Hi there, I see you are the editor who added the ra,dec coordinates for the WLM globular cluster. Do you have the source for these values? Because according to SIMBAD those are the coordinates of the
LEDA 910901 galaxy, and these are the WLM-GC coordinates. Regards Gaba (talk):H 22:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC:T
That was just an estimation I did based on the image of the cluster in Pan-STARRS since I couldn't at the time find a more precise estimation of that. Definitely use that simbad listing over mine, it's probably more accurate as well. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
List of earthquakes in 2019
Hi Exoplanetaryscience. I've looked at the edit history of List of earthquakes in 2019 and see that you have twice inserted details about the Maryland quake and twice had the details removed with the rationale that the quake was of low intensity and had low impact. This experience falls under the essay Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which people call BRD. You were BOLD in inserting the details, then you were REVERTed, now you need to DISCUSS the matter on the article talkpage and see if you can get consensus for using your material. If you cannot get consensus, then you can accept that you have tried your best, and simply move on to doing something else. You may wish to get further clarity by alerting (in a neutral manner) users at Wikipedia:WikiProject Earthquakes of the discussion. I hope this helps. Ping me if you need further help. SilkTork (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please join the LA User Group, Wikimedians of Los Angeles, for an afternoon of panels, presentations and conversations on the subject of sources, and cake (locally sourced), in celebration of Wikipedia's 18th birthday.
Sunday, March 3: The Institute of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles (DTLA), Noon–5p. Focus: Women+Comedy.
Saturday, March 9: Vincent Price Art Museum at East Los Angeles College (Monterey Park), Noon–4p. Focus: Latinx+Non-Binary Artists.
Sunday, March 10: Hammer Museum (Westwood), Noon–5p. Focus: Women+Film+Media
Sunday, March 17: LACMA (Miracle Mile), Noon–5p. Focus: Women+Design+Craft
Sunday, March 31: California African American Museum (Exposition Park/USC), 1–4p. Focus: Women of CAAM.
These Los Angeles events are co-hosted by online magazine East of Borneo and include step-by-step Wikipedia instruction for beginners. Bring your laptop or tablet computer and any reference materials you'd like to work from or share. People of all gender expressions and identities are encouraged to attend.
Sorry for telling you not to talk to me a while back, I was having a bad day. I hope we're cool now. Edit: why did my comment end up in this bubble? Alex of Canada (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely sure, being quick to respond to things isn't exactly my strong point. All I know is that very early on the earthquake was listed as a 6.6, and then within a few minutes downgraded to a 6.4, but then I noticed that every other time I went to the USGS page for reference the quake info changed. Then two different earthquakes showed up and that was my main source on it being a doublet, backed up by my calculations that two 6.4 earthquakes would appear to mimic a single 6.6 earthquake in intensity. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
270° panorama overlooking La Jolla Shores Beach as seen from the Martin Johnson House, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, during a late August sunset. Photo by Gregg M. Erickson
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LizRead!Talk!05:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi i’m confused by the following, which has been in the article since 2007.(It wasn’t written by you). It may make perfect sense to someone more knowledgeable than me: “A protostar is the denser parts of a cloud core, typically with a mass around 104 solar masses in the form of gas and dust, that collapses under its own weight/gravity, and continues to attract matter.
The protostar, at first, only has about 1% of its final mass.”
Does this mean the inner core of the cloud, a cloud which has a mass of 10^4 suns, has a mass in the range of 10^-2 suns? Or does it mean something else, or is there a typo? ThanksRich (talk) 05:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The phrasing is very vague so I'm not entirely sure, but it might refer to very early on the star's history where obviously it would have to pass 0.01 solar masses at some point- or it could refer to later when it could reasonably reach 10 solar masses in the inner region. Honestly the answer is open to interpretation and could probably do with a needs clarification or dubious tag. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for updating.
