014-15 GA Cup Feedback Form Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

List of Periodic Comets

I'm puzzled about why you deleted all the early periodic comets from the list. Was it deliberate or accidental? plucas58 on 22 Feb 2015

I made a separate list List of numbered comets for the list of numbered comets, rather than periodic comets. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

OK. I have created a few links to the new list to raise awareness.Plucas58 (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

2014-2015 GA Cup Wrap-Up

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Finals/Wrap-Up The inaugural GA Cup is now over! The competition officially ended Thursday. Congrats to everyone who participated, and especially to our finalists. The winner of the 2014/2015 GA Cup is Jaguar! He earned an impressive 615 points, despite only being a wildcard in the Round 4. The key to Jaguar's success seemed to be reviewing lots of articles as well as reviewer the oldest nominations; he reviewed 39 nominations in this round. Overall, the key to everyone's success was reviewing articles that had been in the queue for at least three months, which was true throughout the competition. In second place was Wizardman, with 241 points, and following close behind in third place was Good888, with 211 points. Congrats! Although there were a couple of bumps along the way, the judges have thoroughly enjoyed managing this competition. We hope that the participants had fun as well. The GA Cup was a resounding success, and that's due to all of you. The judges sincerely thank each and every participant, and for the editors who were willing to subject their articles to this process. We learned a lot. For example, we learned that even with meticulous planning, it's impossible to anticipate every problem. We learned that the scoring system we set up wasn't always the most effective. The enthusiasm and motivation of Wikipedians is awesome, and we enjoyed watching what was sometimes fierce competition. We look forward to the second GA Cup later this year. We reached many of our goals. See here for GA Cup statistics. We made a big difference, especially in shortening the length of time articles spend in the queue, and in reducing the backlog. Overall, 578 nominations were reviewed throughout the competition and a total of 8,184 points were awarded. Everyone involved should be very proud of what we've accomplished through the GA Cup. Stay tuned for more information about our next competition. There will be some much-needed changes made in the scoring system next time. We appreciate your feedback, and commit to seriously consider it. If you haven't already, please fill out the feedback form here. If you're interested in being a judge in our second GA Cup, please let one of our judges know or click on the tab found in the feedback form. Again, thanks to all and congratulations to our winners! Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Tireless Contributor Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your tireless work in improving the categorization of Solar System bodies. JorisvS (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! exoplanetaryscience (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

LA edit-a-thons on March 18 (tomorrow!) and 28

Wadewitz memorial edit-a-thon (3/18), Redondo Loves Wikipedia (3/28)

Dear fellow Wikipedian, The LA Wikipedia community has two events in this second half of March -- please consider attending! First, there is a memorial edit-a-thon in honor of the prolific LA Wikipedian Adrianne Wadewitz, which is being held downtown on March 18 (tomorrow!) from noon to 8pm as a part of the American Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies' annual conference. Please drop by to contribute your own work or teach other users how to write for Wikipedia. Second, there will be an event at the Redondo Beach Public Library (following up on last month's session), in collaboration with the Redondo Beach Historical Society. Please join us from 10am to noon on Saturday, March 28 at the main branch of the Redondo Beach Public Library! I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015 DB216, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Perturbation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/2015 DB216 at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 09:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of 2015 DB216

Hello! Your submission of 2015 DB216 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! George Ho (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Luther, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Ferguson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

2014 YB35

Please provide a citation for the bit about the moon in that article. I was unable to find anything myself. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

[2] exoplanetaryscience (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Um, how is that a reliable source? He also doesn't cite where *he* got the information from. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I sent an email to the person who claimed the moon. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Update: He responded, cited sources: [3] [4] exoplanetaryscience (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit to PlanetObservation userbox

Shows how often I follow up on these things... anyway, I have reverted your edit to my planet observation userbox from nearly a year ago. Regarding your explanation for the edit that "you can't see earth :/", I recommend that you turn your gaze downwards. If you feel strongly that the Earth should not be counted as an observable planet, please feel free to use the graphic I created for it to make your own userbox rather than changing mine. Thanks! The Rev (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Removing AfD template

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with 1702 Kalahari. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Reverting Asteroid Redirects

