User talk:Serendipodous/User talk:Serendipodous archive 10

C is for...[edit]

Thanks. Moved to my vanity closet Serendi ^pod ous 07:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

scattered disc[edit]

Hey serendi. Alright, I've uploaded it. Could you provide a description of it? You could make it much more sophisticated than I could. It's here-Image:Tnossdosandcentaurs.jpg. Thanks again, ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering, are we going to submit the article for peer review? It might be a waste of time. --Meldshal42 (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fa-Team is going to help us on this "journey" to FA. I don't know if you have worked with Geometry guy, but he's very eager to help with this one. --Meldshal42 (talk to me) 21:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:I'm Sorry dude[edit]

Than perhaps we should move on to Charon (moon) towards GA status. ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Like you said, I don't know if enough information is known enough yet. It looks like we might have to wait until 2015. :( --Meldshal42 (talk) 11:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I really don't think enough is known about the scattered disc for it to become an FA. The papers written on it are almost imcomprehensible, and its really mind-boggling for me to try and contribute to the theories about it. Overall, i don't think its a great enough topic. However, I do have some suggestions for new projects. --Meldshal42 (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enceladus or Pacman?[edit]

I looked at this picture today and found it accidentally funny: a moon opening its mouth to eat. I stopped by it because of this piece and thought I'd say hello while around. (A less and less frequent happening these days.) Cheers, Marskell (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get to the article :(. Perhaps it's on-line now? As for the accidental racial epithet, I haven't any recollection, so no need to worry.

I do keep intending to dive back into Wiki, BTW, but I'm working a lot. Soon, I hope. Marskell (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oort cloud-TFA?[edit]

I was wondering if you could help me find a date to nominate oort cloud for TFA. Thanks, --Meldshal42 (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Editor Review[edit]

Hey Serendi. Could you please review me? --Meldshal42 (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing me.

Well, being young, I tend to hold back from that kind of major stuff. But I have made major edits such as copyediting and stuff. Just not in front of you. :) --Meldshal42 (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will Venus survive over sun's giant star?[edit]

I thought Earth is probably to be swallow up. Waht about Venus. Earlier they said Venus might be able to survive over sun's giant star. For habit land they can extend out to Pluto, maybe Uranus. Actually will Venus survive over sun's white dwarf? I thought Venus and Earth's fate is unclear. For Mars it may survive, still a little consensus to not.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 23:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness[edit]

Please, please, please put Planet hab back on your watchlist. So much of it is your work. And I'm not gone gone. I still check in. What exactly happened here? (Remember, the best answer to trolls is to ignore them. Just don't reply.)

Your Sci. Am. article was excellent. Really comprehensive. Planet hab could use a few more refs and perhaps we can start with that. Marskell (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just read through some history. That's a nasty little fellow. I protected the talk and I'll protect your talk now. Really, don't give up on an article because of one fool. Marskell (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. You're an old friend by now :). Marskell (talk) 11:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Readable prose on the page is 34k. Starting to get longish and thus I'm leery of a whole new section. I would suggest sprinkling it in. Remember Habitability of red dwarf systems I spun off? It could be put to good use there. Marskell (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't let the <ahem> get you down... I've put the page on my watchlist, and will help out where i can. Sorry this is happening to you - it is never pleasant, especially since we all do this for fun. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat _spy 18:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, you all might wish to check out the poll on revising the "autoconfirmed" status. --Ckatz^chat _spy 19:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mars[edit]

Will Mars survive over sun's white dwarf stage. I thought none of Venus and Earth fate is clear enough, and Mars fate is not totally clear yet. Mercury is only the certainly one to be gone, Venus is about 80% chance going to be swallow, Earth is like about 60% of getting engulf, and Mars has about 80% chance able to survive. I still have hear a few consensus say Mars will be engulf if something unlucky happens.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 18:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please answer this question?--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 02:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voyager 1[edit]

Voyager 1 is still the only probe further from the Sun than Eris. But that's a good edit. Reyk _YO! 10:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for comparison see Buffy (Reference 3: Spacecraft escaping the Solar System) -- Kheider (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rings of Uranus[edit]

I prefer to go directly to FA. GA is unnecessary step in my opinion. I actually want to add several more articles to reflist before FA. Ruslik (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel better?[edit]

Lightsaber combat, after it's 6th AFD, has finally been merged into Lightsaber. Wikipedia, 1, Fanboys, 0. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planets beyond Neptune[edit]

I had a go at editing the lead, but the re-emphasis has altered its focus so much that I think it would work best if I moved it back to Planet X. What do you think? Serendi ^pod ous 08:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current title seems fine to me. It immediately communicates the purpose of the article, whereas "Planet X" might not. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serendipodous: The FAC page says, "An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time." You might want to wrap up the Peer Review.—RJH (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons[edit]

