User talk:Jyril/archive2

Text here is archived. If you like to add a comment, please move the relevant discussion back to the talk page.

RE: Asteroid articles

I'm planning to write a bot for asteroid articles. So you don't have to modify each article by hand, since it is almost impossible since the large number of asteroids and the number is still increasing quickly. I've requested to run the bot and you can discuss it here. – Yaohua2000 20:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that. But I'm not at all sure that all asteroids deserve own articles.--Jyril 20:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to split the data sheet as template for each asteroid article, since the orbital knowledge can be changed in the future, it would be much easier to maintain by a bot if put the data sheet in a separated template. So create a number of templates like Template:1 Ceres, Template:2 Pallas, and etc. — Yaohua2000 01:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Devon

Hay, I have a few questions & relplys:

1. The Great Barred Spiral Galaxy is NGC 13 65's official name. All of my books have this info on it.

2. The Andromeda Galaxy has more satellites. I thought there were only seven.

3. Do you have this same name on Extrasolar Vision Forum. Because i'm Vega on this forum.

— Hurricane Devon (Talk)

That explanes why they always call Andromeda M31. But the Whirlpool galaxy is the title for the Whirlpool Galaxy, even if thats what astronomers call the galaxy in respect. Scince wikipedia is using the nickname of tha galaxy, let's keep the title for NGC 1365 as the Great Barred Spiral Galaxy. — Hurricane Devon (Talk) 22:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made that chance weeks ago, before we did this talk. I just didn't have the time to change it back. — Hurricane Devon (Talk) 17:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for 358 Apollonia

Hello, sometime ago you added a fair bit of content to 358 Apollonia. As you may be aware, we are currently trying to improve Wikipedia's accuracy and reliability by making sure articles cite the sources used to created them. Do you remember what websites, books, or other places you learnt the information that you added to 358 Apollonia? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? Thank you very much. - SimonP 15:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well at first glance I missed them, and the single letter links to the references are a bit obscure, so it might be a good idea. If several thousand articles need to be changed, however, it probably isn't worth it. - SimonP 16:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asteroid physical characteristics

Hi Jyril, I've just created a page with the cumbersome title Standard asteroid physical characteristics linked to from Template:Minor Planet, which tries to be a reference explaining where physical data comes from for run-of-the-mill generic asteroids. This issue has been bugging me for ages. I've put up what I have been able to surmise, but I'm hoping to bait those (like You) who have been active among the asteroids, and probably know more about this. Deuar 21:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions

Thanks for your work on Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions. Where did you get the information from? I'm also wondering what "regular" means in this context; I'd be very grateful if you could define this. Thanks in advance, Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly copied them from my lecture notes (equations are not applicable to copyright laws, and they are available in the Internet in many forms anyway). I hope I managed to write them understandably enough. Regular point means that the gradients of the active inequality constraints and the gradients of the equality constraints are linearly independent on that point.--Jyril 22:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't worried about copyright; mentioning your sources is always a good idea. To be honest, my biggest worry was whether I could trust it. There were quite a number of small inaccuracies, the language was a bit off, the formatting of the formulae was strange. But after your answer and thinking it over myself it looks all correct, so I did a quick copyedit. I hope you can forgive my suspicions. Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spiral Galaxy NGC 1365

See Talk:Spiral Galaxy NGC 1365. — Hurricane Devon (Talk) File:Euro symbol.png 21:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asteroid articles

I've noticed all the work you're doing on the asteroid articles, recategorization and whatnot. Good work. Have you noticed how many of them say "Blahblah is a minor planet orbiting Sun" instead of the Sun? I've been slowly crawling through them, 5 a day, fixing this but I see you've done many already. Saves me a heap of work. Cheers. Reyk 07:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Triton

Thanks for doing cleanup for me. I did a lot of work translating this article from Portuguese. I have a question- how do I make superscripts (like a squared and cubed number) without using the <sup></sup> tags?--Adam ^(talk) 14:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About the List of Prehistoric Mammals page

I just want to say that the whole point of a LIST OF PREHISTORIC MAMMALS is just that --- a list. I agree they're should be another page with the taxonomy and family trees, but when a person is looking for a certain species it is impossible to find something that is not in alphabetical order. I realize that the page was an incomplete project but feel it should be just like List of dinosaurs with another page created for family trees and the like. Astropithicus

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_prehistoric_mammals"

Question.

On [1], you said you took the RA. & dec.to Celestia and you found the constellation. Where on celestia did you find this info?
— Hurricane Devon ( Talk ) 01:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sudarsky classification system

What do you think the best thing to do with this article is? I'm starting to think it should either be deleted or cut down into a few paragraphs at most in a wider article - as it is it gives too much implied validity to the theoretical system. Chaos syndrome 11:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, if it was nominated for deletion, how would you vote? Chaos syndrome 19:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! bd2412 T 03:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TNO- your edits on Feb,17,2006

[Your edits: Notable trans-Neptunian objects - rem. incorrect "Pluto/Charon sized" remarks, mod. some descriptions; Sedna not listed as a Centaur (MPC SDO and Centaur lists are combined))]

Please bear with a new joiner, Jyril.

