User talk:Serendipodous/archive 13

Do you think you could do me a BIG favour?
Sorry to rush things, but I think it's time we started thinking of converting List of spherical astronomical bodies in the Solar System to a sortable table with the values along the top, rather than along the side as they are now. I have no idea how to do this, and was hoping you could pitch in, because User:Dojarca is on the verge of starting an edit war with me again and I would prefer not to have to go through another dispute resolution. Thank you.  Serendi pod ous  15:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I basically didn't understand exactly what you are trying to tell me, apart from the fact you want to convert that table to a sortable table. I am pretty busy with real-life work now, but you are obviously free to look at how the sortable table I drafted is made, and convert it. Syntax is basically the same of normal tables. I'll jump in ASAP but don't know when. As for the edit war, what's the deal? --Cyclopia (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What does it mean "values are listed horizontally"? It is a table: it has two directions. Do you mean that the same kind of value (e.g. diameter) is on a row instead of a column? However my table has values vertical (I don't even known if horizontal sortability is possible) so I really don't know how it can satisfy the other editor. --Cyclopia (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I am all for values being the columns and planets being the rows, personally: so if you need to be backed up on this, let me know. --Cyclopia (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent; biased against trafficking in colons) I can alter the table if you want. Also don't overlook the comment below Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 14:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If aligned as you wish, it would have to be broken up into 2 or even 3 tables. See User:Ling.Nut/page6. Don't look at how misaligned the data is; just look at how long the top row is & how far it goes off the page. Still want it? Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 16:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Uranus/climate_subpage
This page was created as draft of Uranus article long ago. Do you need it? Ruslik (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

FAR notification
Kreutz Sungrazers has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. &mdash;Ceran (Sing) 23:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Santa
No worries. Should have stopped back earlier. No stopping you folks with Solar System bodies! Marskell (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Horizontal Tables
Sorry that I haven't gotten back to you. Been busy. The one quick suggestion I would make is to create a row template as part of any conversion to a horizontal table. You can also see an example of that at List of colors, and Template:Colort/Color. The reason for using a row template is two-fold, one is it is much easier to see on the line exactly what you are editing since all the fields. As for making the list sortable check out meta:Help:Sorting and meta:Help:Table. Hope this helps. PaleAqua (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello...
Thanks for the note... don't worry, all is well. I've emailed you. Cheers. --Ckatz chat spy  19:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: things spherical, am I really one of the main contributors? I didn't see my name in the list at all. --Ckatz chat spy  21:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Halo
In answer to your question: No - the halo planets are nearer to us than the Oort cloud although both were formed by being thrown out of the main solar system.

The full article is reprinted here: http://2012.tribe.net/thread/02187fb6-1e41-4ce7-8af0-701227a9963f

The relevant part of the article appears in the article as a sidebox (you know magazines like putting lots of boxes in articles rather than having one long stream of prose.)

In the reprint this box appears at the bottom: "The planets thought to be the missing half of the solar system are unlikely to have been thrown as far as the long-period comets. But they are still going to be a long way out, anything between 25 to 250 times further from the sun than Pluto." Delaszk (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Alan stern is also mentioned in the New Scientist article, and he seems to have been the first to suggest this idea. See this Boston Globe article: Solar system may contain 1,000 planets, astronomer says. Delaszk (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Jupiter topic
I think collaborating might be more efficient. Anyways, I will probably get really busy for a while which means I will be working only now and then. Still, I will try to spend some time and finish up the work - at least the exploration one seems GA-able fairly easy. Nergaal (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Opals on Mars Reveal Planet's Long Wet Past