Good idea, eh? Well I changed my mind because I thought it should probably be added with History of Solar System formation and evolution hypotheses and possible Timeline of solar system astronomy, not by itself as I was suggesting - otherwise there'd be an obvious gap and all that. But if you're planning to add it as part of a batch, well, there you go! rst20xx (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legal disputes over HP[edit]

I think that, if the unsourced material does not help to understand the section, it may be removed :) --Lord Opeth (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! I think that a whole re-tell of the Hobbit and the story of the book was not that important. You may take a look at the Notability discussion (at the bottom of the page) that is taking place in the WikiProject HP regarding the remaining articles. --Lord Opeth (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Torah - books of the Torah names[edit]

The reason I removed the English names is because of the large Books of the Torah template with them on the right--Meieimatai 12:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

sdo: can we reformat the refs?[edit]

The Medicine folks never put page numbers on their cites, so they don't need separate notes/refs sections... are the Astronomy folks the same? I like to have stuff like "Remo 2007, p. 291" in the notes, then full references in the refs... Changing it would involve tracking down a small herd of page numbers. Let me know. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 16:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

scattered disc requires the input of a domain expert[edit]

...Scattered disc requires the input of a domain expert. Do we have any on tap? Thanks Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 05:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

replied on my talk Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 06:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History section: replied on my talk Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 07:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lykawka[edit]

This is strange, because the article is on [1] and should be freely available. Ruslik (talk) 06:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the last section. Ruslik (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorta in bad shape[edit]

Hi Serendipodous,

I have really really enjoyed working on Scattered disc. I created a new article (Detached object (astronomy)) which I'm gonna polish up a bit and send to WP:DYK.

I'm supposed to be working on my dissertation; I must quit working on these articles very soon. I hope to return to them in a few months...

Meanwhile, however... and I hope I'm not stepping on your toes, but in some sense many of these TNO-related articles are sorta in bad shape. I found several errors, the most egregious being "the recently discovered 2000 CR105" (discovered eight years ago)... verbiage saying that 90377 Sedna was discovered before 2000 CR105... etc.

Really, you need to round up everyone interested in TNOs and have a bug-killing collaboration... coordinate all info so that incorrect crap isn't spread virally across articles, etc. Everyone should possess and work from the same set of downloaded articles (I downloaded 18 just working on those two articles; I'm sure there are more), you should check for more recent literature, older info should be updated/replaced, everything should be coordinated etc. We shouldn't tolerate embarrassing bugs.. especially multiple copies of them ;-).

That's all! Later! Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 00:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Barn-Universe ;-) Hey... would you mind putting Detached object (astronomy) on your watchlist? I just now sent it to WP:GAN; it should get a review in a few weeks... Thanks! Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 06:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scattered disc - Full attention[edit]

Sorry Serendi. I've been working on my WikiProject Earthquakes teammate's article, 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake which [finally] failed its featured article candidacy. I'll now be focusing solely on scattered disc and i apologize for my somewhat-brief inactivity before. Thanks, --Meldshal42 (talk to me)

Makemake[edit]

You can read here [2] about nitrogen. Ruslik (talk) 09:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nitrogen is difficult to detect, because it lacks strong absorption bands in visible in near IR. On Pluto, Eris and Triton it was detcted only because it is the dominant ice there. In contrast, Makemake's surface is dominated by methan. In such conditions nitrogen is almost invisible. In the latter paper they used high resolution spectroscopy to detect small shifts of the methan absorption bands from positions expected in the pure methan ice. They attributed them to the presence of nitrogen ice. I think it remain somewhat controversal among planetary scientists. Ruslik (talk) 09:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2002 xu93 = centaur[edit]

Another source says so too.. source from 2004: see this Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 16:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This info looks quite stale (2003), but: "Then there is the recent 1999 TD10, which we know to be currently just beyond the orbit of Saturn, well inside the "centaur region", but that at its farthest from the sun is quite akin to 1996 TL66 and the other scattered-disk objects. It is "both" a centaur and a TNO, but it is currently being classified as neither. The Comet's Tale. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 16:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

replied on my talk. going home now; maybe see ya tomorrow. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 17:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(29981) 1999 TD10 (see bottom of page) should be listed as a Centaur.

(127546) 2002 XU93 is also a Centaur.