MPCORB does list Sedna as a Centaur. I’m not referring to the html list, but to the columns 162 – 165 of the actual official file. Centaurs and SDO have different classification. [[2]].
The terms Pluto-sized and Charon-sized are used in professional, peer-reviewed papers we're referring to, and given the uncertainty in diameters and on-going discoveries, are quite suitable terms IMHO.

Example: David L. Rabinowitz, Kristina Barkume, Michael E. Brown, Henry Roe, Michael Schwartz, Suzanne Tourtellotte4, Chad Trujillo PHOTOMETRIC OBSERVATIONS CONSTRAINING THE SIZE, SHAPE, AND ALBEDO OF 2003 EL61, A RAPIDLY ROTATING, PLUTO-SIZED OBJECT IN THE KUIPER BELT (sorry for the capital letters; just copy-pasted from the original article)

Of course, the classification is a bit shaky in this exciting field and the objective of my footnotes was to highlight this issue.

Regards Eurocommuter 21:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer, Jyril. I agree with both points. Regards Eurocommuter 11:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Astrobleme

I am not a physicist. Some of my training was in geology. I did not find a category impact crater, and I feel impact crater is less specific than astrobleme. I did note under craters that volcanic caldera was a category, and it seemed that astroblemes was an appropriate counter-part. I hope that I am doing this talk response correctly. My pardon, if I am not. Bejnar March 10 5:09pm MST. Bejnar 00:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the impact craters seem to be categorized as just "craters", which is not very specific. However, almost all crater articles are about impact craters, and volcanic craters are categorized under Category:Volcanic calderas, so there is no ambiguity. Therefore we don't need another category for astroblemes. Also, astrobleme is rather obscure word (maybe not for geologists), most readers have no idea what it means (I confess, even I had to consult a dictionary). Of course, astrobleme might be more descriptive word because most impact "craters" have nothing to do with a bowl-shaped depressions.--Jyril 09:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be some ambiguity, since Category:Volcanic calderas is appropriately a subcategory of Category:Craters, and craters are categorized by place (e.g. Category:Craters on Mars Category:Craters of North America, Category:Craters of Brazil), and on earth by time (e.g. Category:Eocene craters), but the only subcategory (prior to Category:Astroblemes) that was broken down by origin was Category:Volcanic calderas. The result is that, perhaps appropriately, Crater Lake, Oregon could be classified under Category:Craters of the United States and Category:Holocene craters, as well as Category:Volcanic calderas. Similarly, my hometown of Socorro, NM is in a heavily eroded volcanic crater that hasn't made its way into the wikipedia yet.

I agree that astrobleme is not a household word, with only 32,000 Google hits (astrobleme OR astroblemes); although it does transfer between languages well with German and Swedish: astroblem (7,000 hits), Spanish, Portuguese, Lithuanian and Romanian: astroblema (400 hits). Nonetheless, if one clicks on Category:Astroblemes or searches for astrobleme one can get the idea pretty quickly.

I am particularly fond of tear-dropped shaped ones. --Bejnar 21:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that crater is used more extensively for volcanic caldera, than caldera is, just as it is used more extensively for astroblemes. 'Crater' is not an un-ambiguous term, and taking the word 'crater' just for half of its meaning doesn't work for me. Is there a mediation process that we can appeal to on Wikipedia?

Also, are people who are interested in location of craters more interested in where they are than in what type of origin they may have? Bejnar 22:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planetary habitability in Suomi

Hi there. I don't know if you've ever taken a look at our Planetary habitability page. A couple of weeks ago I noticed that a link to the page on the Finnish Wiki had been added: [3]. I thought I'd track down a Wikipedian here who might give that page a read over and see how the subject is tackled there. I notice some Math formulas, for instance. There's also a Chinese version, but I think it's a translation from the English judging by the layout. Anyhow, I noticed your name through Babel and as luck would have it astronomy is one of your interests; maybe you'd like to help out. Cheers, Marskell 13:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orbital elements in Extrasolar Planet template

It seems the figure quoted in the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia is the Argument of periapsis (ω), not the Longitude of periapsis (ϖ). Is this what was meant in Template:Extrasolar Planet, or am I getting confused here? Chaos syndrome 18:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can either. I've changed the template of argument of periastron because it looks like that value has been populated with that figure in the extrasolar planets articles. On a related note, do you think the extrasolar planets template sequence I've proposed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects is a good idea? Chaos syndrome 12:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're becoming Extrasolar Visions