When restoring the article for a previously redirected asteroid, just make sure you add referenced text to the body of each article supporting why it shouldn't be a redirect, so that it doesn't meet the established redirect-criteria. Thanks!   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  23:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me of that, it appears Rich Farmbrough has taken care of that for me in this case, but I'll try to remember that for later. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

These 56 asteroids are (mostly) missing the reference indicating that they're binary asteroids. A few just have Category:Binary asteroids yet don't mention it in the text (@Rich Farmbrough: in case you want to help).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  02:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• 854 Frostia^R
• 1313 Berna^R
• 1333 Cevenola^R
• 1727 Mette^R
• 2006 Polonskaya^R
• 2121 Sevastopol^R
• 2486 Metsähovi^{R, IB}
• 2577 Litva^R
• 2623 Zech^R
• 2691 Sersic^R
• 2754 Efimov^R
• 2815 Soma^R
• 3034 Climenhaga^R
• 3073 Kursk^R
• 3703 Volkonskaya^{R, IB}
• 3782 Celle^{R, IB}
• 3841 Dicicco^R
• 3868 Mendoza^R
• 3905 Doppler^R
• 3951 Zichichi^R
• 3982 Kastel^R
• 4383 Suruga^R
• 4492 Debussy^{R, IB}
• 4765 Wasserburg^R
• 4786 Tatianina^R
• 4951 Iwamoto^R
• 5474 Gingasen^R
• 5477 Holmes^{R, IB}
• 5481 Kiuchi^R
• 5899 Jedicke^R
• 5905 Johnson^R
• 6084 Bascom^R
• 6244 Okamoto^R
• (6265) 1985 TW3^{R, IB}
• 6615 Plutarchos^R
• 6708 Bobbievaile^R
• 7187 Isobe^R
• 7225 Huntress^R
• 7369 Gavrilin^R
• 7958 Leakey^R
• 8026 Johnmckay^{R, IB}
• 8116 Jeanperrin^R
• 8306 Shoko^R
• 8373 Stephengould^R
• 9069 Hovland^R
• 9260 Edwardolson^R
• 9617 Grahamchapman^{R, IB}
• 10208 Germanicus^{R, IB}
• 11264 Claudiomaccone^R
• 15268 Wendelinefroger^{R, IB}
• (15430) 1998 UR31^{R, IB}
• 16525 Shumarinaiko^R
• 26074 Carlwirtz^R
• (66391) 1999 KW4^R
• (175706) 1996 FG3^{R, IB}

I will attempt to work on these later today, and by the weekend will try to have an infobox with basic orbital information on all of the included asteroids. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

To help, I've marked the pages with a binary asteroid reference now in place with an "^R".   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  18:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Updated all with an "^R" now, and added "^IB" to 12 missing an infobox.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  14:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm also including infoboxes on the moons, including otherwise omitted data, such as their volume (assuming a spherical shape) maximum apparent separation (calculated using the parent body's MOID to Earth, and the distance of the moon from the primary), absolute magnitude (assuming the same albedo as the parent body, and when albedo is omitted/not calculated assuming an albedo from 0.05 to 0.3. Is there any objection to including the described values? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

No, no objection at all. Multiple-star systems have information separated by the total system and each of its constituents. But, an infobox does not a notable article make. If the article is teetering on notability, I would say it's better to include whatever notable information about it you can find.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  18:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of R136a1

Hello! Your submission of R136a1 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! David Eppstein (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Asteroids with no DefaultSort

Would you like a list of 1331 asteroids without a {{DefaultSort}}, so that you may expertly sort them in the future?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  22:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, that would be useful. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

FYU ~ User:Exoplanetaryscience/List of asteroids with no defaultsort.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  01:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 GA Cup

