User talk:Eurocommuter

Hi Eurocommuter,
Could you footnote your refs for the Phoebe data? The data in our articles on the Saturnian system contradicts itself half the time, so it would be good to know which figures are reliable.

Thanks, kwami 07:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you also update the refs on 20000 Varuna to reflect the change noted

Thanks, Abyssoft 01:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Thank you for the update Abyssoft 03:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * (Varuna varying size estimates) Fixed. Eurocommuter 10:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

TNOs
Hi Eurocommuter, Thanks for your contributions on the TNOs! If Thomas reckons they're confusing, fixing is needed. Your planned diagrams would be very useful. I've also been thinking of whipping up some kind of a-e plot (and inclination histogram for the cubewanos) using curent MPCORB data. Not sure how that will go, though.... Czesc, Deuar 10:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm impressed by the idea behind the diagram (Image:TheKuiperBelt_100AU.svg) that you made at the Kuiper belt. It actually shows semi-major axis, eccentricity and inclination together in a clear way. incredible! Deuar 10:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed the multiscale thumbnails, although I wasn't sure what they were for until I clicked them (I havent seen this solution before). Another good idea! Deuar 20:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

(replying to post on User talk:Deuar) It looks strange to me too, but I spared it just because I havent read anything relevant in ages, and don't know. On gut feeling, I could swallow the Mars-sized out in the scattered disk, but an Earth-sized object sounds a lot like wishful thinking. Show no mercy if you think it's out of date.Deuar 22:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

(replying to post on User talk:Deuar) Yes, there is definately a trend like that... also: the number of editors decreases along with the mass of the object. I hang around a lot in the asteroids, and the density of editors is similar to the TNOs -- low once you leave asteroid (a vandal and crank attractor). On the other end of the scale you get e.g. Sun or planet which are huge vandal magnets - had them on my watchlist once, and it wasn't a pretty sight. I dare not put poor old Uranus on my watchlist...

By the way, your diagrams are getting more and more interesting. e.g. Image:TheTransneptunians_73AU.svg I hadn't realised there's a centaur bigger than Chiron out there. Deuar 22:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, um, thanks! Actually, I got the idea to represent asteroid sizes from your diagrams on Trans-Neptunian Object and surrounds. I worry that my diagrams might be too cluttered, though. That link didn't last long, did it! what a pain. fixing... Deuar 20:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Your color plot of i/e in the cubewanos is a pretty cute idea - and I bet you had a bit of fun trying to set the right bin size. Have you tried making the i/e ranges smaller so that the colorful part of the graphs takes up more space? Then again with only a few hundred bodies it's a tradeoff with how much blockiness is tolerable. I usually end up using scatter diagrams (like your main graph) because I find them easier to understand at a glance, but they also have their own problems with showing structure both in the dense and rarefied regions... Finally, That's a lot of interesting information in one diagram! Deuar 10:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, after seeing Scattered disc, I now see the reason for the e/i range Deuar 14:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just seen your latest orbit projection at Scattered disk object. That's a very clear diagram - really shows the difference between the three classes of object well, and the description in the article is also very incisive. Oh, and just being pedantic :-) - the polar view looks to be more a rotation onto the ecliptic than a projection i think. e.g. in a true projection the 78&deg; inclined object would be more an ellipse with the long axis vertically -- which also explains why the present "rotation" is much more informative than a true "projection".

I see someone has actually worked their way down into those asteroid family articles! :-) cool, thanks for your comments! I totally agree that a "master" diagram for the asteroid families would be useful: at the moment following the existing links is like a lottery. I intend to get around to that in the medim term, although currently i'm somewhat selfishly enjoying not knowing where in orbit space the next family article will take me ;-) As you can see from asteroid family, there's a pile of families out there. Also, it seems that there are quite a few visible clumps e.g. in Image:Asteroid_proper_elements_i_vs_a_wide.png that are not mentioned in the standard analyses. Perhaps they consist mostly of high-numbered asteroids that were not known when the last comprehensive family searches were made in the first half of the 90's? Deuar 20:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Ah - finally, 93 Minerva is not a member of the Gefion family (interloper again), although it was once an alternative namesake for the group, like 1 Ceres. That makes me think I should introduce separate color codes for the "other" asteroids with sizes shown, depending on whether they're members of the family in question or not. Or maybe I should rather mention it in the caption. Generally I have dilemmas how many (if any) "additional" asteroids to show. If I showed them all the whole diagram would usually sink under a deluge of circles. Deuar 21:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Definately a "feature" :-) I don't know how long it takes you to make those diagrams, but they do end up clear! Deuar 15:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Eurocommuter, I see you've been busy! Interesting stuff on the colour variations in the Trans-Neptunian objects -- and referenced to boot! Deuar 19:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I suppose is just odd. It seems to lie away from the "main sequence" in the colour diagram. Deuar 09:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

