User talk:Nrco0e/Archive 2

DYK for 20000 Varuna
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK for 2020 AV2
— Wug·a·po·des​ 06:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 12:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Dwarf Planet Revision
Can you please tell me why you removed my addition to the Dwarf Planet page? It was factual and in my own words. I cited sources to back up my statements. Why was it removed? Tigerinatlanta (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry about my impulsive revert. I initially felt that the list was a bit unnecessary for disruptive to the article's prose. Anyways, I restored your edit, without the list. I recommend reading the Wikipedia Manual of Style for additional information about editing. Also use WP:Cite as a guide when citing material. N rco0e (talk · contribs) 04:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for revisiting the revision and being open minded and fair. I just wanted to note on the page that the Official Dwarf Planet listing by the IAU is being reconsidered, and additions are expected. I have a pretty good source on that, but I know I can not cite emails and violate personal privacy. I added Orcus in with the other 5 CDP's to your revision, but in retrospect your revision is more precise and cleaner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerinatlanta (talk • contribs) 14:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I removed it, for the same reason I removed it the last time it was added, based on an earlier version of Pinilla-Alonso et al's paper. The "Official Dwarf Planet listing by the IAU" is not being reconsidered. For one thing, there is no such listing, for another, there's no indication that the IAU is revisiting the issue. All Pinilla-Alonso et al. are doing is looking at the largest TNOs to see how they compare, and proposing that they be studied with the JWST to see if we can figure out which ones might be DPs. Their list of "candidates" is nothing more than known bodies with D + σ > 450. They didn't replicate Tangredi et al's work with more recent data. They say nothing about whether the bodies are in HE and therefor DPs. It may be interesting to note that the smaller TNOs don't look much like the big four, but that's not how your text reads.
 * I summarized their proposal with "Pinilla-Alonso et al. propose that the surfaces of bodies larger than 450 km in diameter be compared with the planned James Webb Space Telescope." Nrco0e, do you see anything notable in their paper? — kwami (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

2020 CD3
I appreciate all the work you're doing on 2020 CD3, it's a fascinating topic. Schazjmd  (talk)  20:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks! N rco0e (talk · contribs) 21:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Bebhionn (moon)
Hi. I added orbital params to the info box, but from Sheppard's site, which have very different numbers than what you put in the text. I don't know what explains the difference, so I thought I'd let you know in case you want to review it. — kwami (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Same with the unnamed Innuit group. — kwami (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

And looks like quite a few in the Norse group, including named moons like Skathi. — kwami (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 28978 Ixion
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 28978 Ixion you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sam-2727 -- Sam-2727 (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 28978 Ixion
The article 28978 Ixion you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:28978 Ixion for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sam-2727 -- Sam-2727 (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Nrco0e

Thank you for creating 2MASS J10475385+2124234.

User:Sam-2727, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Sam-2727 (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear
Re: List of Solar System objects by size- What is your criterion for removal? Exactly what standard are you employing for inclusion? While, as I said, I am in favour of shortening the article, I would prefer a settled, established line that everyone agrees on. Making sudden drastic changes without reaching an agreement with other editors is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. While you do good work on the whole, you tend to treat Wikipedia as your own personal garden. A little collaboration goes a long way. (BTW, since you have a habit of ignoring me, I am posting on your talk page instead of the page discussion)  Serendi pod ous  21:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

In my view, I prefer the list to include objects that have have had their sizes measured—through direct imaging, thermal emission, or occultations. I might make some exceptions for some larger TNOs and moons that have not been measured without assumed albedos, but honestly I'm uncertain about including these in the first place. The current list (as well as prior revisions) still includes a large number of main belt asteroids that have well-determined diameters, though perhaps they can be limited by their minor planet number (preferably below 100 for those with a radius less than 50 km). On your note about me ignoring your messages, I tend to forget to check talk pages, so I prefer to be pinged just in case. N rco0e (talk · contribs) 21:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I have done some work on that article, too, so I am going to respond here. I share your intention to base the list on well-determined parameters rather than estimates. Unfortunately, for many of the largest minor planets, estimates are all we have. Removing objects from the list for which we allegedly have no reliable estimates is actually dangerous: It implies that the estimates for the other objects are any good. Take as a random example. Its diameter is listed as $309.5$ km; it's density as $0.609$ g/cm³. Sounds great, until you realize that those are estimates based on an assumed average albedo for SDOs, and on hydrostatic equilibrium (the first assumption is statistics, the second is unlikely to be true). The point is, most of the "measurements" we have are indirect, and are prone to error. They are no more reliable than taking the "standard" estimate based on absolute magnitude and the average albedo for the object's class. This is also true for most of the thermal measurements, which often have systematic uncertainties far greater than the statistical uncertainties that are cited. Occultation measurements are great, but they usually only give a lower bound for the size, and rarely give any of the three axes of an ellipsoid model. Direct (resolved) imaging is the only really reliable method to determine an object's size. What do I suggest? Take all measurements except those based on direct resolved imaging with a grain of salt. Don't give undue weight to some methods of measurement compared to others. Note that size estimates based on albedo aren't guesswork, they are genuine measurements combined with statistics. And make it clear to the reader how the sizes in the table are derived. Renerpho (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Halimede image incorrect?
I've suspected that based on other sources, our image of Halimede is incorrect and that the image is actually of Laomedeia.

