User talk:Jyril/archive1

Text here is archived. If you like to add a comment, please move the relevant discussion back to the talk page.

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:


 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Tip: you can sign your name with ~ 

snoyes 17:02, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

13 Egeria
Did you skip this one on purpose? Rmhermen 17:21, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

No, it was one of my first additions... I don't know why, but on some pages the link opens the edit page. Jyril 18:37, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

municipalities of Finland
(In Finnish)

Moi, luodessasi kuntasivuja, et laittaisi myös kielilinkkejä - joka kunnalla pitäisi olla sivu suomenkielisellä puolella. --Mikko Paananen 11:33, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

90377 Sedna
Sorry about the shuffle. The IAUC announcing the naming takes a while before making itself known through press channels (or Google), and, of course, the IAUC pages still stop at 8215 (2003 oct 07!) so they can't be checked...

Still, MPEC 2004-S75 plus the MPC's conversion designator are good enough evidence.

We'll have to add the naming IAUC to Sedna's bibliography once we've got it identified...

Urhixidur 12:12, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Jyril/categories
Jyril/categories appeared to be an attempt to create a temporary article in your user space. I've taken the liberty of moving it to User:Jyril/categories and updating the link on your user page for you. Uncle G 15:30, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)

Thank you, my error... Jyril 17:06, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Articles by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=85.74.9.60
I'm sorry i don't remember how to wikilink to user contributions, so an url. This anon use has produced many nice articles about stars, but the article titles seem to be their arabian names and the articles are completely unwikified for the most part. I feel these articles should be checked by someone knowledged about astronomy. I feel completely incompetent for that. I only ask you because you seem good at astronomy. Sorry if i'm bugging you, but would you have a look at them? Lady Tenar 22:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Diametre vs Diameter
Why are you going around, changing perfectly good English spelling into something unsightly? 62.6.139.12 14:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Is it proper English? For example Merriam-Webster does not know such spelling. But if it is good English, then I shall change them no more. -- Jyril 14:56, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Gosse Bluff
Hi, As mentioned at nt.gov.au the gosse bluff is a comet crater, not a meteorite crater, isn't it? That's why I changed it - sorry if I was wrong.

reto


 * All craters are called "meteor craters" no matter if the impactor was an asteroid or comet, because it's usually impossible to tell what kind of body caused the crater. Jyril 15:44, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * ok, it's up to you. The NT Park and Wildlife Commission always talks of a comet, so it would probably at least be wise to mention that the "crater" probably was formed by a comet, not a meteor. No matter what you call that crater. (please read the link i provided, or visit the crater. (there is a nice plate provided by NT P&W Commission)


 * Well, I rather believe geologists and astronomers ;). But it's perfectly ok for me if you write "caused by meteor or comet" like here. This site has some good views of the crater. -- Jyril 22:43, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Extrasolar Planets
I see you have been working on various articles pertaining to the newly discovered extrasolar planets. I appreciate you work on them, as the list of discoveries is sure to enlarge again soon. I will help contribute some info when I can also. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:24, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Star colours
Thanks for the star colour info on Talk:Stellar classification. SteveW 15:44, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Traditional star names vs. Bayer designations
Well, in many cases the tradtional name is not the most common name.

For example, see Dschubba, which is Delta Scorpii. When Sky and Telescope did a set of articles about its recent brightening, they called it "Delta Scorpii".

There are some very bright stars for which the traditional name is always used... for instance, no one would ever refer to "Alpha Canis Majoris" instead of "Sirius". But for many other less bright stars, the traditional name is much less well known or used... or worse, there is more than one traditional name, or there are many variant spellings. In this case, I think the common actual practice (in popular astronomy magazines like Sky and Telescope and in books) is to use the Bayer designation.

Looking at the list of brightest stars, I'd say only the ones brighter than Castor are exclusively known by their traditional names (except for Alpha Centauri, Beta Centauri (Hadar), perhaps Becrux, and probably Epsilon Canis Majoris (Adhara)). Apart from those, only a small list of exceptions are really mostly known by their traditional name: Polaris, Mira, Algol, and probably Mizar, maybe Bellatrix, Albireo, Denebola. For the rest, people in practice call them by their Bayer designations.

So this would be in keeping with the policy of Naming conventions (common names). In most cases the Bayer designation is the most commonly used and known name.