Hi, I'd like to know what you think about {{Planetbox classification}} - personally I'm totally against it as there is no accepted classification system for planets! The creator has already started adding it to articles, further increasing the amount of Extrasolar Visions speculation in the Wikipedia. Chaos syndrome 07:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Clear" HTMLs

Hey, I have a question. I'm in an argument with Worldtraveller and have to get your support. Is putting the {{clear}} on between exoplanet articals (i.e. HD 217107) a right idea. Or is it a bad idea. In my opinion, it's a good idea because you won't get confused with other planet or sections in the artical. Please respond. — Hurricane Dev o n @ 23:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"HD" 810 b

Hi, I'd like to get your view on what to do with the redirect HD 810 b... it links to the planet Iota Horologii (HR 810) b, but the reference given is for the HD rather than HR catalogue. Chaos syndrome 08:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pelican Nebula

I know that you are only trying to help, but please leave the Pelican Nebula micro-article alone. Had you read the Discussion page, you would have realised that instead of making an obvious fix, you were, in fact, vandalizing the article. Thank you.

B00P 22:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the context of my use of the word "vandalism" clearly indicated that I didn't consider it to be deliberate, but merely a mistake. Sorry if I tread on your corns.

In any event, your expansion is certainly more than acceptable to me. Case settled.

B00P 07:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hurricane Devon

Thought you may be interested to know that I just filled out this request for comment, because Hurricane Devon's attitude is causing serious problems. Cheers - Worldtraveller 02:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks

Thanks for your kind words. It was quite fun while it lasted. Chaos syndrome 13:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acom

I’m afraid User:Acom has made a habit of clearing his/her talk page in response to a polite message. Good luck, Jyril Eurocommuter 08:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up references

Hi Jyril, thanks for systematizing the references over at Eunomia family (I now finally know how to do it properly!). I seem to remember that you couldn't have two references with the same number referring to the same work until recently. Deuar 19:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after trying it out once or twice I have to say i'm a bit annoyed and disappointed with this new referencing style. It's great except for one annoyance, but this one issue is a real pain (at least for me): you have to type the reference inline in the text. This doesn't work very well when you have a high density of references. Why did someone have this "bright" idea. Why, oh why?!!

The text becomes completely illegible when you try to edit it later because you have to make a big effort to sort the authors, titles, etc, from the main text. In fact I tend to get boggled even when writing it the first time, because i'm continually searching in the edit box to find what was the previous word I wrote.
It hinders copying of references from one article to the next (something done a lot in these asteroid articles), because you have to search through the whole article text to find them, rather than having them all conveniently in their own section at the end.

I had a bit of a system going with just doing it manually using <sup></sup>, so I wasn't feeling the obvious inconveniences of that. Probably if I make an effort to shift to the new style I'll get used to it, but I'm thinking about whether it's worth it. Deuar 12:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i've somewhat changed my mind. Maybe it's not so bad as my first impression :-) Deuar 17:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Actually, a proper referencing system should have been included in the MediaWiki software when it was developed." Yep. That was a bit surprising when I first started editing, since they seem to be so keen on citing sources. Anyway, it's livable :) Deuar 18:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Java

Your recent edit to Java was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 21:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi, chaos here. Just went looking for some info on the wikipedia and noticed a whole bunch of total speculation and extrasolar visions pseudodata in several articles added by 71.98.198.74 (e.g. on Iota Horologii b). The editor's spelling/grammatical errors seem somehow familiar. Please don't reply on this IP address's talk page since I won't be using it much longer. 131.111.8.103 00:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

City?

Olet kirjoittanut Pudasjärvestä kertovaan artikkeliin, että kyse on citystä! Ja vielä maailman toiseksi laajimmasta. No, kyllähän se vielä suomalaiselle menee, kun tietää että 99% pita-alasta on vain metsää ja peltoa. Mutta eikö rehellisempää olisi puhua kunnasta, sillä kuntia ne ovat kaikki Suomen kaupungitkin. Kyllä kait englannin kielessä on kuvaavempia sanontoja Pudasjärvelle kuin city, sellainen on muuten Lontoon keskustassa;) näine neuvoin ja toivein --Alexius Manfelt 04:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiitos infosta, halusin vain varmistua ennen korjaamista - ehkä! --Alexius Manfelt 03:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suomen (enemmistökielenä ruotsi) kunnat

Millään Suomen kunnalla ei ole erillistä englanninkielistä nimeä, siispä niistä pitäisi käyttää niiden suomenkielisiä muotoja, ei siis ruotsinkielisiä (olipa kunta sitten enemmistökieleltään ruotsi tai yksikielisesti ruotsinkielinen, paitsi Ahvenanmaan tapauksessa). Minun tietääkseni.

Ei siis niin kuin Ekenäs, Ingå, Pernå tms. 'Pertsaboy 14:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]