Thanks for getting the info on these new moons. Unfortunately I have not been able to determine what their names or what their orbits are, so thanks for trying to get this info for me + the articles on the new moons. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk20:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, all the moon orbit info is being disseminated by the MPC if you're interested in seeing for yourself: [1] as well as already provided here: [2]exoplanetaryscience (talk)
There are 82 moons of Saturn, but the table only lists 73. As an emergency measure to avoid confusion, I have mentioned that nine moons are yet to be announced so that readers do not get confused. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk21:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think S/2004 S 29 was assigned wrong. It belongs to the Inuit group.
And S/2004 S 24 should be a Gallic moon. A very, very distant Gallic moon, but its inclination matches the others. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk21:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're right. It is an Inuit moon. But S/2004 S 24 I don't think should be classified as a Gallic moon unless we can get some confident source that something that far out still belongs to the same group. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dreigorich: Here are the inclinations and notes of known gallic group members, compared to S/2004 S 24:
Moon
Inclination (°)
Longitude of the ascending node (°) (/360)
Tarvos
34.679
94.514 (0.263)
S/2004 S 24
35.538
333.879 (0.927)
Albiorix
38.042
107.272 (0.298)
Erriapus
38.109
141.949 (0.394)
Bebhionn
40.484
193.152 (0.537)
It seems pretty clear to me that S/2004 S 24 isn't associated with the group, as the node puts its orbital plane almost as different as possible from the orbital planes of the other moons, while still sharing a similar inclination. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting observation. It's facing the opposite direction. This makes its inclusion in the group even less likely. Though we don't really check the nodes for Jupiter's moons to assign dynamical families, so I'm not entirely convinced it's not part of the group. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk23:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
National Geographic says it might be Gallic. Sheppard has on his site: "The other newly found prograde moon has an inclination near 36 degrees, which is similar to the other known grouping of inner prograde moons around Saturn called the Gallic group. But this new moon, provisionally designated S/2004 S24, orbits much farther away from Saturn than any of the other prograde moons, indicating it might have been pulled outwards over time or might not be associated with the more inner grouping of prograde moons." FWIW, it seems that it will receive a Gallic name, regardless of whether or not it actually is in the Gallic group. Double sharp (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since the tidal effects of Saturn's rotation are basically negligible at this distance from it, you could consider their node difference just as significant as their inclination difference- it'd be the same energy difference if all of them had inclinations of ~35-40 degrees, and this one had an inclination of 70 degrees. And under that scenario, nobody would be advocating it being part of the group. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They do seem clustered themselves, although not quite so strongly. Either way, the all 7 only cover a range of 44.2% of a circle. If you consider Kiviuq and Paaliaq to be their own group, then the remaining 5 only cover 24.3% of a circle.
Some other possibly younger groups I noticed while making a diagram of the orbits of the moons:
Hati group
Moon
Inclination (°)
Longitude of the ascending node (°) (/360)
S/2004 S 20
162.570
350.760 (0.974)
Fenrir
162.832
239.040 (0.664)
Jarnsaxa
162.861
21.097 (0.059)
S/2004 S 37
162.937
166.803 (0.463)
Hati
163.131
322.951 (0.897)
S/2004 S 12
164.042
313.621 (0.871)
S/2004 S 7
165.596
346.264 (0.962)
S/2004 S 34
166.039
311.750 (0.866)
Loge
166.539
343.990 (0.956)
S/2004 S 39
166.579
194.914 (0.541)
S/2004 S 17
166.881
19.994 (0.056)
Discounting Fenrir , S/2004 S 37, and S/2004 S 39, which have inconsistent nodes with the other 3 (as well as each other) despite having relatively similar inclinations, Jarnsaxa, Hati, S/2004 S 20, S/2004 S 12, S/2004 S 7, S/2004 S 34, Loge, and S/2004 S 17 have a node distribution of only 19.3% of a circle- an extremely unlikely proximity for 8 of 11 ostensibly randomly distributed moons with a similar inclination.
