User talk:Exoplanetaryscience

WLM GC coordinates
Hi there, I see you are the editor who added the ra,dec coordinates for the WLM globular cluster. Do you have the source for these values? Because according to SIMBAD those are the coordinates of the LEDA 910901 galaxy, and these are the WLM-GC coordinates. Regards Gaba  (talk):H  22:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC:T
 * That was just an estimation I did based on the image of the cluster in Pan-STARRS since I couldn't at the time find a more precise estimation of that. Definitely use that simbad listing over mine, it's probably more accurate as well. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

List of earthquakes in 2019
Hi Exoplanetaryscience. I've looked at the edit history of List of earthquakes in 2019 and see that you have twice inserted details about the Maryland quake and twice had the details removed with the rationale that the quake was of low intensity and had low impact. This experience falls under the essay BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which people call BRD. You were BOLD in inserting the details, then you were REVERTed, now you need to DISCUSS the matter on the article talkpage and see if you can get consensus for using your material. If you cannot get consensus, then you can accept that you have tried your best, and simply move on to doing something else. You may wish to get further clarity by alerting (in a neutral manner) users at WikiProject Earthquakes of the discussion. I hope this helps. Ping me if you need further help. SilkTork (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration Notice
As you have indicated that you would like to withdraw the case request, it has been closed as withdrawn. For the arbitration committee, Bradv 🍁  20:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to attend a Southern California Regional mini Unconference
Who: All Wikipedians & Wikimedians

What: Southern California Regional mini Unconference.

When: Sunday 3 March 2019, 2:00PM PST / 1400 until 4:10PM PST / 1610

Where: Philippe's at Chinatown, Los Angeles

Sponsor: San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN )

Your host:

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending, due to the limited size of the cafe.

(Delivered: 00:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC) You can unsubscribe from future invitations to San Diego Wikimedians User Group events by removing your name from the WikiProject San Diego mass mailing list & the Los Angeles mass mailing list.)

Sorry
Sorry for telling you not to talk to me a while back, I was having a bad day. I hope we're cool now. Edit: why did my comment end up in this bubble? Alex of Canada (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi alex, sorry about the problem. No hard feelings, sometimes when there's a chronic problem you're noticing every little action people take can seem like an example of it. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Kamchatka meteor
Hello! Your submission of Kamchatka meteor 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! Yoninah (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Kamchatka meteor
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Doublet earthquake?
Was the USGS link originally messed up or something? Curious as to what could have happened here (2019 Ridgecrest earthquakes). Master of Time  ( talk ) 19:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not entirely sure, being quick to respond to things isn't exactly my strong point. All I know is that very early on the earthquake was listed as a 6.6, and then within a few minutes downgraded to a 6.4, but then I noticed that every other time I went to the USGS page for reference the quake info changed. Then two different earthquakes showed up and that was my main source on it being a doublet, backed up by my calculations that two 6.4 earthquakes would appear to mimic a single 6.6 earthquake in intensity. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

New article for recently discovered asteroid.
I started an article on, which is believed to have the smallest semi-major axis of the asteroids known. This beats a record set earlier this year with, so an update is in order.  ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich  Talk  12:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well damn! I should really keep better track of these new asteroid discoveries. Makes me wonder what else I've managed to miss. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Southern California Wiknic & Bonfire invitation
 Meetup-San Diego-September 2K19 Who: All members of the public

What: Southern California Wiknic & Bonfire.

When: Sunday 1 September 2019, 2:00PM PDT / 1400 until 10:00PM PDT / 2200

Where: La Jolla Shores

Sponsor: San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN )

Your host:

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending, and please add your intended potluck contribution to the list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject San Diego at 18:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC). You can unsubscribe from future invitations to San Diego Wikimedians User Group events by removing your name from the WikiProject San Diego mass mailing list, and from the Southern California meet-up group by removing your name from the LA meet-ups mailing list.