-- Kheider (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planets beyond Neptune[edit]

What sort of images do you think could go in it? Serendi ^pod ous 15:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, perhaps a nice image of a long period comet.—RJH (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rings of Saturn[edit]

We will take this article next week, if you want. I should admit to that I have not read much about the Rings of Saturn, but I know a good archive of the articles about them [3]. Ruslik (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little trinket for you...[edit]

Thanks :) Serendi ^pod ous 07:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, thanks to you... --Meldshal (§peak to me) 11:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can nomimate Makemake for membership in the Featured topic now. Ruslik (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It stands, because FT should include articles about all planets, even if they are or were hypothetical. Ruslik (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FTs[edit]

Main page	Articles
Planet	Definition of planet · Extrasolar planet · Dwarf planet · Nebular hypothesis · Asteroid ♦ 2006 definition of planet · Cleared the neighbourhood · Gas giant · Terrestrial planet · Minor planet ♦ · Small solar system body

You were talking about this some time ago. Since it has quite some work left to do, I was thinking of another similar topic to also look at:

Main page	Articles
Dwarf planet	Definition of planet · Ceres · Pluto · Eris · Makemake ♦ 2006 definition of planet · Plutoid · List of plutoid candidates · Cleared the neighbourhood · Minor planet

I have also listed 2006... and plutoid for GAN. Nergaal (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the dwarf planet topic, do you think the latter 3 are necessary at the beginning? I was thinking the topic could be submitted w/o them, and in time get expanded. Nergaal (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Solar System[edit]

It's not just you. We've had a bunch of people who don't understand that part of FT when they first find it, so it's better to just have notices to point people in the right direction. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA-Team Mission 5: Solar solicitude/solidarity[edit]

Thanks for your message about Scattered disc. I've finally got the FA-Team mission on this and Solar energy launched. Your help with both articles will be much appreciated. Geometry guy 16:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

knock knock![edit]

Did you see Talk:Detached object (astronomy)/GA1? I'm not gonna be able to work on it, but I'm hoping others will. See ya round!! Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 05:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to redirect minor planet to asteroid[edit]

As far as I can determine, with every research skill I have, the two terms are synonymous and don't deserve separate articles. If "asteroid" is to be the more recognised term, as it should be, then so be it, but the minor planet article should redirect to it. Serendi ^pod ous 22:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that was the consensus then I have no problem with it. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planets beyond Neptune[edit]

I think the best way to satisfy Tony1 is to write shorter and simpler sentences. Your Master degree makes you write long sentences, whereas Tony clearly prefers simpler language. Ruslik (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Planets beyond Neptune[edit]

(copied over from my talk page:) I've been doing a fair bit on this article, but think that ideally more would be done. I am, however, withdrawing my "oppose." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks[edit]

(copied over from my talk page:) Looks like you have the FA. Congratulations! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planets beyond Neptune[edit]

It passed. Great job, and now that you are done with that...

let's finish off scattered disc. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 13:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pluto's core[edit]

Does Pluto have cold core or hot core like jupiter? Because on blue Neptune's interior Ive hear about mantle made of water and ice when its actually 1000 Celsius. Pluto's core is made out of ice. Is pluto's core cold below zero, or hot above 1000 Celsius?--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 18:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neville and Luna[edit]

Hi there. I think that you are indeed confused. Votes favored the merge.

Oppose

Oakshade (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Skiracer712 (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Happy‑melon 09:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Count Westwest (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Serendipodous 10:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Jammy (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Favor

Lord Opeth (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Beemer69 chitchat 21:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
faithless (speak) 02:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
sgeureka t•c 11:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Iciac (talk) 11:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Arcayne (cast a spell) 10:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC) (for some reason, Arcayne voted "Oppose" half an hour before changing his vote and writing a long text explaining the reasons, so as his last word was to favor, and later suggested to perform the merge, the vote was considered to favor).

It is 6 oppose vs 7 favor, and we should add the fact that no one cared to expand and improve the articles not only since the merge proposal was made, but also since this help request was made and since the big Notability mergers took place. --LøЯd ۞pεth 20:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solar System edit[edit]

You said; No need to repeat information. The intro makes clear where the asteroid belt, kuiper belt and scattered disc are.

I didn't repeat this information. I was concerned that novices would think that all the dwarf planets were beyond Neptune. I thought it a reasonable (if not a good idea) to list the order of the planets from the Sun, it is quite a major feature of the Solar System!!

In order of their distance from the Sun, those named celestial objects bound to it by gravity (excluding moons) are:

HarryAlffa (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And HarryAlffa (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Solar System talk page. HarryAlffa (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology[edit]

Sorry if my "thwarted" line annoyed you! I've taken it out and recast my suggestions on the Solar System talk page as above. HarryAlffa (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Near Identical List Confusion[edit]

So a choice between confusions? I think the primary list must be the order of all the planets. Yes? The list of categories of planets I don't think can be thought of as the primary one. No?

HarryAlffa (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pluto and Jupiter's sky colors[edit]

Does Pluto have asky color besides black? I thoguht Pluto have some type of small atmoshphere, its globe color is like orange-gray. Jupiter's sky color is it blue? Saturn's disc color actually looks something like indigo-grayish.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 21:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cis-Neptunian[edit]

I disagree with rmving the def of cis-Neptunian from Scattered disc. There's no article on Wikipedia that explains the term. Without that note, people would have to research the term (as i did, to find the text I put in the note). Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 06:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is looking really good. FA reviewers will have many many comments and ask you to change many things. Use your best judgment: if their requests don't make sense or will hurt the article, then say so (politely). :-) Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 07:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]