S/2004 S 35 (blue) & Phoebe (red) groups
Moon
Inclination (°)
Longitude of the ascending node (°) (/360)
S/2004 S 25
172.996
276.414 (0.768)
Phoebe
173.047
~270 (0.75)
Suttungr
174.321
252.712 (0.702)
Thrymr
174.524
246.531 (0.685)
S/2007 S 2
176.681
113.109 (0.314)
S/2004 S 35
176.717
332.737 (0.924)
S/2004 S 23
176.988
223.281 (0.620)
S/2007 S 3
177.22
96.946 (0.269)
S/2004 S 22
177.321
279.688 (0.777)
The Thrymr/Suttungr group has a node distribution of a paltry 15.7% of a circle, which is especially significant considering that the moons have inclinations of so close to un-inclined prograde, making large node differences actually fairly small in terms of angular difference. Then the group formed by S/2004 S 35, S/2007 S 2, and S/2007 S 3 has a node distribution of 39% of a circle, which might seem quite insignificant, but again with their very "low" inclination. The node difference is about as significant as if the satellites were mutually inclined by 2-3 degrees to each other (rather than the 0.5 degrees displayed here)
All Norse group asteroids:
Moon
Inclination (°)
Longitude of the ascending node (°) (/360)
Potential grouping
Narvi
137.292
182.697 (0.507)
Bestla
147.395
289.604 (0.804)
Skathi group
Kari
148.384
290.642 (0.807)
Skathi group
Skathi
149.084
285.025 (0.792)
Skathi group
S/2006 S 3
152.878
220.508 (0.613)
Skoll group?
Hyrrokkin
153.272
47.338 (0.131)
S/2004 S 38
154.090
144.510 (0.401)
S/2006 S 1
154.232
340.698 (0.946)
S/2004 S 36
154.992
232.731 (0.646)
Most likely a captured asteroid, if not probably a member of the Skoll group
Skoll
155.624
296.828 (0.825)
Skoll group
Bergelmir
157.384
215.262 (0.598)
Skoll group
S/2004 S 30
157.510
272.730 (0.758)
Skoll group
Farbauti
158.361
145.592 (0.404)
S/2004 S 32
159.091
313.399 (0.871)
Skoll group
S/2004 S 21
159.950
134.932 (0.375)
S/2004 S 33
160.471
97.520 (0.271)
S/2004 S 20
162.570
350.760 (0.974)
Hati group
Fenrir
162.832
239.040 (0.664)
Jarnsaxa
162.861
21.097 (0.059)
Hati group
S/2004 S 37
162.937
166.803 (0.463)
Hati
163.131
322.951 (0.897)
Hati group
S/2004 S 12
164.042
313.621 (0.871)
Hati group
S/2004 S 7
165.596
346.264 (0.962)
Hati group
S/2004 S 34
166.039
311.750 (0.866)
Hati group
Loge
166.539
343.990 (0.956)
Hati group
S/2004 S 39
166.579
194.912 (0.541)
Aegir group
S/2004 S 17
166.881
19.994 (0.056)
Hati group
Surtur
166.918
257.594 (0.716)
S/2004 S 13
167.379
221.464 (0.615)
Aegir
167.425
196.477 (0.546)
Aegir group
S/2004 S 27
167.804
102.445 (0.285)
Aegir group
Fornjot
167.886
270.398 (0.751)
Mundilfari
169.378
79.782 (0.222)
Aegir group
S/2004 S 28
170.322
155.199 (0.431)
Aegir group
S/2004 S 26
171.369
353.572 (0.982)
Ymir
172.143
206.334 (0.574)
Aegir group
Greip
172.666
344.367 (0.957)
S/2004 S 25
172.996
276.414 (0.768)
Phoebe group
Phoebe
173.047
~270 (0.75)
Phoebe group
Suttungr
174.321
252.712 (0.702)
Phoebe group
Thrymr
174.524
246.531 (0.685)
Phoebe group
S/2007 S 2
176.681
113.109 (0.314)
S/2004 S 35 group?