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Ceres Trojans


A tag has been placed on Category:Ceres Trojans requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 05:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

T Tauri
Hi i’m confused by the following, which has been in the article since 2007.(It wasn’t written by you). It may make perfect sense to someone more knowledgeable than me: “A protostar is the denser parts of a cloud core, typically with a mass around 104 solar masses in the form of gas and dust, that collapses under its own weight/gravity, and continues to attract matter.

The protostar, at first, only has about 1% of its final mass.”


 * Does this mean the inner core of the cloud, a cloud which has a mass of 10^4 suns, has a mass in the range of 10^-2 suns? Or does it mean something else, or is there a typo? ThanksRich (talk) 05:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The phrasing is very vague so I'm not entirely sure, but it might refer to very early on the star's history where obviously it would have to pass 0.01 solar masses at some point- or it could refer to later when it could reasonably reach 10 solar masses in the inner region. Honestly the answer is open to interpretation and could probably do with a needs clarification or dubious tag. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for updating.
Thanks for getting the info on these new moons. Unfortunately I have not been able to determine what their names or what their orbits are, so thanks for trying to get this info for me + the articles on the new moons.  ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich  Talk  20:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem, all the moon orbit info is being disseminated by the MPC if you're interested in seeing for yourself: as well as already provided here:  exoplanetaryscience (talk)
 * Thanks. I've updated the Saturn template to add in the new moons for you.  ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich  Talk  21:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And S/2004 S 31 through 39 are up now! Double sharp (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see you've updated them already. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the updates! Double sharp (talk) 06:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Discrepancy.
There are 82 moons of Saturn, but the table only lists 73. As an emergency measure to avoid confusion, I have mentioned that nine moons are yet to be announced so that readers do not get confused.  ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich  Talk  21:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, I plan on adding the extra moons in based on Sheppard's elements if they don't get MPEC'd soon, for what it's worth. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait.
I think S/2004 S 29 was assigned wrong. It belongs to the Inuit group. And S/2004 S 24 should be a Gallic moon. A very, very distant Gallic moon, but its inclination matches the others.  ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich  Talk  21:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're right. It is an Inuit moon. But S/2004 S 24 I don't think should be classified as a Gallic moon unless we can get some confident source that something that far out still belongs to the same group. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The Gallic group might be more spread out than we thought. This might turn out be another loose Pasiphae group.  ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich  Talk  21:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I’ll do a check when I’m available again for if their node correlates or not. If they all have such similar inclinations, it ostensibly should. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Here are the inclinations and notes of known gallic group members, compared to S/2004 S 24:


 * It seems pretty clear to me that S/2004 S 24 isn't associated with the group, as the node puts its orbital plane almost as different as possible from the orbital planes of the other moons, while still sharing a similar inclination. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Interesting observation. It's facing the opposite direction. This makes its inclusion in the group even less likely. Though we don't really check the nodes for Jupiter's moons to assign dynamical families, so I'm not entirely convinced it's not part of the group.  ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich  Talk  23:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * National Geographic says it might be Gallic. Sheppard has on his site: "The other newly found prograde moon has an inclination near 36 degrees, which is similar to the other known grouping of inner prograde moons around Saturn called the Gallic group. But this new moon, provisionally designated S/2004 S24, orbits much farther away from Saturn than any of the other prograde moons, indicating it might have been pulled outwards over time or might not be associated with the more inner grouping of prograde moons." FWIW, it seems that it will receive a Gallic name, regardless of whether or not it actually is in the Gallic group. Double sharp (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the tidal effects of Saturn's rotation are basically negligible at this distance from it, you could consider their node difference just as significant as their inclination difference- it'd be the same energy difference if all of them had inclinations of ~35-40 degrees, and this one had an inclination of 70 degrees. And under that scenario, nobody would be advocating it being part of the group. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In case it's not part of the Gallic group, it will be a weird case of "nomenclature inconsistency". Perhaps S/2004 S 24 is indeed part of a new group and then its name will be an outlier in its new group. Not to brag, but it's happened once around Saturn before.  ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich   Talk  03:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Some other groupings, for the Inuit group:

They do seem clustered themselves, although not quite so strongly. Either way, the all 7 only cover a range of 44.2% of a circle. If you consider Kiviuq and Paaliaq to be their own group, then the remaining 5 only cover 24.3% of a circle.