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~mholman/S2002N3_anim.gif This image is the same as in the infobox for Halimede and is said to depict S/2002 N 3, which is Laomedeia.

I suspect the names got mixed up in the 2007 announcements of their names, which was later corrected.

What do you think? 8.40.149.206 (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Another misattributed image of a moon, it seems like? Holman's page does not specify any details of the image, though the file name doesn't necessarily identify what the object actually is in the image. The only sources that identify the moon are SpaceFlight Now and NASA's Solar System page, both which attribute the object as Halimede (S/2002 N 1), though NASA does not mention its name in the caption, so it's possible that the object could be misidentified. I couldn't find any archive of Holman's page back to 2000, so it's uncertain if the file name had been modified.
 * So far, all I can say is that the object's identity in the image is inconclusive. I will try to contact Holman about this image, and if he does reply, I will notify you. N rco0e (talk · contribs) 00:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Custom signature fix needed
Hi there! You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. A change to Wikipedia's software has made your current custom signature incompatible with the software.

The problem: Your signature contains a syntax error, specifically formatting tags that are in the wrong order.

The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, or you can fix your signature.


 * Solution 1: Reset your signature to the default:
 * Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
 * Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
 * Remove anything in the text box.
 * Click the blue "" button at the bottom of the page. (The red "" button will reset all of your preference settings, not just the signature.)
 * Solution 2: Fix your custom signature:
 * Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
 * Change the signature as shown below, or make other edits to make the signature appear how you want it to appear.
 * Click Save to update to your newly fixed signature.

Current signature:

Fixed signature:

More information is available at Signatures. If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like this signature is also above the length limit. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 02:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Philophrosyne (moon) § WP:WEASEL vs WP:PROMO
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Philophrosyne (moon) § WP:WEASEL vs WP:PROMO. OrderOftheNerds (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

2020 SO
{Cvt} -> {Convert}, agree is better. Thx 220.235.97.3 (talk) 03:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for (523764) 2014 WC510
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hippocamp (moon)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hippocamp (moon) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Forbes72 -- Forbes72 (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hippocamp (moon)
The article Hippocamp (moon) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Hippocamp (moon) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Forbes72 -- Forbes72 (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hippocamp (moon)
The article Hippocamp (moon) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hippocamp (moon) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Forbes72 -- Forbes72 (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2020 BX12
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2020 BX12 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Footlessmouse -- Footlessmouse (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2020 BX12
The article 2020 BX12 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2020 BX12 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Footlessmouse -- Footlessmouse (talk) 06:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2020 BX12
The article 2020 BX12 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2020 BX12 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Footlessmouse -- Footlessmouse (talk) 07:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2017 YE5
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2017 YE5 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Footlessmouse -- Footlessmouse (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2017 YE5
The article 2017 YE5 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2017 YE5 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Footlessmouse -- Footlessmouse (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2017 YE5
The article 2017 YE5 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2017 YE5 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Footlessmouse -- Footlessmouse (talk) 04:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Dabs on 225088 Gonggong & templates
I noticed your revert on 225088 Gonggong & note your comment on the templates for dwarf planet & minor planet. Are you suggesting these deliberately point to a disambiguation page - this wouldn't be useful to readers trying to find more about the specific bodies & is there any way to make them link to specific articles?&mdash; Rod talk 08:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant that the dp template intends to link to the minor planet article instead. If you prefer normal wikilinks, you can just replace the template. N rco0e   (talk · contribs)   17:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It turns out that the dp template wasn't there before you made your edit; for some reason Eris and Sedna were linked by the mpl template instead. Apologies for not checking that, though thankfully this has already been fixed by another user.

2019 BE5
Thanks for expanding my article and giving me some useful information! 2003 LN6 (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)