 * Opals on Mars Reveal Planet's Long Wet Past
 * Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 13:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting news story (above)... Hey, I'm dropping off Wikipedia.. perhaps only for a couple months, but perhaps permanently. This puts things in perspective. I wonder if you would mind asking User talk:SandyGeorgia to add my name to Featured articles promoted in 2008 with respect to Scattered Disc? .. I think I probably did enough to warrant it... if you agree that I deserve to be a co-nom, please drop a note on sandy's talk..... thanks! Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 01:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 08:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Rings of Neptune
Do you think it is ready to go to FAC? Ruslik (talk) 08:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Larissa and Proteus do not generate rings. I only marked their orbits with dash lines; the rings are marked by solid lines. So the Adams is the outermost known ring. Why separate section? Actually little is known about inner rings, and there is not enough information about them to warrant separate sections. On the other hand Adams ring was observed from the ground many times, and there exists a lot of literature about it, especially about arcs. Ruslik (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

But in what form? I actually do not understand why it is important. Ruslik (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Arcs make Adams ring special. I actually do not know where to put the explanation. Ruslik (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I nominated Rings of Neptune to FA (you are a co-nominator). I also added some explanation why it is more notable than other rings. Ruslik (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There are different resonances: Lindbland resonance (LR), CIR and CER. LR (the strongest resonance) keeps particles inside a narrow ring. This explanation is uncontroversial. However it alone can not confine them into arcs. An additional force is necessary, which had been thought to stem from CIR, before measurements disapproved this theory. Now some scientists think that another resonance (CER) may be responsible for the arc's confinement. Ruslik (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

See the last sentence in the first paragraph of General properties section. Ruslik (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If Atmosphere of Jupiter goes to FAC
would you be interested in being listed as a co-nominator?  Serendi pod ous  20:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I quite understand why you are asking me this. Do FACs require multiple nominators now?&mdash;RJH (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I just thought maybe since you did so much work on Great Red Spot, you might deserve credit for the final page.  Serendi pod ous  16:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I appreciate the thought, but it's not necessary. Thank you.&mdash;RJH (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I will fix them myself, except 3D figures, which is a bit over my head too. Ruslik (talk) 12:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

mass graph
were you interesting in me posting the graph?

Hey
Hi Serendi. I've got a lot of articles to work on, as do you (you've probably got twice as many). But, whenever I have free time I'm going to try and expand Volcanism on Venus. Do you have any recommendations for sources? If you'd like to, you're always welcome to help, as this article really needs developing. No, I'm not trying to make you come and write me an article, and then just have me add like three sources and do a bunch of copy editing. I actually want to write one of these solar system articles on my own. But any help is greatly appreciated, as usual. ;) &mdash;Ceran (dream / discover ) 01:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And thank you for all your time you've spent counseling me when I felt like retiring... that was a doozey. But I never actually left during that period, just rested for a week and then got back to editing. And especially thanks for both of those awards you gave me&mdash; they may seem like childish trinkets, but they really make me feel actually good about myself. Thank you. &mdash;Ceran (dream / discover ) 02:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Query: "500 my global resurfacing cycle"? :p &mdash;Ceran (<font color="#000000">dream / <font color="#000000">discover ) 23:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Evolution and NPOV
Hey... just thought I'd let you know about this NPOV discussion at Solar System. Cheers. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  01:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

1968 Illinois earthquake - could you run over it?
I don't know if you're experienced with this kind of thing, but could you give the prose a massage if necessary? &mdash;<font color="#000000">Ceran (<font color="#000000">dream / <font color="#000000">discover ) 02:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Harry Potter influences and analogues
I appreciate that the cover picture of Merlin from the cover of The Sword in the Stone, looking somewhat reminiscent of Dumbledore with an owl, was an attractive way to illustrate the theme of the article.

But we can't just use other people's copyright as we feel like it - and we try to feature free content whenever we can.

Given that J.K. Rowling's creations draw on such a rich pre-existing folk-history of magic and creatures, as she herself acknowledges, perhaps captioned to that effect an out-of-copyright 19th century image of such folkloric creatures might be appropriate? Or a drawing of some multi-turreted Gothic tower?

I think you're not going to be able to use any images of any currently in copyright literature - unless you can find a quote that says that one particular identified picture has been particularly influenced J.K., to the extent that it deserves a whole section of its own in the article; and given that, I think it probably be rather unbalancing to the article to illustrate from out-of-copyright sources.