S/2004 S 35
176.717
332.737 (0.924)
S/2004 S 35 group?
S/2004 S 23
176.988
223.281 (0.620)
Phoebe group
S/2007 S 3
177.22
96.946 (0.269)
S/2004 S 35 group?
S/2004 S 22
177.321
279.688 (0.777)
Phoebe group
I know a lot of these look somewhat suspicious, and I agree. Probably a lot of them are just seeing patterns where they don't exist- but the Skathi group definitely exists, I'm 90% certain the Phoebe group exists, and I'd give 70% odds of the Hati and Aegir groups existing. Who knows about the Skoll & S/2004 S 35 groups. I'd have to do some long term orbital dynamics analysis.
exoplanetaryscience (talk) 07:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. However, the inclinations and eccentricities when plotted against each other show no obvious clustering for the Norse group as far as I know. They seem fairly uniformly distributed unless orbital data has been refined since I last checked in 2016 or so... Could you compare e vs. i for the retrogrades and see if any obvious clusters stand out now? ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk14:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It might be based on faulty info, but i don't think the eccentricity should come into play very much. While the gallic group has some relatively consistently high eccentricity (0.333-0.530), the inuit group has quite a wide range of eccentricities (0.1081-0.4401). In making the groups I did here, I tried to focus on objects that did have mostly intersecting orbits in terms of perichron/apochron, but as far as I can tell the exact eccentricity can be somewhat variable- and as almost every moon of Saturn has an e below 0.5, and many below 0.3, I don't think its exact value will come into play very much. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also currently busy, but should have the time for it over this weekend (grabbing the figures from Moons of Saturn, which exoplanetaryscience already got). So, I guess it'll be whichever of us gets to it first! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tom, I'm really sorry about that, it's been something I've been casually stressing over for a good while now. Essentially updating it now would be incredibly difficult, because approximately a quarter to a third of all close approachers never get confirmed, meaning that I would have to dig through NEOCP archives that no longer exist to get a list that's as thorough as I'd like it to be. Of course, I could just include the confirmed close approachers, but I don't think that would be very fair to have a completely blank region of 7 months where no close approachers were recorded. Basically, the data I would need to update some of this simply no longer exists, as far as I can tell. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Yeah, yeah. I've gotten a bit distracted with a lot of things (as you probably noticed) so didn't have time to do that, and probably won't have any time until next week or so, but I haven't exactly thrown the idea into the garbage just yet. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Supercavitation
Hi Exoplanetaryscience, I believe you added a copy editing maintenance template to the Supercavitation article on 2 July 2019. I made several copy editing changes to the article over the last few weeks. Could you please take a look at the latest version to see if the issues have been addressed? Thanks! CopyEditTechSurf (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CopyEditTechSurf: had a look, good job with that copyediting! It seems to address the somewhat disjointed tone of the article's sentences and sentence structure that prompted me to add the tag, so I'd say the issue seems properly addressed. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/United States medical cases : RECOVERIES
How is this going to be do-able? If we don't keep a breakdown per state, we will necessarily step on eachothers toes and double/tripple/etc count. I don't know what states you added recoveries for, so if I see recoveries for OH or NY, should I add them to the total? The only way to do this is a new table with per-state recoveries by day, as I can imagine some of them will not list totals, rather per-day numbers; as some states only list confirmed cases on a per-day basis.
