User talk:Exoplanetaryscience/2016

Disambiguation link notification for January 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * 2013 TX68
 * added links pointing to Lunar distance and Lunar distances


 * List of asteroid close approaches to Earth in 2016
 * added a link pointing to Lunar distance

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Shortlist of minor planet redirect candidates
376 at User:Tom.Reding/Shortlist of minor planet redirect candidates. Enjoy! ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 08:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to do an AWB run to add "yyyymmdd" sortkeys to Category:Astronomical objects discovered in yyyy
Assuming "discovered on/in  " or "discovered on/in , " exist. It's not ready to go yet, but, all the explicit cases should be accounted for when I'm done, leaving only the (hopefully few) exceptions. I don't know how you're keeping track of which ones still need sortkeys, though, so let me know if you'd like me to wait or to do something extra while going through these. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 23:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Minerva asteroids has been nominated for discussion
Category:Minerva asteroids, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. Peter James (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Fact checking
What made you say this? I think you're confusing me with someone else. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wololo


A tag has been placed on Wololo, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. -- Tavix ( talk ) 00:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Round 1
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Round 2
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Round 3
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

GA Cup-Round 3 Clarification
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Finals
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia:wikipedia listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Wikipedia:wikipedia. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Wikipedia:wikipedia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 19:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Wrap Up
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Untitled
Yo - This is Mohammad Alavi... please forgive my ignorance on how to use wikipedia. I know I'm doing it wrong, but I can't figure out how to send you a message like you sent me one. You asked me for proof that I am who I say I am, I have no idea how to do that. Feel free to contact me at my work email. It's my first name at where I work .com - shouldn't be that hard to figure that out ;). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxxbadmofoxxx (talk • contribs) 22:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

New Horizons
Hi EPS. For this edit, can you provide a source for the orbital parameters? Also, given that it is on a hyperbolic trajectory, of what use are those elements, especially periapsis? Cheers! — Huntster (t @ c) 09:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My source is JPL horizons (http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi#results) barycentric orbital elements for 2017/01/01. Of all values, I believe eccentricity would be the most useful, but I added them because I imagine it would be interesting to compare NH's orbital elements to that of typical asteroids and comets. Feel free to remove it if you want, I just thought it would be somewhat useful to include. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Apparent magnitude of Dragonfly 44
Hello Exoplanetaryscience, I couldn't find the source for the apparent magnitude. Where have you found it? --Fb8cont (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message, the source is the NED search results for the object (here) the specific object SDSS J130057.99+265839.7 is the only identified SDSS object relating to the galaxy- magnitude 22. Technically this magnitude is slightly off for the Gmag- the two other SDSS IDs relating to the galaxy are magnitude 20.7 and 21.0. The actual Vmag of the galaxy is something around magnitude 20.5, but the sheer thinness of the visual part of the galaxy would make it appear around magnitude 22 to an observer anyways.
 * For proof that this is indeed the galaxy- here is an image of it in SDSS, with a small 4-arcsecond cutout of that image here which should be seen as similar to the unsurprisingly more high definition image provided by the Keck observations on the article. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your detailed answer! Yesterday, I've found a link to the first article for the Dragonfly-galaxies, that explaines the word "galaxies" in footnote 1: --Fb8cont (talk) 08:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited X/1106 C1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SOHO. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Parallaxes
I just reverted a couple of edits which changing stellar parallax values but gave no reference. Then I saw who had made them and vandalism seemed less likely. What is happening? Lithopsian (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Gaia DR1 catalog is happening! The values are from Tycho-Gaia astrometric solutions, accessible here http://gea.esac.esa.int/archive/ exoplanetaryscience (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, we're gonna see a lot of updates stemming from the Gaia catalog over the next while. Just remember to provide some kind of citation when you make those changes. That said, I'm not a fan of the Gaia release because, as has been pointed out elsewhere, there is an additional systemic error of 0.3 mas not presented in the actual data, which in my mind makes the data much less useful for us. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Even with that added, the average sigma has been about ~0.3 mas (0.4 mas for closer stars) as I've found, and with an extra 0.3 added, we're looking at 0.6 and 0.7 mas- still a noticeable improvement over Hipparcos's ~1 mas errors.
 * Of course! I should have guessed ;)  I'll add the parallaxes back with the appropriate citation.  Given the trickiness of this halfway house data, this might be a good time to determine whether we just blindly take the error range from the DR1 tables or do something extra with it. Lithopsian (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Done, but I'm not entirely happy with the citation. Currently there is a bibcode for the Vizie database, but it isn't yet properly established and comes back as non-existent in the template or Citation bot.  There is an arXiv preprint bibcode which I've used but it doesn't link to the online data which is unfortunate.  Probably all will be sorted in a week or two. Lithopsian (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

GA Cup Announcement
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 3 October
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * On the List of asteroid close approaches to Earth in 2016 page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=742414242 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F742414242%7CList of asteroid close approaches to Earth in 2016%5D%5D Ask for help])

Sergal listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sergal. Since you had some involvement with the Sergal redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Tropical cyclone articles
Invest 90W does not currently qualify for inclusion because it is still a disturbance. Were it to develop into a tropical depression or tropical storm, then it could be included (either as its own section or as part of the "Other storms" section). I just thought I'd mention it for future reference. Dustin ( talk ) 18:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know! Just getting into cyclone articles, so things are a bit new to me. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a problem. I've been editing weather articles (including tropical cyclone articles) for years, so I've gotten a bit more used to the tropical cyclone project's customs. Dustin  ( talk ) 02:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * On a similar topic, would the cyclone currently in the Mediterranean Sea qualify for its own section here? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There seems to already be a bit of information in the "Other storms" section: Mediterranean tropical-like cyclone. Dustin  ( talk ) 03:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see it was you who added that. Few storms are included at that article; if you are unsure of whether or not the storm in question should be included, then it would be in your best interest to bring it up at the article's talk page. The source you provided does refer to it as a "Mediterranean cyclone", but it does not mention the word "tropical". This page linked from one of your sources does mention that the cyclone could develop warm-core features (two days ago), and tropical cyclones are warm-core systems, but that doesn't ever directly say the storm is tropical or warm-core. I'd personally wait to see if any sources come out showing stronger indications of tropical / tropical-like characteristics in the storm. Dustin  ( talk ) 03:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

New Challenge for Oceania and Australia
Hi, WikiProject Oceania/The 10,000 Challenge and WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge are up and running based on The 10,000 Challenge which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. The Australia challenge would feed into the wider region one and potentially New Zealand could have a smaller challenge too. The main goal is content improvement, tackling stale old stubs and important content and improving sourcing/making more consistent but new articles are also welcome if sourced. I understand that this is a big goal for regular editors, especially being summertime where you are, but if you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Oceania and Australia like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1700 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for the region but fuelled by a series of contests to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. The Africa contest scaled worldwide would naturally provide great benefits to Oceania countries, particularly Australia and attract new editors. I would like some support from existing editors here to get the Challenges off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile and potentially bring about hundreds of improvements in a few weeks through a contest! Cheers.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

4th Annual GA Cup - Round 1
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Good work
You're doing a great work in the wiki. Continue like that!--MASTER+MATES (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also go to this link of es.wikipedia--MASTER+MATES (talk) 08:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)