User talk:Serendipodous/archive 14

Neptune Orbiter

Nasa's Solar System Strategic Exploration Plans page at: http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/future1.cfm used to list the Neptune Orbiter, but Nasa have now removed the Neptune Orbiter from the page. That page goes up to 2035. They have clearly (quietly) kicked the Neptune Orbiter into the long grass. Boaex (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In any case the wikipedia article says that Nasa's page says 2030 at the earliest, but the page no longer lists it, so the article shouldn't say that it does. Boaex (talk) 13:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Question

Would you object to me putting a section on formation in Asteroid? —Ceran [ speak ] 22:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I took out a book on asteroids from my library and there's a section about formation in it. For future reference, the AB is between Mars and Jupiter, correct? —Ceran [ speak ] 22:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh, can you check it out? I might have done it wrong, so you're there to fix my mistakes. You are a professional physicist, or something similar, I assume? —Ceran [ speak ] 22:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Also

What do you plan on doing next? I'm always glad to help prose-wise, even if I can't understand half of the stuff you're saying. —Ceran [ speak ] 22:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, but whenever you get the time... tell me. I'm not that kind of -oh-I-need-to-get-this-to-featured-topic kind of person. I'm planning on doing my best on Hills cloud, to spice it up like OC. —Ceran [ speak ] 22:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Wait, so you plan on featuring the list of moons for every planet? God, you're going to be stressed with that work, even if they only require 20 or so references. Guess I should leave you alone... Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 21:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

long time not seen

Pretty much school/work has taken its price. I assume I am going to have even less time in the future, but since the vacation is right around the corner, maybe there is some hope.

Actually 5 mins ago I visited the FT:SS page and I was wondering about various things. One of the things that stroke me was that weather there should or should not be a trans-neptunian FT. Advantages: adding Planets beyond Neptune to a topic, getting the TNO article to GA status at least; disadvantages: going through a split again and such, having to do some probably less exciting articles, etc. Nevertheless, having the SS include such a subtopic feels kind of natural. That's only a thought.

Anyways, getting back to the unfinished job of Jupiter FT: sure I can get to chip in, but since I am not an expert in astronomy, I am not sure how to go about this. So if you have a book/good article to use, it would be awesome if you could add a todo list on the talk page. From there I will see how can I chip in. Nergaal (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

What are you up to these days? Btw, are you ok with the new format of {{Lists of Solar System objects}}? Nergaal (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Moons of Uranus table

I'm copy editing Moons of Uranus as Ruslik mentioned it was pretty much the next project. I saw your comment about the table not sorting. The Moons of Jupiter table sorts fine as I'm sure you know. We could just copy and paste verbatim from the Jupiter table and fill in the Uranus data. Perhaps it'll solve any sort of code glitch we overlooked? SkarmCA (talk) 03:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional: okay, I should have tried this first. It is a complete pain in the neck. I'll keep at it any, but it'll take forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkarmCA (talk • contribs) 03:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You did not screw up the table. It is simply the autosorting mechanism that is imperfect. The merged columns seem to disturb sorting, so I unmerged Label, Name and Pronunciation key. The numbers are compared digit by digit. So if you have 22 and 3 the software will think that 3 is bigger than 22, because 3 is bigger than 2. It is necessary to use leading zeros in sorting keys, i.e. 03 and 22. Ruslik (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I finished with the table it should be fine now. Ruslik (talk)

Planetary habitability

I'm looking at it now. I am mostly done with my dissertation revisions. May have time soon. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 23:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Serendipodous, I saw your notes on Marskell's talk page. I hope there are others (like Ling? Ruslik?) who can help out there; Marskell's Wikibreak is a firm one, so it would be good to enlist others. Good luck and Happy Holidays, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Solar System bodies

Sorry, I do not understand what you mean by a source that explains satellites' obliquities. In addition, temperatures need a audit, I will do it tomorrow.

