User talk:PlanetStar/Archive 3

RFC on " Astobiological Potential "
Is what is happening here what I think is happening here? 198.163.53.11 (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * IP spam from a City of Winnipeg network. Make what you will of that. . dave souza, talk 22:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Unhexseptium‎
You only get one !vote in an AfD discussion, and have now !voted twice in this AfD. I suggest change one of your keep !votes to a comment.

On an unrelated note, Roentgenium111 asked you a question here and I'd appreciate it if you'd respond. Since, if there are indeed scientific papers on these elements, I'd be inclined to change my vote to keep. Yilloslime (t) 21:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits to List of weather records
I have reverted your edits. When dealing with a temperature range, the correct notation is "C°", the equivalent of saying "Celsius degrees". This is to avoid confusion when doing unit conversions, since, for example, 10°C=50°F, while 10 C°=18 F°. Let me know if you have any questions. - Running On  Brains  01:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I had never heard of it either, but then again, I never had to express a range of temperature in print. Someone corrected it a while back, and I assumed they knew what they were talking about (see Talk:List of weather records).- Running On  Brains  02:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Exoplanet/Parent star question
This might seem like a silly question from an amateur astronomer, but I have to ask. Based on coordinates of stars how do you determine which constellation they are in? I've yet to find a database with coordinates for the constellations to reference. I made the star stub for HD 45364, but left out the constellation which I assumed to be Auriga based on the coordinates. I saw you made the exoplanet stubs and list them as Canis Major. I'm always watching the exoplanet discoveries as well and can make the parent star articles if you're going to do the planet ones. I figure it'll be busy soon with the Kepler launch. If you can answer that question, thanks. SkarmCA (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I found out which constellation this star is located by looking at my celestial map of constellations based on their coordinates. This star is located in Canis Major, which is in south celestial hemisphere, but Auriga is in north celestial hemisphere, since this star is located in south celestial hemisphere. I wish that constellation about where stars are located should have shown in The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia, which is one of the most popular websites for people who are interested about extrasolar planets, and they should contain all important datas. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 21:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I obviously either entirely misread the data involving coordinates or I mistook southern for northern. Probably the latter. Thankfully anything discovered by Kepler should either be Cygnus or Lyra, but of course I am anticipating some curveballs. Even Caltech/JPL/NASA's "New World Atlas" on the PlanetQuest subpages which I have also used to track doesn't list constellation or anything else. Alas, I'll have to find myself a celestial map like yours to avoid anymore obvious errors. Thanks for the answer. SkarmCA (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * According to http://www.memorybankinc.com/starmap/m12.htm which admittedly isn't the best star map, HD 45364 would barely fall into Columba rather than Canis Major. Am I still getting this entirely wrong? SkarmCA (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * According to http://wikisky.org/, which is a better star map, this star is located in Canis Major. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 16:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

How come you are missing this false references??
I am surprised about you, you are unusually very thorough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WASP-11b/HAT-P-10b

The references in this article were by pay subscription only.

This is a free encyclopedia and pay subscriptions should not be allowed in the case of proper references.

Are you checking for this or do you pay for the subscriptions??

24.79.87.52 (talk) 04:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't pay for subscriptions. If I was attempting to read the abstract article, if it comes up as "requiring for you to log in for subscription", I just ignore loging in and can't read the article. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 21:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Goldilocks planet
Thank you for your cleanup of Goldilocks planet, especially my mental typo on Kepler's launch date. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your welcome! BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 21:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox ununoctium
I have fixed this template. Debresser (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello in a long time
Hello, how's it going? Sorry we haven't talked in a long time, but I want to try to get back in touch. I don't want to leave you in the dark for my most recently named planet, so check it out. — Nuclear  Vacuum  22:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Solar System
nominated Solar System for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

COROT-1 Help
Hey, BlueEarth.

I'm working on the star article COROT-1, and I may have been hasty in putting it up for Good article status; it was shot down pretty quickly on basis of its shortness.

Do you have access to the Astrophysical Journal, or other sources I can use to expand it?

Thanks for taking the time to look at this. Maybe something can be made of this situation. Jayhawke (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I read Astrophysical Journals alot, you can look in http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=CoRoT-1#a_publi for a list of journals to choose and find sources you can use to expand COROT-1.--BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 21:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

second opinion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Icalanise#GabrielVelasquez I just wanted to know it you thought these comments were fair? GabrielVelasquez (talk) 03:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think these comments were not fair as it may involve edit wars. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 20:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

List of extrasolar planets
Hey, you are good with details and if you have time I thought you might want to finish adding error ranges/margins to the planet list at the List of extrasolar planets. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello?? do you check your messages? - GabrielVelasquez (talk) 05:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I did, I'm in working process. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 19:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I see you've lost your interest in exoplanets for baseball instead. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I got one-thirds of my process done! BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 20:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort. There are some errors I corrected and they didn't stick (browser issue maybe), if they are still there later I'll fix them, but I don't enjoy the tedious stuff like you.