-- Curps 14:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

4179 Toutatis
Why did you remove the "chaotic" category from 4179 Toutatis? (Also, I don't think content changes like that one should be marked as "minor" even if they don't change much text.) --Doradus 21:53, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Nice footers
I guess that says it all! Nice footers! --Wetman 14:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you! By the way, I didn't invent those colors, they are "official" USGS color codes. I probably make additional footers for each periods. Before that, epoch and stage articles have to be created. --Jyril 14:36, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, good work so far. Those are definitely more attractive than the current navigation templates at the top of the article, and I think the left to right ordering is far more intuitive than the up/down arrangement (which confused me). But I see four areas where they can be improved:

68.81.231.127 17:34, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) The background colors are too dark, making the text in the foreground difficult to read. Especially since some of the colors are very similar to the blue links.
 * 2) Some of the footers are far too wide. The Phanerozoic scrolls off the screen on my computer, and it really should work in 800x600 resolution.
 * 3) It duplicates the older template at the top of the articles.
 * 4) They're too complex. For instance, the Carboniferous and the Phanerozoic Footer cover some of the same ground twice, and together become a big, ugly blob to the bottom of the article instead of a nice, intuitive toolbar. The real purpose of a navigational template is to provide quick, easy navigation and too much detail hinders that. (Comprehensiveness is important, but the navigational templates are the wrong place.)


 * Well,
 * I've noticed that. Is there any way to change link colors instead? I wouldn't like to change the colors since they are standardized colors.
 * I know, I'll chop Phanerozoic into different eras.
 * Yes, but is there way to combine comprehensiveness and easiness? I wanted to keep the number of templates as small as possible. When I start to create faunal stage articles, should I create a template for each epoch (navigation would stay simple, but many templates are needed) or should they stay as one large chunk? --Jyril 17:59, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Much better! It would be nice to find a way to combine the two templates in each article, but that might create too much complexity. I'll think about it some more, but one solution might be more dynamic templates (see Template:Succession box for a simple way to pass variables, and WikiProject Tree of Life/Taxobox Usage for a very elaborate one). You could also add a link to geologic timescale at the top of the template (like the ToL taxoboxes do with scientific classification) if someone wants to jump around a lot, though that would work better with only one box.

While I don't think changing the link colors is a good idea (bright yellow comes to mind :), there might be some way to add a border or a patch of color... you could ask at Help desk. However, the colors might have to be sacrificed.

I also don't think there is a lot of need to worry about anything below the period. Faunal stages are very specialized, and it's hard to imagine a complete article on most of them; and even the upper/middle/lower subdivisions are usually just easier to lump into the main article.

But good work. :) 68.81.231.127 22:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Meteor/Impact crater
Your meteor stubs all link to meteor crater instead of impact crater. I'm going through changing them - if you're going to add any more, can you use impact crater? Thanks, SeventyThree 16:22, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm adding more craters, since all the known craters should already be in Wikipedia. --Jyril 16:40, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Extrasolar Planets
On your extrasolar planet tables &Omega;`longitude of the ascending node` should be &omega;`longitude of the periastron`.as for example at http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJ/v483n1/35587/35587.html see table 4 at very bottomMike s 00:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course, you're absolutely correct. I'll correct the template. --Jyril 07:49, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually &omega; is the symbol for the argument of periastron and the symbol for the longitude of periastron is &#0982;. --Jyril 08:25, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Eta Cassiopeiae B
I had added that based on a single source I found giving it as M0. I checked a few better sources and one of them gave K4 and the other K7, so I'm going to revert myself. Thanks for noticing that. JYolkowski 00:11, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Luminosity classes
As Categories are supposed to be aids to navigation, having the categories with redirect informatin would do no harm, and would help in navigation. Single membership in a category by a subcategory (ie. Bright giant) wouldn't hurt. Not everyone is an astronomer, and they may wander into Category:stars, so might want to look up a luminosity class, without knowing equivalence (same with Spectral Types actually), so they could click through. (Ofcourse, I didn't link in the proper categories yet). Multiple indexing should be used, no? 132.205.15.43 23:02, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If only actually displayed "yyy", then there'd not be much of a problem. 132.205.15.43 01:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Type-P and Q, yes I did know that Q is for novae... I hadn't gotten around to building the relevant redirects into the category articles. I was wondering whether I should have included P or not, but I chose to put it in as a navigation aid (though, again, I did not finish it off with a redirect statement) 132.205.45.148 19:45, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Designations
Hello Jyril, this is a really small point, but in perfect English grammar, one should write "It is also designated Uranus V", not "It is also designated as Uranus V". (I don't think many people would notice, but I am a pedant) :) The Singing Badger 18:28, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the correction.--Jyril 18:36, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Images and media for deletion