I actually now understand why many editors do not what to be sysops. It is very difficult to escape from this routine: deletion/protection/editprotected/block. It tends to consume all time. However I am trying. Ruslik (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually the tilt of Charon is not known. We need to wait until 2015. Of course, the tilt of any synchronous satellite must be zero, otherwise it is not synchronous. Although due to gravitational perturbations rotational axis of a satellite may deviate from zero angle sightly. This is studied the best in case of Moon: libration allow us to see slightly more than half of its surface. However a paper that says directly that the tilt is zero for any satellite is unlikely to exist. May be a text book for students? Haumea's surface area is difficult to calculate, it has something to do with elliptical functions.

As to adminship, if you do not block your opponents in discussions and do not protect pages in case of disputes which you are involved into, everything will be OK. Your RFA will be probably successful, people generally like good content contributors (especially those with >10 FAs). You only need some experience in XFD area, I mean non-admin closures of deletion discussions (if you do not have it already). Ruslik (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I need to check the Moon. 18 degree tilt is probably relative to Earth's rotational axis (or equator)—Moon's orbit lies almost in the plane of ecliptic, not in the equatorial plane of Earth. Giant planet's satellites generally orbit in the equatorial plane of their planet. Ruslik (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually remembered that axial tilt of a synchronous satellite should be zero relative to its orbital plane, not to the planet's equator. Ruslik (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Rings of Uranus

If you have not already noticed, the article will be on the main page on 24 December. A perfect storm of vandalism is coming. :-) Ruslik (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

I should admit that I almost forgot what day is today! So Merry Christmas my friend! I hope that all your wishers will be fulfilled in 2009. Ruslik (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I almost finished Oberon (I would appreciate a copy-edit). Then we can work on Jupiter Trojan. Then probably Magellan with 4 May 2009 main page date in mind (20 years since launch). Ruslik (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Rings of Uranus / apology

• I wanted to make sure you received my apologies for assuming the worst with your lack of edit summaries. Accordingly, I’ve come to your talk page. Quoted below, is my response to your post on Talk:Rings of Uranus. And I really do appreciate your honesty and candor. Ofttimes, I find that editors will cite this or that MOS/MOSNUM policy out of context and beat around the bush to evade the *inconvenient truth* that they are doing as they do, basically, “ ’cause I like ’ta”. Integrity such as yours can be refreshing at times.

Very well Serendipodous. The lack of a single edit summary amongst all those edits was an error of omission. I take it back that it was an effort on your part to fly under the radar (I never suggested it was a “conspiracy”). I very much appreciate your candor.

Regards, Greg L (talk) 18:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

re: ellipsoid areas

I was going to resolve it but I realized I don't have Mathematica installed anymore. So I've found this page where the final equation is given: [1] Nergaal (talk) 20:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Only several hours are left before year 2009 begins (at least where I am now). So I am wishing you happy New Year! Note, year 2009 is going to be the International Year of Astronomy. Ruslik (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Moons of Uranus

I nominated this list to WP:FLC. By the way, what is your opinion about Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions/Trial. Are Flagged revisions really worth implementation? Ruslik (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Unregistered users will see the last sighted revision. Of course, they can view the history of a page and then see any revision, but by default they will see only the last checked (sighted) revision. Well, I am actually a coauthor of this proposal, but I am not still sure myself if Flagged revisions will be helpful (I am trying to prove to others that they will be!). Ruslik (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Confusion may be a problem, of course, but unregistered uses will be given warnings. Ruslik (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Jupiter Trojan

How about beginning working on this article? It can be made FA fairly quickly. Ruslik (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Jupiter template

Serendipodous. In regards to your edit on the Jupiter template, I'm not sure I completely agree/understand. I agree that "moons" was indeed linked multiple times (too many), but it still is. The visual problem I see withe the template is that having two separate links as "major" and "moons" so close makes it look like there is only one. Could we just make "major moons" link to the Galilean Moons page, and leave the linking of the rest of the moons to the third category? I don't want to appear poorly by changing anything else without discussing it with you first, since you seem to know quite a bit more than me. I look forward to your response. —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 05:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Hypothetical astronomical object (non-scientific)

I have nominated Hypothetical astronomical object (non-scientific), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypothetical astronomical object (non-scientific). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Solar System object mass

My mistake. Thanks! --arkuat (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

quick question

why have you moved all of the infomation about Leonard of quirm and Bloody Stupid Johnson into the discworld tech article when some of the info is biographicle and should go in the list of characters?  rdunnPLIB  10:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Trojans