At minimum, I think this should be broken down by state, as it will very quickly involve doulble-counts. Please consider removing the column, or supplementing it with its own table. For more ideas, move this to the discussion page of the template. dudzcom (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make the column myself. Someone else made it and I assume they expected someone would add to it at some point. I for one definitely support adding a breakdown by state for recoveries but am not invested enough to write all of that down myself. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I probably should have expected this, but it looks like the dates very much do not like reading Wikipedia templates instead of numbers. My technical knowledge isn't too great, so I imagine there might be a way to make it, but I've hit my limit on that. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can certainly tell you the way the MPC distinguishes them- there was actually a discussion on the comets mailing list about it the other week - you are right that in the past they used to distinguish comets from one another by giving them a name ("Shoemaker-Levy 9" etc) apparently this process was officially stopped in the Marsden era for reasons I don't remember perfectly. Due to this, and some complicated factors with comet numbers (for instance, what about comets that weren't identified as comets until long after the fact? Are those numbered after newer ones, or do you make the newer ones higher-numbered retroactively?) I think it would be difficult/original research to go numbering them manually. Anyway, comets right now are officially only distinguished by their provisional name/number (C/2019 Y4, 2I, or 311P etc) and I would recommend marking them as such in all articles. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thx, just noticed your reply since Wiki did not ping me, sorry. So in the specific case of redirect Comet ATLAS, it should be a disambiguation page rather than a redirect to a specific comet, since more than one page/article on Wikipedia can be referred to (C/2019 Y1 (ATLAS), C/2019 E3 (ATLAS) and P/2019 LD2 (ATLAS)). Correct? However what about comets named after other discoverers such as NEOWISE? For example, Comet NEOWISE is the actual title of the article for C/2020 F3 (NEOWISE) from which it was recently moved after this approved request (RM) with the rationale that "this is the most notable comet that NEOWISE discovered", which would mean, in this case, Comet NEOWISE (disambiguation) plus a hatnote {{Other uses|NEOWISE (disambiguation)}} on top of article Comet NEOWISE would be needed/best practice. Of course the question remains who defines which body should be considered, and whether there is at all a "most notable comet" for a given discoverer (Pan-STARRS, LONEOS, WISE, LINEAR, Spacewatch, NEAT, etc.). Do you agree? What are your thoughts? Thx, Rfassbind– talk11:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You're invited to a zoom call, taking place on February 11, with the goal of improving the article on Los Angeles to Featured article status! I often find it daunting to approach the Big Subjects on my own—so if you, like me, want a time to sit down with fellow dedicated editors and tackle something important and complex, this is the zoom for you! I, unfortunately, have no way to transmit snacks over zoom; but I trust you to exercise good judgement and discretion in selecting snacks of your own. Hope to see you there—if you're interested, add your name here!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
On 9 November 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Impact events on Mars, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 2021, two asteroids hit Mars, each leaving craters over 100 meters (330 feet) across and being felt as marsquakes by the InSight mission thousands of kilometers away? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Impact events on Mars. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Impact events on Mars), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
@NQue: hey, sorry for being a bit slow to reply. My source came from pages that this website no longer seems to have, but lurk somewhere in my computer. It was a bit of low-quality original research borne from a bad understanding of orbital mechanics- I'd suggest deleting it because a node difference of 100 degrees definitely should not qualify fireballs to be related to acomet... exoplanetaryscience (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I got a little bit through a Neptune diagram but put it on pause for the difficulty involved. Unfortunately, Neptune's moon system is... problematic.
The outermost moons required me to resize the entire diagram just to fit them inside- Neso's orbit takes it from 27.7 to 72.4 million km from the planet, and Nereid's orbit takes it from 1.3 million to 9.6 million km from the planet. To add to that, Triton's status as the only sort-of intermediate moon means that the 'intermediate' section is almost entirely empty, the 'outer' section is chaotic and arbitrary, and the 'inner' section contains virtually nothing.
Here's that file: if you can identify how I can improve this while keeping thematically in line with the other planets, I'm all ears.