Some other possibly younger groups I noticed while making a diagram of the orbits of the moons:

Discounting Fenrir, S/2004 S 37, and S/2004 S 39, which have inconsistent nodes with the other 3 (as well as each other) despite having relatively similar inclinations, Jarnsaxa, Hati, S/2004 S 20, S/2004 S 12, S/2004 S 7, S/2004 S 34, Loge, and S/2004 S 17 have a node distribution of only 19.3% of a circle- an extremely unlikely proximity for 8 of 11 ostensibly randomly distributed moons with a similar inclination.

The Thrymr/Suttungr group has a node distribution of a paltry 15.7% of a circle, which is especially significant considering that the moons have inclinations of so close to un-inclined prograde, making large node differences actually fairly small in terms of angular difference. Then the group formed by S/2004 S 35, S/2007 S 2, and S/2007 S 3 has a node distribution of 39% of a circle, which might seem quite insignificant, but again with their very "low" inclination. The node difference is about as significant as if the satellites were mutually inclined by 2-3 degrees to each other (rather than the 0.5 degrees displayed here)

All Norse group asteroids:

I know a lot of these look somewhat suspicious, and I agree. Probably a lot of them are just seeing patterns where they don't exist- but the Skathi group definitely exists, I'm 90% certain the Phoebe group exists, and I'd give 70% odds of the Hati and Aegir groups existing. Who knows about the Skoll & S/2004 S 35 groups. I'd have to do some long term orbital dynamics analysis. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 07:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Interesting. However, the inclinations and eccentricities when plotted against each other show no obvious clustering for the Norse group as far as I know. They seem fairly uniformly distributed unless orbital data has been refined since I last checked in 2016 or so... Could you compare e vs. i for the retrogrades and see if any obvious clusters stand out now?  ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich  Talk  14:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It might be based on faulty info, but i don't think the eccentricity should come into play very much. While the gallic group has some relatively consistently high eccentricity (0.333-0.530), the inuit group has quite a wide range of eccentricities (0.1081-0.4401). In making the groups I did here, I tried to focus on objects that did have mostly intersecting orbits in terms of perichron/apochron, but as far as I can tell the exact eccentricity can be somewhat variable- and as almost every moon of Saturn has an e below 0.5, and many below 0.3, I don't think its exact value will come into play very much. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You might be right. Maybe Saturn's groups play by different rules than Jupiter's groups, which are easily distinguished by e vs. i alone.  ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich  Talk  22:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Inclination
A few moons of Saturn sort incorrectly for inclination, and I can't figure out how to fix it. A few are also horribly out of place for eccentricity.  ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich  Talk  22:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue is a lack of number padding on the sort template, which doesnt seem to understand how numbers work. Will fix prompty. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, do you think you could update List of natural satellites?
Or at least point me to where you got the data so I can do it? Thanks. :)  Serendi pod ous  18:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup, currently having class but will get right to it when I’ve got the time. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm also currently busy, but should have the time for it over this weekend (grabbing the figures from Moons of Saturn, which exoplanetaryscience already got). So, I guess it'll be whichever of us gets to it first! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ...and thank you once again for the wonderful update! Double sharp (talk) 07:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