It means that there are only few large Trojans. However the number of Trojans grows fast with decreasing size down to 42 km, much faster that the number of the main belt asteroids of the similar size. In the range 20-42 km the growth slows. Radius 42 km actually corresponds to the absolute magnitude 9.5 (limit of completeness) if albedo is assumed to be 0.04. In the range 2.2-20 km the size distribution of Trojans resembles that of the main belt asteroids. Nothing is known about even smaller Trojans, because the data are incomplete. See Figure 2 here (ref 11 in the article). Ruslik (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Not much I think. The article is almost ready. Ruslik (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is ready. We probably should start a peer review. Ruslik (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

New templates

I created two new templates that calculate escape velocity and surface gravity: {{v2}} and {{Gr}}. They may be useful, I think. Ruslik (talk) 10:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you Ruslik. I think those will come in very handy even if the radius and density of a lot of TNOs are only best guesses. They will work great with Baer's asteroid data. -- Kheider (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

how's this?

$D={\dfrac {1329}{\sqrt {p}}}10^{-0.2H}$ Nergaal (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

the way I set them up, every single note on the bottom has the exact same letter as in text... Nergaal (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Trojans PR

Noticed you were online. Have you seen my comments? Ceran^→//forge 18:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

news

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 4, 2009 Nergaal (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem! It is really nice that that important list got solved. Speaking of which, do you think it should be nominated for addition to the SS topic? can't wait to get the Jupiter topic out of the way :)

My congratulations on passage of List of Solar System objects in hydrostatic equilibrium to FL. Ruslik (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

re: that is something I really have no idea about. Do you have an outline of at least what it should contain? Nergaal (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

FAC Review

Remember Nevado del Ruiz? Yes, well Ruslik is helping me run it through FAC, but I haven't really gotten a lot of feedback from the FAC regs, so can you try a review? Ceran^→//forge 12:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Magnetosphere of Jupiter

I think we can write it (after Jupiter Trojan and Oberon). Ruslik (talk) 12:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Oberon is almost ready, but needs copy-edit. Ruslik (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The sentence in Oberon (about saturation) is more an explanation than a formal definition. I will add temperatures tomorrow. Ruslik (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Your sig

Hey I really like your signature, could you make one for me?--RedRooster₉₆

Great, Thanks a lot. RedRooster₉₆20:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There. Good. '''[[User:RedRooster96|<font color="red">Red]][[User talk:RedRooster96|<font color="red">Rooster]][[Special:contributions/RedRooster|<font color="red">96</font>]] (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Temperatures

I calculated temperatures. I also created {{Tem}} template that can calculate temperatures. Ruslik (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Trojans

I previously made these two for 153 Hilda and the Hilda family. So it might be possible. That was quite a while ago, and I don't really recall how I did it, so no promises on if or when. File:HildasOrbitWithLagrangePointsLousy.gif File:TestHildaOribt.gif

Actually which of the theories is more popular right now is difficult to tell, because everything changes pretty quickly. The first theory is much older and can be considered as a standard theory of Trojan formation. The second with its planetary migrations is rather new. Still I think most scientists continue to adhere to the first theory. However this may change in the future. Ruslik (talk) 08:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Given what they are learning about planetary migration with exoplanets, I believe the Jupiter migration theory is gaining significant momentum. So in nutshell flip a coin. -- Kheider (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it is ready for FAC? Ruslik (talk) 12:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is ready. I propose to submit it to FAC on Monday. Ruslik (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Magnetosphere of Jupiter

I resurrected this article from the dead. I am planning to use these two sources as the main sources:

http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/people/mkivelson/Publications/279-Ch24.pdf

http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/people/mkivelson/Publications/280-Ch25.pdf

Ruslik (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

wow, how did you notice that...

Thank you! very cool :) Iridia (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Jupiter Trojan

I nominated this article for featured article. Ruslik (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I am still planning to bring Oberon to FAC (after Trojan). Ruslik (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Symposium: FAC and the sciences

• Your input is requested, either Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#FAC_symposium or at the subpage where the effort will begin... Thanks! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 10:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

But this edit is not welcomed by me. Any reason why you saw fit to remove my comments? jimfbleak (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, you didn't strike me as a likely vandal (; jimfbleak (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds odd if FF3 and IE are both playing up (I use Firefox mainly too) - do you think you might have some malware? jimfbleak (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Terameters

Hello, when you convert Haumea's semimajor axis of 43.132 AU, the result is about 6 1/2 billion kilometers. So it really is 6 1/2 trillion meters.