SVGs
Nick, I’d like to upload svg files (maps) using links to wikipedia articles. Example on the right (from scattered disk). Objects (circles) should be clickable links to respective articles. The links in svg are supported locally (both IE and Firefox) but ‘dead’ once uploaded to wiki. I understand that wiki transforms .svg to .png either on the fly or in a batch rather than serving them to the client(?). Are  tags ( from xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ) transformed to image maps? Is there any way to have clickable maps from .svg? If you’re not the right person to ask these questions please point to someone else or point me to a doc. Any help greatly appreciated! Eurocommuter 14:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Eurocommuter: Nick asked me to respond to your SVG question. No, because SVGs are rendered rather than utilized directly, Wikipedia only uses the graphic portions of SVG.  The extended markup is not available.  I don't believe there is any kind of time frame to be able to do this.    &#08492;  astique  &#09660;  par &#08467; er  &#09829;  voir  &#09809;  00:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I can't help further. I know nothing about SVG. Try asking on IRC (irc.freenode.net #svg). — Nicholas (reply) @ 18:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: TNO- your edits on Feb,17,2006
Hi, sorry if I was rude, but the edit summary doesn't have much room to be polite. :)
 * Sedna: Ok, I thought you used the html list. However, I don't see why it should be mentioned, because it is obvious that Sedna isn't a Centaur in any way. Most Wikipedia readers are not familiar with the terms used, so we must be careful that the article is as clearly understandable as possible.
 * Pluto/Charon -sized: Orcus is 840-1880 km wide, so calling it Charon-sized may be misleading. 's long axis may be as long as Pluto's diameter, but the other axes are considerably shorter. On average it is 1500 km in diameter, so the object is nowhere near Pluto's size.--Jyril 10:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Diagrams of bodies in 3D space
I'll have to have a think about implementing your idea - it's very interesting. I also usually try to imagine 3D with a similar method to yours: faces of a cube etc. If it was a surface it'd be easy, but isolated points in space like this are always a major problem for me. Funnily I find it easier to imagine the 3D if there is no explicitly 3D diagram but just the projections (I think the perspective-like diagrams boggle me visually somehow, and I find it hard to get a handle on what the actual shape of the "cloud of objects" is). That's why I tend to go with projections. What I find easiest to grasp for 3D diagrams is something like a colour-coded elevation map with the 3rd dimension represented purely by colours or shading (like your recent diagram). Unfortunately that's only good for surfaces :( In any case, i'll have a go at the kind of diagram you suggest once i have a bit of a think about it, and we'll see.. Deuar 13:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Centaurs
I'd like to apologize for stepping on your toes in the Centaur article. I didn't realize you were still working on it while I was making my edits :o/ shaggy 11:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Blue in the near infrared
Hi Eurocommuter. You've written about 2003 EL61 that it appears blue in the near infrared. I think you mean that the near-IR light from 2003 EL61 is brightest in its highest frequency region. Blue specifically refers to the part of the electromagnetic spectrum between about 420 and 490 nm. Could you be so kind and clarify that issue? Icek 21:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

New look for box headers
There's a discussion on the WikiProject Astronomical objects page regarding a new look for box headers. I was hoping you could drop by and comment. Thank you. &mdash; RJH 14:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Pluto's_natural_satellites
Hi. Sorry if I appeared impolite. I thought I was being factual, getting to the point, and criticizing a statement rather than the author; however, I can see why you would take offence at my statement, and I'm sorry. However, you might want to consider that calling someone impolite is itself somewhat antagonistic, so make sure it's important to you. Regardless, welcome to Wikipedia! --Doradus 19:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Lower Flux, larger diameter
(2003 UB313) Would "as opposed to equator-on which would result in a larger inferred diameter at the same measured flux using thermal method" be okay? Icek 17:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * (follow-up) I changed the article according to your suggestion, I think the footnote is indeed a nicer solution. Icek 01:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Howdy!
Hi Eurocommuter, long time indeed :-). Good to see you back. I'm doing fine, now in Amsterdam, waiting for my family to join me here soon, and in the meantime even contributing a bit here & there. When they get here i'll be doing great, but probably contributing less.. ;-) Deuar 21:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