NEO page
Hi, It looks like you are the kind soul who's been keeping up the NEO flyby page List of asteroid close approaches to Earth in 2019 neglected since March,. How much work is it to update? :) Tom Ruen (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Tom, I'm really sorry about that, it's been something I've been casually stressing over for a good while now. Essentially updating it now would be incredibly difficult, because approximately a quarter to a third of all close approachers never get confirmed, meaning that I would have to dig through NEOCP archives that no longer exist to get a list that's as thorough as I'd like it to be. Of course, I could just include the confirmed close approachers, but I don't think that would be very fair to have a completely blank region of 7 months where no close approachers were recorded. Basically, the data I would need to update some of this simply no longer exists, as far as I can tell. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Time for me to bug you.
sticks head in talk page Are you still considering doing plots for the moons of Jupiter, Uranus, and/or Neptune the same way you did Saturn's? ''poke poke... you heard nothing...  ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich  Talk '' 23:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah. I've gotten a bit distracted with a lot of things (as you probably noticed) so didn't have time to do that, and probably won't have any time until next week or so, but I haven't exactly thrown the idea into the garbage just yet. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Supercavitation
Hi Exoplanetaryscience, I believe you added a copy editing maintenance template to the Supercavitation article on 2 July 2019. I made several copy editing changes to the article over the last few weeks. Could you please take a look at the latest version to see if the issues have been addressed? Thanks! CopyEditTechSurf (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * had a look, good job with that copyediting! It seems to address the somewhat disjointed tone of the article's sentences and sentence structure that prompted me to add the tag, so I'd say the issue seems properly addressed. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/United States medical cases : RECOVERIES
How is this going to be do-able? If we don't keep a breakdown per state, we will necessarily step on eachothers toes and double/tripple/etc count. I don't know what states you added recoveries for, so if I see recoveries for OH or NY, should I add them to the total? The only way to do this is a new table with per-state recoveries by day, as I can imagine some of them will not list totals, rather per-day numbers; as some states only list confirmed cases on a per-day basis.

At minimum, I think this should be broken down by state, as it will very quickly involve doulble-counts. Please consider removing the column, or supplementing it with its own table. For more ideas, move this to the discussion page of the template. dudzcom (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't make the column myself. Someone else made it and I assume they expected someone would add to it at some point. I for one definitely support adding a breakdown by state for recoveries but am not invested enough to write all of that down myself. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Taskforce Jupiter invitation
Thank you for contributions on Moons of Jupiter. Given that interest, have you considered joining Taskforce Jupiter? We are a group of members under WikiProject Solar System working to improve articles related to Jupiter. Please add your name at the list of participants to join with us. Questions? Ask at the discussion page of the project. Thank you. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Ejected/ extended centaurs
Please see the discussion at the top of Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 24. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

list boosters falcon 9
concerning this edit, does exist a "today" command? so we does not have to change date to all. or we can set "31/12", and the date will be useless. --Dwalin (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ooh, good idea. I think I have an idea how that would be formatted, but no idea if it could parse it or not. I'll do some experimenting. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I probably should have expected this, but it looks like the dates very much do not like reading Wikipedia templates instead of numbers. My technical knowledge isn't too great, so I imagine there might be a way to make it, but I've hit my limit on that. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * use "31/12"? we have a date that will not change for a whole year (or a rapid unscheduled disassembly )--Dwalin (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Comet Atlas
There is a comet named Atlas on Wikipedia: (C/2019 Y4 (ATLAS), ). However I came across a two-year old Minor Planet Circulars (first page; Editorial notice) where the same name was given to another, periodic comet, P/2019 M2 (ATLAS). In fact, there are about 47 comets named/discovered by ATLAS. Since these are all unnumbered, do you have any idea what nomenclature Wikipedia uses to distinguish these from another? Would it be similar to the numbered comets, such as  and  ? Thx  R fassbind  – talk  23:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I can certainly tell you the way the MPC distinguishes them- there was actually a discussion on the comets mailing list about it the other week - you are right that in the past they used to distinguish comets from one another by giving them a name ("Shoemaker-Levy 9" etc) apparently this process was officially stopped in the Marsden era for reasons I don't remember perfectly. Due to this, and some complicated factors with comet numbers (for instance, what about comets that weren't identified as comets until long after the fact? Are those numbered after newer ones, or do you make the newer ones higher-numbered retroactively?) I think it would be difficult/original research to go numbering them manually. Anyway, comets right now are officially only distinguished by their provisional name/number (C/2019 Y4, 2I, or 311P etc) and I would recommend marking them as such in all articles. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thx, just noticed your reply since Wiki did not ping me, sorry. So in the specific case of redirect, it should be a disambiguation page rather than a redirect to a specific comet, since more than one page/article on Wikipedia can be referred to (C/2019 Y1 (ATLAS), C/2019 E3 (ATLAS) and P/2019 LD2 (ATLAS)). Correct? However what about comets named after other discoverers such as NEOWISE? For example, Comet NEOWISE is the actual title of the article for from which it was recently moved after this approved request (RM) with the rationale that "this is the most notable comet that NEOWISE discovered", which would mean, in this case, Comet NEOWISE (disambiguation) plus a hatnote  on top of article Comet NEOWISE would be needed/best practice. Of course the question remains who defines which body should be considered, and whether there is at all a "most notable comet" for a given discoverer (Pan-STARRS, LONEOS, WISE, LINEAR, Spacewatch, NEAT, etc.). Do you agree? What are your thoughts? Thx,   R fassbind  – talk  11:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches
We don´t have a "Success" Launch outcome till now. No satellite is developed till now. Barny22 (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "deployed" Sorry of my english, it´s not my main language.Barny22 (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries mate, I got the gist. Changed the outcome to uncertain at the moment. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "In Progress". I think it looks more beautiful. Barny22 (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