 * I am contacting people who previously helped to vote to delete a generally objectionable photograph by a vote of 88 to 21, and who might be unaware that immediately after that image was voted to be deleted someone posted another which was very similar in content. My objections to this, and the previous image that was voted to be deleted might be based upon reasons far different from any that you have, but I do object to it, and consider the posting of such images to be acts of asinine stupidity, which burdens the project and its major educational aims in ways that they should not be burdened, and can be extremely detrimental to the acceptance and growth of WIkipedia's use and influence. Thus far those who I believe to be in the extreme minority of Wikipedians who would like to include these images, many who have been channeled to the voting page from the article with which it is associated have dominated the voting, 23 to 12 (as of the time that I composed this message). I would like to be somewhat instrumental in shedding a bit more light upon the issue, and if possible, helping to turn the tide against its inclusion. It might also be necessary to begin making an effort to establish an explicit Wikipedia policy against explicit photographic depictions of humans engaged in erotic, auto-erotic, or quasi-erotic activities. To my limited knowledge such images have not been accepted as appropriate anywhere else within this project, and frankly I can agree with those who are casually labeled prudes for opposing their inclusion, that they should not be. Vitally important information that might be unwelcome by some is one thing that should never be deleted, but un-needed images that can eventually prevent or impede many thousands or millions of people from gaining access to the great mass of truly important information that Wikipedia provides is quite another matter. There are vitally important distinctions to be made. Whatever your reasons, or final decisions upon the matter, I am appealing for more input on the voting that is occurring at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion. ~ Achilles † 04:29, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AstOrb Browser 1.30
Just a quick note to let you know that AstOrb Browser has been updated to version 1.30 --this update fixes serious problems the previous versions were having with Unicode names. The Quick-And-Dirty Guide has been updated as well. There has also been a minor improvement to the Search interface. Enjoy! Urhixidur 21:47, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)
 * Great! I'll take a look of it.--Jyril 22:02, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin
Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:56, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Mercury
Thanks for the notice, i will fix the image.--Zxcvbnm 3 July 2005 01:04 (UTC)

thanks!
Thanks, Jyril, for your vote of confidence! I hope to use my new powers responsibly. --Spangineer (háblame)  July 4, 2005 04:00 (UTC)

Thanks for the Complement
Thanks for the complement on my Hirnantian article. Sorry it took me so long to get back with you. I'm so new that I didn't understand that I had something in Mytalk, much less how to reply :-). Anyway, are there specific geological time articles that you would like me to focus on first, or should I just grab whatever looks interesting to me? --Lenn 16:51, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

2003 UB313 SDO?
Should 2003 UB313 also be classified as a scattered disk object in the Trans-Neptunian object article, where I tentatively listed it as "unclassified"? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:34, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Can anyone really classify something larger than Pluto to be a 'scattered disk object'? If the findings are right, we would classify it a planet and wouldn't have to argue about whether or not that's right because it is larger than the hotly debated Pluto. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:03, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Why did you change the unicode numbers in 2003 UB313 back to &lt;sub&gt;? We don't need to use things like that anymore now that en: has been upgraded. Nicholas 16:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I think undefined tags must be used because the Unicode numbers look way too small, too ugly, and not everyone can see them. They may appear as squares, which is too bad when the numbers are important.--Jyril


 * Well I would disagree with the points that they look too small and too ugly, that's personal preference. Honestly I can't see any difference between them and the &lt;sub> ones, aside from a slight (perhaps 0.5pt) size difference, not significant enough to make them unreadable. Not everyone being able to see them is probably due to people having really ancient computers. Do these people really matter? I mean, even RiscOS supports unicode. Do Ataris? Nicholas


 * I have a brand new Windows XP installation, not a RiscOS box. In IE (yes, yes, it's junk, but that's what most of Wikipedia's visitors use) they're rendered as boxes. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:39, July 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * They don't render properly for too many visitors - see discussion at Talk:2003_EL61. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:25, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Subscripts
Hey, Jyril, really appreciate the work you've done on minor planet stuff, especially now that KBOs are enjoying a bit of headline time. Wikipedia's managed to catch me up on the last year or so of progress quite nicely, and I suppose I have you in part to thank for that.

Just thought I'd give a heads up that I've cooked up Template:Minplan which can be used to spit out minor planet wikilinks without either unicode or manually-inputted &lt;sub> tags. Hopefully it'll satisfy the &lt;sub> haters out there and let us keep 2003 UB313 at the appropriate namespace. -The Tom 21:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It looks useful. Although it doesn't much shorten the code, it makes it more readable. HTML fits badly in Wikicode.--Jyril 21:51, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Votes for undeletion
You voted in the VfD for Admira Ismić and Boško Brkić. I believe that this article was deleted without a clear consensus, and have nominated the article for undeletion. If you would like to contribute to the VfU discussion, please follow the link above. Thanks for your time! Pburka 00:22, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Impact events
Hello. I'm not sure if Impact Events is superfluous or not, I was simply looking for a list of Earth Impact Events yesterday and found inconsitency in how they were tagged with it. As you seem to be much more in touch with the subject, you should probably be the one making a value call on it. -Falcorian 17:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)