P-type asteroids
Hi, there is a very stubby article P-type asteroid, and a category (with even some members it seems - that's a surprise. They include the interesting object 617 Patroclus). I'm afraid that what is there is all I know. Cheers, Piotr. Deuar 14:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Dziękuję! Eurocommuter 15:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

about that kuiper svg
copy of the same message on commons

Hello Eurocommuter. (in response to a comment on my talk) Thank you. I'm afraid I have to disappoint you. What I did was simple hand-work. I loaded the SVG into Inkscape, and used the benzier-curve tool to draw lines over the ones your plotter created. Afterwards I deleted the small pieces of line, to that there was only the arc left.

I used your SVG, and kept the objects that were good, e.g. the planets, the text. Feel free to do it that way too, but it sure takes a lot of time, especcially when the line changes colour on the way (you have to split it into two). The reason I did it was that I thought it was rendered strange (because the line was tagged), but i soon found out why :P --Ysangkok 21:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

irregular moons
Hi Eurocommuter, i've been away for a week and a half, hence no reply. I've grown a bit tired of the asteroids as well myself, after trawling through maybe a hundred or so, and have been having a go at some of the rocks around Neptune and Saturn. All these small moons have the appealing but also annoying property that there is no big fat table like the IRAS data that covers them all, so you have to search through lots of papers for physical data. I reckon lash out at the rest of the rabble by all means. Imho what you've doing over at Sycorax and Margaret is good and much needed. It's always great if you can say something (anything!) about these small moons apart from a dry recitation of orbital elements and size calculated from an arbitrarily assumed albedo. I find that a search on ADS for the moon's name often gives interesting results and finds the latest data (if any). Apart from that, i'm a bit of a newbie there as well. By the way, what do you mean by "Its exceptionally high inclination (~56°) is close to the limit of stability" over at Margaret (moon)? Sounds interesting. Deuar 16:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Software Used to Create SVGs
Hello Eurocommuter,

I am curious as to whether the software you use to create your SVG diagrams (if any) is publically available? Thankyou! - --Jmprouty 20:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Newest moons of Saturn
Hi, I've seen you've been done quite a bit of work on some of the articles for various irregular moons. A while back, I created some stubs to get the ball rolling on latest batch of nine new moons of Saturn, but nobody's editing them. They badly need some fact-checking, and I was wondering if you could take a look at them. They're the last bunch of moons listed on Timeline of discovery of solar system planets and their natural satellites. Thanks! --Patteroast 13:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

burst of entropy
Hi Eurocommuter, yep this redefinition of planet business sure has stirred all the articles up. I'm planning to ignore all affected articles for a week or so until it settles down. And, yes, I find those TNO nicknames annoying as well. By the way - what do you think about the new redefinitions? I have to say I find them very appealing. Deuar 13:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image:ThePlanetDefinition3.png
It seems that Ceres has been classified as a dwarf planet: " The first members of the "dwarf planet" category are Ceres, Pluto and 2003 UB313 (temporary name)". Is it possible to revise the image to include Ceres in the dwarf planet box? It's difficult to use the image otherwise.RandomCritic 16:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for working on this so fast! RandomCritic 17:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Irregular satellite
This looks good. Just one comment I would make is: what do you mean by "mean" orbital elements. That is, mean over what? Presumably over a time much longer than one orbital period? I wonder if just giving a value at some particular epoch isn't better. Certainly more precise. This is what is usually done in the asteroids, and what I have been donig when possible with the inner satellites. Also what they usually give in papers. Accordingly, it would be nice to have a field for Epoch (just see e.g. Template:Infobox Minor Planet.