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 2nd GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Our inaugural competition, which ran from October 2014 to April 2015, was such a resounding success that we'd like to do it again. Currently, there are over 500 GANs ready to be reviewed; competitors in the previous GA Cup reviewed about 570 GAs, so we can again make a huge impact in helping editors improve articles in Wikipedia and decrease the traditionally long queue at GAN. The 2nd GA Cup will begin on July 1, 2015. As last time, five rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on November 28, 2015), but this may change based on participant numbers. The judges learned a lot during the 1st GA Cup which exposed weaknesses in its system. Using both the feedback from last year's participants and the weaknesses discovered, we've revised the scoring system to make it more fair. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same. We also are introducing three new judges: 3family6, Jaguar and MrWooHoo. So in total, there will be six judges. We hope this will allow the competition to run more smoothly. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on July 15, 2015. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Dom497, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo, and TheQ Editor.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

5th Annual Wiknic

5th Annual Wiknic (Saturday, July 11, 2015, ~9:30am-4pm)

Dear fellow Wikipedian, You are cordinally invited to the fifth annual Los Angeles Wiknic! The Wiknic is a part of the nationwide Great American Wiknic. We'll be grilling, getting to know each other better, and building the L.A. Wikipedia community! The event is tentatively planned for Pan-Pacific Park (map) and will be held on Saturday, July 11, 2014 from 9:30am to 4pm or so. Please RSVP and volunteer to bring food or drinks if possible! I hope to see you there! Howcheng (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Percentages in 2011 QF99

What is "64% (0.256%)", as used in 2011 QF99, supposed to mean? --JorisvS (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It was specified earlier that 0.4% of centaurs would become Uranus co-orbitals, and as the percentage is further broken down I thought it would be useful to specify the percentage of the originally specified population of centaurs. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

VNH0004

VNH0004 has been renamed 2011 KW48. What reference do you have for that? Regards.--Io Herodotus (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I looked for trans-neptunian objects discovered in late may 2011 and with similar orbital elements. The identification is certain because this website lists observations of the object, and the minor planet center has the same observations from the same observatories. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. We still don't know if New Horizons took any picture of it. Regards. --Io Herodotus (talk) 12:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikinic rescheduled

5th Annual Wiknic rescheduled to Saturday, July 25, 2015, ~9:30am-4pm

Due to a conflict with the Redondo Loves Wikipedia edit-a-thon, the fifth annual Los Angeles Wiknic has been rescheduled. As before, the location will be at Pan-Pacific Park (map) and will be held on Saturday, July 25, 2015 from 9:30am to 4pm or so. Please RSVP and volunteer to bring food or drinks if possible! I hope to see you there! —howcheng {chat} - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Barnstar for you!

		The Current Events Barnstar
		Barnstar for keeping the New Horizons and Pluto articles as up to date as possible. Well done!!! --LL221W (talk) 05:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! It's funny thinking a probe spent nearly 10 years traveling to Pluto, and yet all of its primary science objectives and one-chance observations needed to be carried out in a period of only a couple of hours. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 05:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Anyways it is still the first and only spacecraft to visit Pluto. It will collect a lot of valuable information. We might need to update the article again in a few years when the spacecraft visits the Kuiper Belt object. LOL! --LL221W (talk) 08:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of geological features on 21 Lutetia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Regio. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I have just taken the very unusual action of editing your user page directly. I had to remove the transclusion of the Wikipedia Sandbox as it was causing confusion at the Articles for Creation project. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Kepler-452b

Hey, I'm not going to question your revert or anything, but it is bad practice to just revert a non-vandal edit with no reason given whatsoever. What reason does that IP have to not just revert your revert when you haven't provided reasoning. That's all I've really got to say. Regard, Dustin (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for that. My reasoning is that it's typical to use DMY dates on articles, because it makes more sense than MDY dates. Personally I would prefer if YMD dates were used, but the English wikipedia is not simply for Americans, but also any countries that speak English, including its namesake, England, which uses DMY dates. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia is not just for everybody else either, and it was discovered by the United States. As I said before, I am not suggesting any changes to format (at least not now), and you don't see us using DMY in every article on Wikipedia to cater to the majority, do you? Also, I disagree with your statement that MDY does not make sense; the year is usually not going to be used, so most of the time, it will just be Month-Day (identical to YMD), but when it is used, the year is simply added following a comma which offsets it. I understand that commas can simply indicate a pause, but I would rather interpret it as that thing where a comma is used to offset something moved from the beginning (like a book title, The First Book which when sorted becomes First Book, The). My greatest issue is with using Day-Month more than anything else, and if YMD is completely off-limits, MDY is the only Month-Day format left. Plus, if YMD is the ISO standard, why is it not being used? This is one the greatest annoyances I have experienced on Wikipedia, things like China using YMD but having its article in DMY. All formats can make sense to the user, but my deal is which ones are more logical (YMD in all cases; MDY partly because it maintains month-day and is more similar to YMD). Sorry I have added too much text. I doubt this is getting anywhere at this point... Dustin (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Kepler-452b solar planet distances