S/2003 J 24
Who's the discoverer? Sheppard et. al (official) or the measurers, like Kai Ly? This is a case similar to S/2019 S 1 apparently. 2600:1700:D11:930:649E:C4D0:D43D:AD29 (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year from Wikimedians of Los Angeles!
--JSFarman (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Moons of Saturn
Hi. I reverted your edits because you used a 2021 source for s.t. that happened in 2022. Do you have the 2022 source? — kwami (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, here are the MPECs announcing each moon discovery. I just couldn't be bothered to make a bunch of references, heh. T125 T127 [T128 T129 T130 T131 [[User:Exoplanetaryscience|exoplanetaryscience]] (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Did the work for you. Nrco0e (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! — kwami (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Exoplanetaryscience. Thank you for your work on Impact events on Mars. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

&maltese; SunDawn &maltese;    (contact)   01:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Impact events on Mars
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Uranus trojan


The article Uranus trojan has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "List with two entries and no nontrivial sourced content. Not a set index article, as neither object is known as 'Uranus Trojan'."

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 article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address 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 articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 09:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Source request for an old edit of yours
Hello Exoplanetaryscience! I see you added this section to the article about 55P/Tempel-Tuttle a long while ago, but you didn't list any reference. I happen to be needing this specific reference right now. Is there any chance you're able to dig it up? Even though it is old I think you might remember how you aquired this info? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=55P%2FTempel%E2%80%93Tuttle&diff=704505655&oldid=699225770

Thanks! NQue (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * hey, sorry for being a bit slow to reply. My source came from pages that this website no longer seems to have, but lurk somewhere in my computer. It was a bit of low-quality original research borne from a bad understanding of orbital mechanics- I'd suggest deleting it because a node difference of 100 degrees definitely should not qualify fireballs to be related to acomet... exoplanetaryscience (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Moon diagrams
Thanks for making those beautiful graphics!

Are you planning on doing Neptune? Double sharp (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I got a little bit through a Neptune diagram but put it on pause for the difficulty involved. Unfortunately, Neptune's moon system is... problematic.
 * The outermost moons required me to resize the entire diagram just to fit them inside- Neso's orbit takes it from 27.7 to 72.4 million km from the planet, and Nereid's orbit takes it from 1.3 million to 9.6 million km from the planet. To add to that, Triton's status as the only sort-of intermediate moon means that the 'intermediate' section is almost entirely empty, the 'outer' section is chaotic and arbitrary, and the 'inner' section contains virtually nothing.
 * Here's that file: if you can identify how I can improve this while keeping thematically in line with the other planets, I'm all ears.
 * https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/591411532819333120/1069532787863986236/Neptunemoonsdiagram.png
 * exoplanetaryscience (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, Neptune's system is quite weird compared to the other giants' systems, so I don't find this version problematic (well, I think the three sections should be swapped for consistency, with 'inner' on the top). It illustrates the situation well. Perhaps there should be an arrow in the 'intermediate' section indicating that Nereid's line continues further. (Are Psamathe and Neso cut off? I think the lines should only stop once we pass their apoapses.) Double sharp (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * All good points - Psamathe and Neso are just barely entirely in frame- just 9 pixels off in each case. If you couldn't tell for sure, though, that's one of those problems I'm talking about. It is an exceptionally chaotic moon system, sure, but my job has been and remains minimizing that chaos into something accurate but readable. Anyway, I'll make the changes recommended, add details (e.g. the compass, scale markers, and scale) and think of what to do from there. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to it! Indeed, Neptune's system is quite a mess, but I'd like to see it portrayed accurately for the mess it is. But that doesn't mean it can't be an exceptionally well-drawn mess. :) Double sharp (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:Astronomical events in the near future has been nominated for deletion
Category:Astronomical events in the near future has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 01:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Place name changes in Turkey
Place name changes in Turkey has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Aintabli (talk) 04:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