Of course, i'm not sure if such well-defined elements are known for the newer irregulars, but then the epoch field can be left blank, or some kind of comment inserted there. Cheers! Deuar 16:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Fascinating! Thankyou for the explanations. I had no clue that the outer satellite orbits vary so much. Sounds like something that should get its own section in irregular natural satellite.
 * What you wrote reminds me faintly of what i've just been seeing for the small satellites in the inner Saturnian system that crowd around close to the rings. While their orbits don't change as much, they are also badly described by Keplerian fits (once you go beyond first order) because of appreciable perturbations from even several bodies. Their eccentricity and inclinations (while remaining small in absolute value) wander around by a factor of 2 or more on various short and yearly timescales. This makes it difficult for the Cassini guys to keep track of strange objects that they occasionally see around the F ring (like in e.g this interesting paper). Cheers, Deuar 21:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

omega
I believe its \varpi. Cheers! Deuar 22:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

90337
I'm not updating content, just style/layout. Be more careful deleting 404 links - once deleted nobody will look for them, but if they stay the content is often easy to find. Gimmetrow 14:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I fixed the 404. All yours. Please put any refs after punctuation, with no spaces, WP:FN. Gimmetrow 14:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

ratrace
I've got a bit of an impinging ratrace problem recently as well. I've noticed that for a while now i've been flat out reacting to changes while leaving very little time for fresh contributions. Of course a major contributing factor might be an excessive watchlist that should be pruned ;-) What an annoyance! Deuar 20:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Same here. Plus extreme irritation that some articles are still a gossip column “X said that…”. You can delete it, it will come back. Worse, I deleted “X said…” so some contributor added “X’s wife said…”. Hard to fight the conclusion that trying to do something with this project is a simple waste of time. I wanted to delete the Wikipedia bookmark after that…Eurocommuter 06:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Inner satellites
Would you be interested in contributing some material or references to the stub Inner satellite? RandomCritic 17:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Pipes, la galère
A wonderfully simple solution to the problem of intermixing pipes for parser functions and for tables lies in !. Works like a charm! Urhixidur 19:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have not visited there in a while. Bonnes Fêtes! Eurocommuter 16:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD Alert
An editor has nominated the article Meanings of asteroid names (139001-140000) for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Articles for deletion/Meanings of asteroid names (139001-140000). Add four tildes like this &tilde;&tilde;&tilde;&tilde; to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Meanings of asteroid names (139001-140000) during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Urhixidur 18:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

EL61 Family

 * Michael, I hope you accept that we (wiki editors) are not in business of judging the relative value of published papers. It is quite possible that we will see in near future more published papers expressing doubts and looking for alternatives. I’m personally expressing no opinion in this matter just quote a published paper as per NPOV. Thank you for improving the content but please keep NPOV and restore (after editing if needed) the fragment you removed. Qualifying opinions of renowned scientists (see ref) as non starters is a bit shocking. BTW I personally agree with you that the alternatives are unconvincing but I’m also not comfortable with the limited data sample available etc. While contributing to wikipedia I try to keep my personal opinions to myself or to talk pages and I invite you to do so as well. Eurocommuter 20:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This I understand, but in this case even the sources discussing alternatives admit that they are probably inconsistent with the data. So this is not a personal opinion. It is merely removing un-necessary discussion that is likely to be confusing to the general audience. Michaelbusch 20:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

- An asteroid family spotted among the TNOs — who would have thought? I would have expected that a much larger sample of TNOs would have been needed before they started spotting families since collisions should be rarer than in the main belt. Then again, just 4 objects is a bit sparse statistically-wise. I wonder if the family will survive closer inspection, though I hope so. Are you planning to stay re-activated? Deuar 17:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:TheKuiperBelt_Orbits_Pluto_Polar.svg
Hi, not meaning to be a pain, but I think there might be some subtle error in the orbits of Pluto and/or Neptune in this diagram. Notice how almost 90° of Neptune's orbit lie outside Pluto's. Since Neptune's orbit is ~165 years, and almost cicular this would imply about spending 40 years there instead of the actual 20. Deuar 16:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting; I believe (but I have not checked in detail) that because this is a polar view, the notion of being ‘inside’ could be misleading. It is the projection of Pluto’s orbit on the ecliptic which is drawn, so Pluto is actually further from the Sun than Neptune on a good chunk of the segment where the projection of its orbit lies inside. Eurocommuter 15:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah I see, that would explain it. Interesting indeed. So how are things your way? Deuar 14:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Granice kosmosu
Witam, wiem, że pan pewnie stwierdzi, że nie wie, ale jestem ciekaw czy ma pan jakieś osobiste domysły - co pan sądzi na temat: Czy kosmos ma granice? Moim zdaniem nie ma granicy, ale jest miejsce, po którym nie ma już nic, gdyż Wielki Wybuch zawierający cała materię, też musiał mieć jakiś limit siły odrzutu prawda? ps. Jeśli pan chce mogę napisać to samo po angielsku, ale zauważyłem, że ma pan pl-3, rozumie pan? :) Fiedore (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