Well, Neptune's system is quite weird compared to the other giants' systems, so I don't find this version problematic (well, I think the three sections should be swapped for consistency, with 'inner' on the top). It illustrates the situation well. Perhaps there should be an arrow in the 'intermediate' section indicating that Nereid's line continues further. (Are Psamathe and Neso cut off? I think the lines should only stop once we pass their apoapses.) Double sharp (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All good points - Psamathe and Neso are just barely entirely in frame- just 9 pixels off in each case. If you couldn't tell for sure, though, that's one of those problems I'm talking about. It is an exceptionally chaotic moon system, sure, but my job has been and remains minimizing that chaos into something accurate but readable. Anyway, I'll make the changes recommended, add details (e.g. the compass, scale markers, and scale) and think of what to do from there. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking forward to it! Indeed, Neptune's system is quite a mess, but I'd like to see it portrayed accurately for the mess it is. But that doesn't mean it can't be an exceptionally well-drawn mess. :) Double sharp (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Place name changes in Turkey has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Aintabli (talk) 04:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
S/2020 S 4
Tilmann Denk thinks it may rather be an Inuit group member, because of its high inclination. He wrote on his website: Wikipedia classifies S/2020 S 4 as a member of the Gallic group of Saturn’s Irregular satellites. Because of the quite high orbit inclination of 43°, I think it might rather be a member of the Inuit group, possibly a collisional remnant of Siarnaq which shares similar orbital elements.Double sharp (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on its oscillating elements, it's certainly a bit ambiguous, but I calculated its mean elements over 200 years and its mean inclination is only 41.1 degrees (oscillating from 33.5 to 48.0) with an eccentricity of 0.500 (oscillating from 0.347 to 0.664). The inclination is the most damning IMO, but it's worth noting that nothing in the outer Inuit group has an eccentricity above 0.311 (Siarnaq) while the entire Gallic group (with exception of 2004S24) has an eccentricity between 0.462 and 0.559. So, both the mean inclination and eccentricity make it seem fairly Gallic to me. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp: To preemptively defend categorizing 2019 S6 as a different group and to further explain 2020 S4's belonging to the Gallics, here's a diagram of (a vs e) (a vs i) (e vs i) showing the inuits in red, the gallics in orange, 2019 S6 in yellow, and 2004 S24 in green. 2020 S4 is smack in the middle for (a vs e) and the topmost gallic in (a vs i) and (e vs i). For another visualization, see the newest version of my diagram
All of these are the mean elements, which I can share if you like. Personally I would love to have the page include at least these provisional mean elements instead of these potentially very inaccurate oscillating elements, but that would constitute an egregious amount of OR. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, this is how I find out that five more were announced today! :D
I'm a fan of considering 2004 S 24 its own group/ungrouped - in fact, when it was originally announced I marked it on the page as its own group. Someone in the intervening time recategorized it as Gallic. I suppose if you want to group every moon, it makes sense, but IMO it has as much in common with the Gallics as the Gallics do with the Inuits. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me. But I guess the flood of new discoveries hasn't stopped, so may as well wait a bit to do some recategorising. After all, maybe it will find some groupmates like Carpo did. So far I've mostly stuck to updating the count and the discovery timeline (well, and adding more and more discoveries to Scott S. Sheppard's page :D). Double sharp (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help out! Still trying to decide what significance cutoff I should make for unmodeled bursts, but I'm sure that'll solve itself in good time. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
When you click on the graphic it does indeed show the updated graph. However the graphic that sits on the main page has not been updated. Do you know what is going on there? Braintic (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eat, drink, and bask in the glory of Los Angeles in early June at the 9th not-annual Wiknic!
Saturday, June 8 from 11:30 to 2:30 pm Pan Pacific Park
7600 Beverly Blvd, Los Angeles CA 90036
Get the details and RSVP here.
(It's a potluck. There's a wish list on the meetup page.)
Get the details and join WikiLA here.
To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.
August 24: Not just an edit-a-thon, an edit-a-thon in Manhattan Beach.
Please join WikiLA at an edit-a-thon to improve and create articles related to marine life and the ocean in the Los Angeles area. Inspiration courtesy of the public library in Manhattan Beach, one of SoCal's most beautiful coastal communities.
Saturday, August 24 from 10:00 AM - 2:00 PM Manhattan Beach Public Library, 1320 Highland Ave., Manhattan Beach 90266 Get the details and RSVP here To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups remove.your name, from this list.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
