User talk:Nrco0e/Archive 3

Changes to Eris Rotation Period.
I reverted your changes to the rotation period of Eris back to the 25.9 hour that JPL cites. Also corrected your link to the paper you cited, url pointed to the wrong link. The paper you cite for the 14.56d rotation is dubious at best. There is no actual paper, only an abstract and it cites several papers that are only in the process of being submitted. All by the same author. I tried to find an actual paper to fully review the sources, but was unsuccessful. Please reference any you want me to read. I've added this talking point because I was not logged in as an actual user when I made the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nylastin (talk • contribs) 17:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Jupiter moons recovery
Wow!!! Double sharp (talk) 09:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow indeed! Renerpho (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Largest TNOs nomination
I believe you still need to transclude your nomination. Lexicon (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. N rco0e   (talk · contribs)   22:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2MASS J03480772−6022270
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2MASS J03480772−6022270 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 Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2MASS J03480772?6022270
The article 2MASS J03480772?6022270 you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:2MASS J03480772?6022270 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2MASS J03480772−6022270
The article 2MASS J03480772−6022270 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:2MASS J03480772−6022270 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

S/2015 (136472) 1‎
BTW, the vandal made the same edit to the moon article. Fixed; just FYI that this is a common pattern with vandals, and may be overlooked on articles that aren't on many watchlists. — kwami (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:J1953-1019 triple system.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:J1953-1019 triple system.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I am neither the uploader, nor the copyright holder. But I wonder if the image is even copyrightable? The only thing that looks like it is are the annotations; the rest seems to be copyright-free, per this statement. Alternatively, if the image has to be deleted, an almost identical one that is definitely in the public domain can be created here. Renerpho (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Renerpho, I'm not sure, so I started a discussion here: Files for discussion/2021 September 27. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Outer Jovian satellite orbits
Thanks for the Barnstar!

I edited those articles in part to learn a bit more about their classifications, and how to go through the MPC data. Since I did that, I've been on and off considering options to make the task a bit friendlier. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about these irregular satellites to make a definite decission. I have to read some papers regarding them to get a better picture of their general properties, and maybe write to the astronomer credited with most of their updates on the MPC.

But, for the time being, I see two possibilities:
 * 1) Their orbits are, indeed, completely irregular, moving all around the place. The fact that their trajectories and inclinations remain relatively similar since the time of their parents' fragmentations points to this being unlikely, or their creation a relatively recent event.
 * 2) The orbits, although irregular, are still kept within a constrained volume through gravity interactions with bigger bodies. This would mean their orbital parameters could be more easily described with value +/- margins.

While I gather enough information to determine which is the case, I think it should be possible to partly automate the gathering of information, and maybe updating the articles. I'm considering writing a script (local, for now) to see how feasible it'd be to parse the MPC data for each irregular moon (from a list of system numeral/unique identifier). If I could do that, running it from time to time and update manually out of date articles would be a lot less tedious.

The second phase would be trying to do this with a bot, which could run once per month and auto-update each satellite's parameters. This would leave each group's pages and maybe the introduction of each article to manually update. I'm not familiar with the development of Wikipedia bots, and whether they can access external info (and parse PDF files), but it might be possible.

Let me know your thoughts. Elideb (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * A suggestion: If you plan to automate the process, using the new JPL API may be the better option. Renerpho (talk) 10:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)