User talk:Exoplanetaryscience/2017

4th GA Cup - Round 2
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

4th GA Cup - Round 3
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

total_v
See WP:SYNTH. I'll add another comment, to the effect that the value you're giving isn't a velocity, it's a speed relative to the Sun - a fairly meaningless value. If this was published somewhere, I'd ask why is the velocity relative to our system relevant, rather than the velocity compared to (e.g.) galactic disk or local cluster of stars. A velocity is meaningful mostly in that it can predict future or past motion, and a simple magnitude isn't all that interesting. I think you should back out your total_v addition to the template. Regards, Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 14:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

4th GA Cup - The Final
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

numbering of new Jovian moons
I notice you numbered the new satellites LIV through LIX at List of natural satellites, and that the articles have alread been moved at the French Wikipedia (e.g. fr:Jupiter LIV); could you give a link to the original announcement? It would be very cool to see! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey there, the announcement of their numbering comes from the Minor Planet Center announcement at the very end of last week's MPC: MPC20170609.pdf. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 05:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! (Now I think I know what those "L??" figures on Sheppard's Jupiter satellite page must have meant; obviously he was saying that some of them now have orbits known well enough to get Roman numerals, although he gave one to the still unnumbered S/2003 J 16 as well.)
 * I've been going through the moon articles and moved all six, as well as changing the links in some of the lists. Double sharp (talk) 06:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

We're on Twitter!
RachelWex 19:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Empty category
Hi. I see you created back in 2015. Recently there's been an IP emptying categories, of which this was one. It's not my area so I don't know what the story is, but for the moment I've tagged it for deletion as being empty - you might like to take a look? Cheers Le Deluge (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see why they would do that frankly. Can you re-add the articles they removed from it? I'm currently quite busy. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "there is no such thing as an Tholen I type" apparently... I'm kinda snowed myself, and just as importantly I haven't got a clue about any of this, I just came across the blanked cat whilst doing something else. I've asked WP Astronomy to take a look.Le Deluge (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Inbound Velocity at 200 AU from the Sun
The observation arc and/or # of observations is quite poor for C/1947 F1 and C/2008 J4. Should we keep them in the table or does it only further confuse readers? -- Kheider (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that's more irrelevant when taking into context how well we know their orbit: C/2008 J4 had a nominal incoming velocity of 8 +/- 1.3 km/s, and C/1947 F1 had a nominal incoming velocity of 5.8 +/- 1.4 km/s. I of course didn't include C/1999 U2 due to the completely uselessly high uncertainty- but despite these two objects fairly poor orbits, the fact that theirs is well-within-the-error much higher than any other comet, I'd probably include them but maybe add a velocity uncertainty or something like that. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems ok now that there is a note about "only a handful of observations". This is why 17U1 look potentially dubious until there where further observations. -- Kheider (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm still under the impression that astronomers were a bit too skeptical of U1 at first. It's already noticeably harmed the data collection on it. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!