SVG translations
Hi, I have tried to translete two of your imagens: Image:TheKuiperBelt Orbits Quaoar.svg and Image:TheKuiperBelt Orbits Quaoar PolarView.svg. I opened them in Notepad and attempt to translate them to the Czech language. My attempt failed after I used Czech diacritics. I also tryed to change a font-family in the last lines of the code to Arial CE, but doesnt work. So how I can manage the situation? How to translate them? Many thanks for answer!--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Representing inclinations as angles
Hi there. Have you considered rendering Image:TheKuiperBelt_100AU_SDO.svg such that inclinations are represented as angles? (They are presently represented by a vertical displacement.) In other words, it would be pretty much the same diagram, but all the lines would point toward some central point, and the diagram would end up looking kind of like a funky protractor. --Doradus (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The Program
On your image, Image:TheKuiperBelt 42AU Centaurs.svg what is the program you speak of? "Generated by a program written by Eurocommuter", I wanted to download it so I could do that. Syntheticalconnections (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Haumea
I reworded it a bit, took the "1:1" out of brackets to lessen the implication that "intimate mixture" meant "1:1".  Serendi pod ous  15:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's very sweet of you, but your work was fine, and, given the huge amount of work you've already done, even if it had been crap, you'd still have earned several free passes from me :-)  Serendi pod  ous  17:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the Namaka and Hi'iaka articles - I tend to keep Moons of Haumea up-to-date and not so much its subsidiary ones, so it's nice to have someone else help out. :) Iridia (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: formal definitions
There are no formal definitions of the scattered disc as of now. A formal definition is a single definition that is accepted by all concerned and rigidly adhered to. As yet how you define the Kuiper belt and/or scattered disc is based largely on personal preference. Different astronomers have different criteria for both, and so it is wrong to speak of a "formal definition."  Serendi pod ous  19:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Eurocommuter (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Java and Portal
I recently posted the following text on Wikipedia regarding the creation of a new computing-related project: 'WikiProject Java is a Wikipedian community that aims to better organize information in articles related to the Java programming language and its platform. Please support this initiative,    A l a i n  R 3 4 5  Techno-Wiki-Geek     18:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If I'm cor-rec-to, there are about 900 articles on Java technology in Wikipedia, which may be more than ALL other programming languages articles combined...
 * At least, it's more than for C++, and there IS a C++ WikiProject...
 * And it's MUCH more than the .NET WikiProject with 82 articles...
 * There is also a Ruby project and a Python portal so...
 * Now you can also see a proposal for the Java Portal (temp location).'

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Image-TheLaplaceResonance.PNG
A tag has been placed on File:Image-TheLaplaceResonance.PNG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tim 1357  talk  04:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

File:TheLaplaceResonance2.PNG listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:TheLaplaceResonance2.PNG, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.

Template:Trans-Neptunian objects
Hey Eurocommuter,

I know a bunch of us have been less than keen for a while on the state of Template:Trans-Neptunian objects, and I finally felt motivated to try and go through the necessary bureaucratic steps to put the old girl out to pasture. Please consider contributing at Templates for discussion. The Tom (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Earth-grazing meteoroid of 13 October 1990
Hi Eurocommuter,

I have noticed your excellent astronomy diagrams and thought if I could ask you for a diagram depicting pre- and post-encounter orbit of the Earth-grazing meteoroid of 13 October 1990, as was required at its talk page. I think it would really help the article. Would this be possible? If you do not have time or if it is too difficult, so just forget it. Thanks, Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No need anymore, it was already done by user Primefac. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

TheKuiperBelt
Hello Eurocommuter, thank you for creating many good diagrams. I have a question about one of them at commons:File talk:TheKuiperBelt 75AU All.svg. If you're still around, it would be great if you could answer there. Thanks! &mdash; Sebastian 17:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:TheKuiperBelt 500AU map.svg


The file File:TheKuiperBelt 500AU map.svg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Orphaned chart."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob 13 Talk 15:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

90377 Sedna - featured article review
I have nominated 90377 Sedna for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Renerpho (talk) 05:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)