Hello! Would you please reconsider your reverting of my exoplanet distances to zero? You're correct that the actual distances vary by up to .000032 light-years due to solar orbital conjunction versus opposition. (So for example, Mars is betweeen 0.000008 and 0.000040 light-years from Earth.) I chose to list the minimum distances, when the planets are at opposition. I suggest this is not pointless because the purpose of the column is to give some idea "how far away it is" e.g. for interplanetary travel. So the closest distance is a little more meaningful in that context. (And a range of distances would be even more bulky for this otherwise lean column.) The other reason it's not pointless is that here we have an unusual opportunity to represent some of the hugeness of the comparison with actual numbers: 0.000008 light-years to Mars versus 1400 light-years to Kepler-452b. Travel to this "new" exoplanet would be almost nine orders of magnitude farther than to Mars. And we have some historical understanding of how far away Mars is!

I'd like to change these back to nonzero distances. I think it gives some scale to the fascinating question of how far away these exoplanets really are. Your thoughts? Bob Stein - VisiBone (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this, but perhaps it would be useful to mention that the distances are simply the minimum, or even list the range of distances, because it wasn't clear that the distances weren't simply the provided distances from Earth at the time. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

2015 GA Cup - Round 2

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 2 Greetings, GA Cup competitors! Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. The Rambling Man, who was eliminated during the first round in our last competition, earned an impressive 513 points, reviewed twice as many articles (26) as any other competitor. It was a tight race for second for first-time competitors BenLinus1214 and Tomandjerry211, who finished second and third with 243 and 224 points, respectively. Close behind was Wugapodes, who earned 205 points. The change in our points system had an impact on scoring. It was easier to earn higher points, although the key to success didn't change from last time, which was choosing articles with older nomination dates. For example, most of the articles The Rambling Man reviewed were worth 18 points in the nomination date category, and he benefited from it. BenLinus1214 reviewed the longest article, A Simple Plan (at 26,536 characters, or 4,477 words), the 1994 film starring Bill Paxton, Billy Bob Thornton, and Bridget Fonda and directed by Sam Raimi, and earned all possible 5 points in that category. After feedback from our participants, the judges slightly changed the rule about review length this time out. Shorter reviews are now allowed, as long as reviewers give nominators an opportunity to address their feedback. Shorter reviews are subject to the judges' discretion; the judges will continue their diligence as we continue the competition. Despite having fewer contestants at the beginning of Round 1 than last time, 132 articles were reviewed, far more than the 117 articles that were reviewed in Round 1 of the inaugural GA Cup. All of us involved should be very proud of what we've accomplished thus far. The judges are certain that Round 2 will be just as successful. 16 contestants have moved onto Round 2 and have been randomly placed in 4 groups of 4, with the top 2 in each pool progressing to Round 3, as well as the top participant ("9th place") of all remaining competitors. Round 2 has already begun and will end on August 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here. Good luck and remember to have fun! Cheers from Dom497, Figureskatingfan, 3family6 and Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 3