- you suggested this change and I added the columns for mass, radius and temperature. If you enjoy that as well you might wish to continue it. I would suggest though that you get some rest, so you don't make errors with that also. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 08:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

personal RFC on sneeky edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Planetary_habitability&diff=311665773&oldid=311665338

I'm curious to know, do you consider this kind of edit sneeky and/or not encyclopedic?? GabrielVelasquez (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove discussion tag, somebody did it sneekly. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 18:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

For your eye for detail and diligent corrections.
Nice working with you, Good luck. Good bye. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Proper use of TeX
I found this passage you wrote in minimum mass:
 * the true mass will be calculated using the following formula:
 * $$M_{true} = \frac{M_{min}}{sin\, i}$$
 * $$M_{true} = \frac{M_{min}}{sin\, i}$$
 * $$M_{true} = \frac{M_{min}}{sin\, i}$$

Here is the way it should have appeared (and I changed it accordingly): Notice these points:
 * the true mass will be calculated using the following formula:
 * $$M_\text{true} = \frac{M_\min}{\sin i}$$
 * $$M_\text{true} = \frac{M_\min}{\sin i}$$
 * $$M_\text{true} = \frac{M_\min}{\sin i}$$
 * The whole TeX display is indented by a preceding colon.
 * The subscript "true" is set in text mode, coded thus: M_\text{true} instead of M_{true}.
 * "min" is an operator name, so I've written it thus: M_\min instead of M_{min}. This not only prevents the letters from being italicized if they were variables, but also in some contexts results in proper spacing and proper formatting.  Thus, for example, in
 * $$\min_a b \, $$
 * coded as \min_a b, the subscript appears directly under the word min.


 * "sin" is also an operator name. Where you wrote
 * sin\, i
 * I wrote
 * \sin i
 * This prevents italicization of the letters sin and causes proper spacing to appear after "sin". When TeX is used in the usual way, as opposed to the limited way it's used within Wikipedia, this also prevents a line break between "sin" and "i".

Some of this, including the indentation convention, is codified at Manual of Style (mathematics).

TeX was invented by Donald Knuth, so it's sophisticated. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Great categories, but strange grammar?
Am I missing something: The new categories for stars with a given number of planets dosne't sound right to me. Shouldn't it be "Stars that have n planets"? — Aldaron • T/C 22:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be "Stars that have n planets". We should have Kbdankbot to change all these categories. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 19:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

"Aldaron's date format"
LOL. I wish that were "mine", but it's actually an ISO format. I use it now everywhere without thinking (and it gets me into trouble sometimes). — Aldaron • T/C 19:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * When I expand the articles about three planets around 61 Virginis and HD 1461, I changed the date format from 2009-12-14 to 14 December 2009 to clarify more and be consistent with all other articles. Then today because I feel moody about changing the date format that you just put it in, I changed it back to your date format. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 19:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wladimir Lyra and other questions on exoplanets
Hello, there, I'm not sure if I'm posting this in the right section, since I'm still not so expert in managing Wikipedia's tools. However here I try to give answers to several questions I've received:

- No, I am not Wladimir Lyra, I have not submitted the article displayed on arxiv "Naming the Extrasolar Planets". There the astronomy researcher has proposed a list of putative common names for exoplanet candidates. It is an interesting paper, though some critiques could be moved (but this is not the right place, of course). If interested, I am working on an alternative list, that also displays a naming criterion and not only a mere list of arbitrary names. Tyrogthekreeper (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We should be very careful about how we discuss various proposed naming schemes. Names are very important to an encyclopedia, and exoplanets already have many (because stars have multiple designations). One author's suggested scheme should not be treated as significant until it achieves very wide acceptance. Until then, the only place it should be mentioned is in a general discussion about planet naming. Lyra's (or anyone else's) proposed names should certainly not be mentioned in each individual exoplanet article. — Aldaron • T/C 21:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

- Yes, I am submitting some extrasolar planet artwork made with software Celestia. I have tried to display the template "Celestia" in the description box, but it doesn't work to me, I don't know why. I hope to fix this soon. Tyrogthekreeper (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the exoplanet images a lot. There's a discussion of the appropriate use of artist's impressions of exoplanets on the planetbox template's talk page. — Aldaron • T/C 21:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for constructive criticism. Best regards Tyrogthekreeper (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)