But maybe a generic free or out-of-copyright picture of historic English magical fantasy settings might be appropriate, along the lines I suggested above. Jheald (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

List of hypothetical planetary objects
Do you think that this list should be moved to List of hypothetical Solar System objects. This was proposed here. Ruslik (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Atmosphere of Jupiter
What is your opinion about this article? Is it FA ready? Ruslik (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Further waiting does not make any sense, so I nominated it. Ruslik (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Planet
Serendipodous: I have two questions for you on the Talk page of "Definition of Planet" —MiguelMunoz (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Interested
Would you be interested in working on Sedna together, possibly with Nergaal and Ruslik, too? &mdash; Ceran  ♦ ♦ ( speak) 22:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Plans for the future
What are you planning to do after Atmosphere of Jupiter passes? My plans are:
 * Rings of Saturn need some attention (at least up to GA level);
 * Magellan (spacecraft) is an excellent opportunity to get to the main page on 4 May 2009 (20 years from the launch);
 * Jupiter FT may be launched;
 * I have already written some text about Oberon (moon). It is another candidate to FA.

What do you think about all this? (I am now bogged down in administrative routine, but hope will have more free time next week). Ruslik (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

All Uranian moons can be featured (except Umbriel), in my opinion. Exploration of Jupiter is a good idea too. Jupiter Trojans? Little is known about them. However any article can become featured. There were long discussions on Wikipedia_talk:Featured article candidate about notability and minimal length, but they came to nowhere. So if you start working on one of those articles (Exploration of Jupiter or Jupiter Trojans) I will support you. As to Moons of Saturn I think the knowledge about them is very unstable now. New information comes almost every day. It is difficult to write about them.

Another my idea is to create Portal:Jupiter. Ruslik (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Ruslik (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, Atmosphere of Jupiter has passed. Ruslik (talk) 10:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, ruslik. I'm probably going to work on on of the Uranian moons as well, most likely Miranda or Ariel. &mdash;<font color="#990000">C <font color="#990000">eranthor 02:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm flying to the States tomorrow to defend my dissertation next week. Will be largely off-wiki for 2 or even 3 weeks. But then, I think, some astronomy stuff would be a very welcome break from the various arguments I've been getting into. Pencil me in for something-or-other, OK? Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 03:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, buena suerte (good luck) Ling. I'm gonna' work on that article probably this weekend, so whenever you get openings I'd love to collab. &mdash;<font color="#990000">C <font color="#990000">eran »^« 23:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

List of moons
My congratulations, excellent work. I have not noticed it before (I was too preoccupied with my RFA). Ruslik (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Humans vs Extremophile, ...Habitability
You (profile) look like the kind of person who would be interested in making a resonable distinction between what planet environments bacteria can survive and what planet environments people can inhabit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Explodicle/Planetary_human_habitability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Explodicle/Planetary_human_habitability