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 3 Greetings, all! We hope that everyone had a nice summer. Saturday saw the end of Round 2. Things went relatively smoothly this month. The top 2 from 4 pools, plus the top participant (the wildcard, or "9th place") of all remaining competitors, moved onto Round 3. We had one withdrawal early in Round 2, so he was replaced by the next-highest scorer from Round 1. Round 2's highest scorer was Pool D's Tomandjerry211, who earned an impressive 366 points; he also reviewed the most articles (19). Close behind was Zwerg Nase, also in Pool D, at 297 points and 16 articles. The wildcard slot went to Good888. Congrats to all! Round 3 will have 9 competitors in 3 pools. The key to moving forward was reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates, as it has been in every round up to now. For example, 2 competitors only needed to review 2 articles each to win in their pools, and each article were either from the pink nomination box (20 points) or had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). The GA Cup continues to be a success in many ways, even with fewer competitors this time. For some reason, the competitors in the 2015 GA Cup have reviewed fewer articles in Round 2, which has made the judges scratch their head in confusion. We've speculated many reasons for that: the summer months and vacations, our competitors are saving their strength for the final rounds, or they all live in the Pacific Northwest and the heavy wildfire smoke has affected their thinking. Whatever the reason, Round 2 competitors reviewed almost 100 articles, which is a significant impact in the task of reviewing articles for GA status. We've considered that the lower participation this competition is due to timing, so we intend to discuss the best time frame for future GA Cups. For Round 3, participants have been placed randomly in 3 pools of 3 contestants each; the top editor in each pool will progress, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users. Round 3 will start on September 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on September 28 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here. Good luck to the remaining contestants, and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6 and Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

Delivered on behalf of WikiProject Good articles by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 12 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

hello

You are the creator of List of comets by type. You might be interested in checking out this list I made: List of exoplanets. It's not as big, but still it's pretty darn big. Haha. Huritisho (talk) 04:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

That is quite a spectacular list. Looking at the history, it would appear you made it in a matter of days? My comet list took about 7 or 8 months to create, so did you have the project previously on another workspace? Either way, thank you for fixing a few things on the list that I had been meaning to do eventually. However in case you weren't already aware, making lists of such things can be a tedious task, even after you're done. For me, I have to continuously update the orbits of the comets to fit with observation and close approaches to Jupiter & the other planets, and you would have to deal with a constantly updated list of known exoplanets, and additionally choose which ones would be considered confirmed and which ones are unconfirmed, and based on that which ones should be included or not. Either way, best of luck with that project, and welcome to Wikipedia! exoplanetaryscience (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, I didn't see your reply. And no, I completed the list in one hour or so, haha. I copied the raw list and pasted it in visualeditor. VE sorts all the content in form of a wikitable when you paste. Then I just grabbed the source and moved it to Microsoft Excel. There I added the wikilinks brackets in new columns both before and after the name of the planets. Then I moved everything to the notepad in windows and searched the tabulations and replaced for nothing, so the brackets fell around the name of the planets and all the wikilinks were added in an instant. Ican explain you better how I did that if you want to. Anyway, you can help me improve my list by adding remarks for some of the exoplanets. Cheers! Huritisho 16:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

2nd Annual GA Cup - Round 4

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 4 GA Cup competitors and observers: Happy Fall! Get ready, we're about to move into the finals of the second-ever GA Cup! Monday saw the end of Round 3. Out of the 8 contestants in the semi-finals, 5 have moved to the finals. The semi-finals were competitive. Our semi-finalists reviewed a total of 61 articles, or a grand total of 1,151 points. If you were to lump the top winners from each of the three pools together, it'd be a close horse race; they were within 35 points of each other, which can only mean that the finals will be an exciting race. Tomandjerry211, our top scorer in Round 2, again earned the most points in the semi-finals, with 288 points and 16 articles reviewed. Johanna came in second overall, with 251 points and 13 articles reviewed; Sturmvogel 66 came in third overall, with 221 points and 16 articles. Rounding out our wildcard slots are Zwerg Nase and The Rambling Man. These contestants were very strategic in how they reviewed articles. Like every other round in the history of the GA Cup, success depended upon reviewing oldest-nominated articles. For example, Johanna reviewed 5 articles that were worth the highest possible points. Congrats to all our finalists, and good luck! Stay tuned to this space for more information about the 2nd GA Cup, including overall statistics and how this competition has affected Wikipedia. We regret to inform you that Dom497, one of our original judges and co-creator of the GA Cup, has stepped down as a judge. Dom, a longtime member of WP:WikiProject Good articles, is responsible for the look of the GA Cup and has been instrumental in its upkeep. We wish him the best as he starts his university education, and are certain that he'll make an impact there as he has in Wikipedia. The finals started on October 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and will end on Ocober 29 at 23:59:59 UTC with a winner being crowned. Information about the Final can be found here. Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6 and Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