Looking at Eris' page, it says; 67.67 AU 10.12×10⁹ km. It's in billions of kilometers, so it's 1000 times more for meters, giving trillions of meters.

I used Google and my calculator: http://www.google.com/search?q=43.132+AU+in+m&btnG=Search

If we put your number in for meters, we get too small a number for AU.

http://www.google.com/search?&q=6.452E9+m+in+AU&btnG=Search

--BrendanRyan (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh opps, I see now it's 6452 Gm, I was reading it as 6.452.--BrendanRyan (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Copy-edit

I wrote a big piece of text about the Magnetosphere of Jupiter. May I ask you to read it and copy-edit, if necessary? Ruslik (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It is OK. Ruslik (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I answered questions on my Talk page. Ruslik (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:Books

Do you know about this new feature of Wikipedia (see Help:Books). Now it is possible to create books and share them. I created a book about Solar System (see Wikipedia:Books/Solar_System). What is your opinion? Ruslik (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You can read two chapters from the Jupiter book (2004), which are linked in the reflist. I also can send you some review papers. Ruslik (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the name of the book? Ruslik (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Cross-namespace

Even when you spell redirect correctly, I do not think that we need List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Planets: Neptune

"Planet" is a fuzzy label that implies some sort of celestial hierarchy. I didn't change the caption out of any controversy over whether Neptune is a planet (I have heard some people say Neptune shouldn't be a planet if Pluto isn't since they cross each others orbits), if you had actually read the caption you would've understood that I was referring to the changeability of the label of "planet" itself. It seems most fair-weather astronomers who lack true appreciation for the study put all of their interest behind these archaic labels. Mercury and Neptune are both currently "planets" (though there are astronomers who want Mercury to be an asteroid or a dwarf planet specifically because of it's size or composition. And yes, any time I use that term "planet" I will be putting it in quotations because it's ridiculous to me) but they are not the same in almost any way. What is needed is more labels and less ego. --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

A label isn't necessarily the same as a fact, there's an obvious reason Mercury can't be called a star (well, besides the slim windows of opportunity you have to observe it in the sky), but this new "planet" label doesn't quite cut it. Considering the fact that there are probably more or less 10,000 professional/expert astronomers and the current definition was decided upon only by 500 people, I think the debate is very relevant. There's nothing wrong with pointing out that what a planet is has changed from 10 years ago and is and now disputed, especially, as you pointed out, on that article which does also deal with the dispute. It doesn't hurt the article nor is it vandalism to point out that "planet" is a form of considered classification and not an obvious one. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Stating that Neptune (or any other "planet's" picture you'd care to post on that or any other relevant page) has been classified as such is not an opinion. 500/10,000 are not strong numbers, that equates to about 5% and call me cocky if you'd like, but even if it was more than that I'd frankly still think they were wrong. Hopefully we can have better, more precise definitions and labels than "dwarf planet" this summer! --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Neptune is a huge ball of gas, by ancient standards Neptune is not a planet because "Planet" used to mean a star that moved in a predictable pattern. The term "planet" is so outdated, but I do respect Wikipedia's policy. Again, it is not against policy to mention that Neptune (or any of the others) is "classified" as a planet. I think you're being too sensitive and subjective about this topic. --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Moons of Saturn

I started working on this article (I already made a sortable table—arguably the most tedious part of the work). I think it can be made featured list fairly quickly. Ruslik (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

BAUT

Re: your question, yes. Haven't been there in a while, but I used to be a prolific poster. --Noclevername (talk) 12:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• (Grin) Thanks, the idea that I'm quoteable is the best compliment I've heard all day! Glad to be met. I may mosey on back to Baut to catch up on the old stomping grounds. --Noclevername (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

lost asteroids

I have never moved an article, but shouldn't lost asteroids be moved to lost asteroid? -- Kheider (talk) 03:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)