Having difficulty finding the time to wrap up the article. If you are interested, your help would be appreciated. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * There is already a FA-quality article on planetary habitability. Is your goal to supplement this information with a specific focus on humans?&mdash;RJH (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not touching the "Planetary Habitiablity" article. It is focused on what astronomers refer to as "astrobiological potential" and not on people, and it is nearly over the limit for size.
 * The 214 page book that Dole and Asimov wrote is about what type of planet people could live on and why, not extremophile survival. You mistake the two articles as related because they talk about the same universe. If I have an aricle on Ants on the one hand and Humans on the other, I don't ask the question which should supplement which just because they both use references to the Earth and the Sun's influence, etc. The question is simple: "what is habitable for people." ...if you read the 214 page book they wrote you would not have to ask me any questions. The article is almost finished, each point can be referenced with Dole and Asimov's work alone, but it would be good to have more specific references for the individual parameters that need to be expanded on. I get distracted with discussions and other improvements, and my own studying which comes first, otherwise it would be finished by now.
 * The confusion most ediors make is that astronomers are talking about theoretical extraterrestrial life and/or "astrobiological potential," which is every type of life you can imagine, science and currently science fiction, whereas the Habitability Dole and Asimov were talking about was for people. Nevermind other planets, there are places on this planet where just being there can kill us, do you know what your tolerances are? Dole listed 1.5g as the maximum gravity for people, did you know that?? GabrielVelasquez (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I wish to request, if Planetary human habitability goes ahead, that there be some debate about what the article is actually for. This was never made clear by its proponents (who tended to respond to any query by flooding my talkpage with abuse) after the AfD. Much of the material is already in the Planetary habitability article and thus is redundant; as for the rest, Asimov is one thing, but Asimov imagined a future in which humans harnessed faster-than-light travel and colonised the galaxy, so seeking out human-habitable worlds had some relevance to his work. At this point in time, such ideas are science fiction and (if one is brutally honest) fantasy. If we are going to locate a habitable planet within our lifetimes, or the lifetimes of our children, chances are it will be via telescope, and such a planet will care not a jot if it is habitable to us. Even if such a world is home to an intelligent civilisation, there is no reason to assume that it will have the same habitability parameters we do. So the question is, are we dealing with scientific concepts in this article, or science fiction?  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  19:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You have to let go of the tunnel vision and the rabid territorial religious grip you have on that article Planetary Habitability. This is a whole other article as I said in answering User:RJHall. I'll repeat this much to you: "You mistake the two articles as related because they talk about the same universe. If I have an aricle on Ants on the one hand and Humans on the other, I don't ask the question which should supplement which just because they both use references to the Earth and the Sun's influence, etc." - It is not redundant, just some similar reference points. Asimov was a sci-fi writer yes, but he added his two cents to the book Dole had already written and Dole is a scientist of RAND. If I missed one of your points feel free to repeat it. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Asimov was a scientist too; a biologist come to that. But that wasn't my point. My point is that unless we develop faster than light travel and colonise worlds around other stars, the issue of planetary human habitability is never likely to arise.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  10:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm not trying to waste your time, if you are not interested in contributing to the improvement of the article then you are not interested, but you make no point there with me, I think what you have said is very nearsighted: Gliese 551 is not that "far" away at any now-possible high speed (ie not sci-fi), and I don't think this article (or idea) is any less valid than the one on that planet (Gl 551) or on any other planet. The 214 page book on the subject of habitiablility for humans was written by (as you say) two scientist, I think you argument is with them... Mars is a reachable planet (and on the list, after the moon, according to GWBush.), Venus is a reachable planet, Europa is a reachable moon, but you would want to take the word of a scientist when it comes to survival there. And on top of that, I think you are just playing devil's advocate, and won't debate it with you any longer. I don't think of something as science fiction simply because it may only happen after my lifetime, for example going back to the moon, or going to mars thereafter.GabrielVelasquez (talk) 06:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I had nothing to do with the article's previous deletion, and I don't intend to have anything to do with the next, should it occur. But from what I've seen so far you haven't made much of a case for it not to happen. You've based your entire argument on one book, which effectively means your article is a book review. The article's notability will rest on the notability of the book. All I can say is good luck. You don't have to respond. I'm trying to help you. AfDs are a lot nastier than I am. Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  08:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't give me much reason to believe that you are trying to "help": this place is about collaboration, and you go out of your way to avoid simply acknowledging that people and extremophile bacteria have different habitats, different environments they can survive in. You are being extremely narrow minded in saying the article is based on one book, because if it were it would be finished already... the work is in finding the other references that are out there. I found webpage by NASA the other day that was about teaching children what makes a planet habitable for PEOPLE. and the search continues, but you can be as cynical as you want while telling me you are helping. or you could admit to yourself that you can't survive everything that exremophiles can, and that the Planetary habitability article is about astrobiological potential not people. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Signpost
What do you think about Wikipedia_Signpost. I think a good advertisement of out project. Ruslik (talk) 10:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)