This Thursday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Getty Center

You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Getty Center in LA on October 15! (drop-in any time, 10am-4pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

list help

I just checked the traffic statistics of your list (List of comets by type) and wow, it has on average about 1000 views a day. Where are those people coming from and why doesn't my list have as many views? Just curious. By the way, I wish you helped me improve my list, List of exoplanets. You can do gnomish work, or write remarks... you know. It would be more than appreciated Huritisho 03:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I had been aware of this for a while, and frankly I have no idea why people visit it so much. If only my sources provided where that traffic was coming from, however as an educated guess I can suppose it comes from the fact that it's the 4th largest article on Wikipedia, formerly 6th and before that 5th. It also may be contributed slightly by the fact that it's one of the largest single collections of information on comets ever assembled. One of the complications of creating the list, however, is that while the MPC keeps data on recent comets, there is no central database for all the information (as far as I know) so I have to rely on cross-referencing several sources to obtain information otherwise unattainable. That has helped the list grow significantly (especially for the list of comets before ~1700 AD) and may be one of the reasons people view it so much.

On the topic of your article, I had originally planned to help with it until I noticed that the article had been redirected. Unfortunately, I had not checked the article since then. Once I am complete with that, and done updating my comet list for the year, I will get to work and see what I can do on yours. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 03:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I wish more people would edit my article. I'm feeling lonely there. Oh and the article was taken to Draft space because some user decided to delete everything claiming the source wasn't reliable (it is). Anyway, cheers, Huritisho 16:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

What I want people to do is mainly add remarks for some exoplanets in the list. Anyway, any edit (even if a minor one) is welcome. I don't want to make many edits in a row there. Huritisho 22:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

A001113 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect A001113. Since you had some involvement with the A001113 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

WT1190F

This is just to tell you that I have nominated your article WT1190F for DYK here. Bharatiya29 (talk) 12:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

2015 GA Cup Wrap-Up

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Finals/Wrap-Up The second-ever GA Cup is now over! The competition officially ended Thursday. Congrats to everyone who participated, and especially to our finalists. The winner of the 2nd GA Cup is Zwerg Nase! He earned 408 points, over 100 points more than he earned in all previous rounds. He tied with our second-place winner, Sturmvogel 66 with 367 points, in number of articles reviewed (24), and they earned almost the same points for reviewing articles that were in the queue the longest (Zwerg with 322, Sturmvogel with 326). Basically, they tied in points, but what made the different for Zwerg was the advantage he had in reviewing longer articles. It seems that the rule change of earning more realistic points for longer articles made a difference. All of our contestants should be proud of the work they were able to accomplish through the GA Cup. Congrats to these worthy opponents! Our third and fourth place winners, Johanna and Tomandjerry211, also ran a close race, with 167 points and 147 points respectfully. We had one withdrawal; we found it interesting that competitors dropped out in Round 2 and 3 as well. One of the original judges and co-creator of this competition, User:Dom497 stepped down as judge during Round 3; as stated previously, we will miss his input and wish him the best. The judges were pleased with our results, even though fewer users competed this time compared to our inaugural competition. We recognize that this might be due to holding the competition during the summer months. We intend on looking more closely when we should conduct this contest, as well as other aspects of the GA Cup. We've set up a feedback page for everyone's input about how we should conduct the contest and what rule changes should be made. If you have any ideas about how we can improve things, please visit it and give us your input. Again, thanks to all and congratulations to our winners! Please stay tuned for the start of GA Cup #3. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo.