S/2020 S 4
Tilmann Denk thinks it may rather be an Inuit group member, because of its high inclination. He wrote on his website: Wikipedia classifies S/2020 S 4 as a member of the Gallic group of Saturn’s Irregular satellites. Because of the quite high orbit inclination of 43°, I think it might rather be a member of the Inuit group, possibly a collisional remnant of Siarnaq which shares similar orbital elements. Double sharp (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Based on its oscillating elements, it's certainly a bit ambiguous, but I calculated its mean elements over 200 years and its mean inclination is only 41.1 degrees (oscillating from 33.5 to 48.0) with an eccentricity of 0.500 (oscillating from 0.347 to 0.664). The inclination is the most damning IMO, but it's worth noting that nothing in the outer Inuit group has an eccentricity above 0.311 (Siarnaq) while the entire Gallic group (with exception of 2004S24) has an eccentricity between 0.462 and 0.559. So, both the mean inclination and eccentricity make it seem fairly Gallic to me. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Cool. I guess we'll probably know more in the future! Double sharp (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

To preemptively defend categorizing 2019 S6 as a different group and to further explain 2020 S4's belonging to the Gallics, here's a diagram of (a vs e) (a vs i) (e vs i) showing the inuits in red, the gallics in orange, 2019 S6 in yellow, and 2004 S24 in green. 2020 S4 is smack in the middle for (a vs e) and the topmost gallic in (a vs i) and (e vs i). For another visualization, see the newest version of my diagram

All of these are the mean elements, which I can share if you like. Personally I would love to have the page include at least these provisional mean elements instead of these potentially very inaccurate oscillating elements, but that would constitute an egregious amount of OR. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So, this is how I find out that five more were announced today! :D
 * I trust your categorisation. Maybe we should stop colouring S/2004 S 24 with the Gallics? :) Double sharp (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm a fan of considering 2004 S 24 its own group/ungrouped - in fact, when it was originally announced I marked it on the page as its own group. Someone in the intervening time recategorized it as Gallic. I suppose if you want to group every moon, it makes sense, but IMO it has as much in common with the Gallics as the Gallics do with the Inuits. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. But I guess the flood of new discoveries hasn't stopped, so may as well wait a bit to do some recategorising. After all, maybe it will find some groupmates like Carpo did. So far I've mostly stuck to updating the count and the discovery timeline (well, and adding more and more discoveries to Scott S. Sheppard's page :D). Double sharp (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

List of gravitational wave detections
Many thanks for all your work on this page 🙂 Fig (talk) 07:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Happy to help out! Still trying to decide what significance cutoff I should make for unmodeled bursts, but I'm sure that'll solve itself in good time. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Solar Cycle 25 Progression Graph
Would you be able to update the progress graph for SC25 from September to January?



Or perhaps tell me how to do it ... I can't figure it out. Braintic (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Did so, it's probably not perfect but at least it's updated. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 11:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * When you click on the graphic it does indeed show the updated graph. However the graphic that sits on the main page has not been updated. Do you know what is going on there? Braintic (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your browser has cached the file in question. You will either need to wait for the cache to expire at some point, or manually purge the cache. Try this link exoplanetaryscience (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

June 8, 2024
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)