The DYK nomination of WT1190F

Hello! An article you created, WT1190F, was nominated for Did You Know. The nomination has been reviewed, and some issues with it were found. Please review the comments at the nomination's entry and consider responding there as soon as possible. Since you didn't nominate the article yourself, you're not required to assist with the review process, but we're hoping the article can appear on the Main Page either 12 or 13 November, since the expected impact will be the 13th. Under the circumstances, more help will make the article's DYK "hook" more likely to be featured on time. I note WT1190F has become quite a collaborative article, so feel free to recruit other contributors. Thanks in advance, GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 13:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for WT1190F

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

2004 VN112 and 2013 VZ98

2013 VZ98 does not exist. -- Kheider (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. I had confused 2010 VZ98 and 2013 RF98. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Kheider (talk) 06:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Ceres on wayward son

I have no problem leaving that alone. I was unaware of any accepted convention on it, & haven't ever seen that before. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

You reverted

my edits where I had the minor planets (including many dwarf planets) be alphabetized by their given name. Why? Look at Mike Brown's How I Killed Pluto and Why It Had It Coming. How many times does he say “90377 Sedna” or “136199 Eris”? I'm not sure he ever mentions the minor planet numbers (MPNs) of said objects. Like everyone, he just says “Sedna” or “Eris”. Mike Brown's website , which is often cited by Wikipedia, doesn't even state the MPNs. Someone who only knows a minor planet's given name will find the object hard to find in an alphabetic list by MPN. Just now, I even had some trouble finding Sedna in an alphabetic list; and I couldn't find Eris until I looked a second time. That's even though I know the minor planet numbers. (Eris was alphabetized not as “136199” but as “20050105” [at least in “Category:Astronomical objects discovered in 2005”, the category in which I looked for it].) The alphabetization as “20050105” is even more absurd.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

My reasoning for this is that as of the current situation, the Minor Planet Center assigns numbers to all asteroids as a form of identification of them. While their name can be useful, I wouldn't expect you to be looking for Sedna by a list of objects discovered in 2003. The sort purpose of the categorization is to sort it in a meaningful way, not just an index of what the name starts with, which a simple ctrl+F can find, as can a trip through special:search. Assuming my format, it provides a meaningful way for these asteroids to be sorted that makes sense- following them not by their name, but by the order of their numbering/discovery. for the date order, it establishes the dates at which they were discovered and in no way conflicts with the order. Additionally, this format has already been changed for over 1000 asteroid articles, and has remained this way for over 8 months. I have also encountered no resistance from anyone so far except you. 02:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Exoplanetaryscience, thx for that clarification and rationale. However, these "conventions" should be discussed publicly in order to reach a consensus and to have a guideline for future edits. Otherwise we just waste our time changing each other's edits and create inconsistencies all over the place. As you may have noticed, I have adopted your YYYYMMDD-format as the sort-option for the category "Astronomical objects discovered in XYZ" in hundreds of articles by now, while I have always used the minor planet's name as the magic DEFAULTSORT keyword (simply because the majority of articles use a name-based, not a zero-padded IAU-number as default). I think it's time to address this and other issues concerning the standardization for minor planet articles. Since you are one of the most valuable editors on the topic, I'm eager to learn from your ideas and suggestions, and I will definitely ping on my post. 'Till then, cheers, Rfassbind – talk 16:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Rfassbind, you support my plan, of alphabetizing minor planets by their given name, correct? Other Wikipedians, do you support my minor planet alphabetization plan?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

References

2015 ER61 orbital period

Orbital period is 43400 ± 1800 years in infobox, but it is about half of this value in 2015 ER61#Orbital elements table. And it is not clear meaning of first column in the table. Thanks! -- A.sav (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I think I should explain it better in the article- the provided semimajor axis in the infobox is assuming a heliocentric orbit, and the orbital elements table is the barycentric orbit- taking into account the solar system barycenter. which first column do you mean? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

which first column do you mean? - It is named Distance from Sun now.

Well, what does it means Period (p) (years) column in the table? It seems at least in one cell it should be 43400 years. -- A.sav (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not well acquainted with exactly how a barycentric orbit works, and even less qualified to explain how it works. I would ask Kheider about it. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Last question - what is the source(s) for this article ? -- A.sav (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

My sources for the orbits specifically are from the JPL small body database, with the barycentric orbits being from JPL horizons- go here and select 'elements' instead of observer, change target to 2015 ER61, and location the Solar System Barycenter (@0)- select the time and it will show you the orbit at any one time there. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! -- A.sav (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2MASS J18352154-3123385, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sagittarius. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)