Note: Please don't refer to me by any personal identity. I value my privacy. Thank you.
Silence...
Untitled
Group 4 element has been nominated for a community 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. Bli231957 (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eris
Hi there. Don't want to do anything without your permission so I hope it's okay to post here. The link to Eris on User:Nrco0e/Userboxes/Eris leads to the disambiguation page and not to Eris (dwarf planet). I don't know about userbox etiquette so I thought I would let you know rather than do it myself. I love your userboxes by the way. Stylish. Bobo.01:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated 90377 Sedna 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Renerpho (talk) 05:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article 4337 Arecibo you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:4337 Arecibo 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 CactiStaccingCrane -- CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your signature
Hi,
Your signature is rather long in wikitext. Could you simplify it please? I'm actually rather confused as there's supposed to be a software-imposed limit on signature length of 255 characters, but it doesn't seem to apply. Ovinus (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ovinus: Sure thing. Thanks for letting me know about the 255-character limit for signatures, I'll make sure to fix it soon. (FYI the character limit doesn't work for template substitutions.) Nrco0e (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HD1 has been spectroscopically confirmed with a 4sigma detection of [OIII]88micron. This detection is consistent with the photometric redshift, which is, in the high-redshift domain, sufficient to claim a detection. Many objects in the list of the most distant objects have been confirmed with 4-5 sigma detections (that's the detection limit for such distant objects). HD1 is clearly considered by researchers in this field as the most distant galaxy currently known. Stardust63 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Stardust63: Nowhere in Harikane et al. do they call HD1 "confirmed"; they explicitly call it a "candidate" with a tentative emission line awaiting spectroscopic confirmation. Other peer-reviewed papers that cite Harikane et al. follow their words and also call HD1 a candidate: Atek et al (2022), Castellano et al (2022), Naidu et al (2022), Pacucci et al. 2022. Per verifiability guidelines on Wikipedia, it's best to follow these conclusions. If you have any sources that do consider objects with <5 sigma single-emission line detections as "confirmed" like you mentioned, please do share them with me. Nrco0e (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The SNR of JADES-GS-z13-0 is 4.0 (look at the Extended figure 5 : the flux at the position of the break is 0.008 with an error bar going down to 0.006, which leads to a SNR of 4). Then if I understand your definition, this should be considered as a candidate, right ? Stardust63 (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Stardust63: What should matter more is whether researchers definitively call the galaxy spectroscopically confirmed or not. Robertson and Curtis-Lake et al. both state JADES-GS-z13-0 is spectroscopically confirmed, whereas HD1 is still called a candidate by its discoverers and other citers. I rescind my arguments regarding sigma—I do admit setting the 5-sigma threshold was arbitrary on my part, as I haven't found a source to justify that sort of qualification (yet). For now, let's drop that 5-sigma qualification mentioned in the candidates list. Apologies for the confusion! Nrco0e (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me jump in here as I made edits on HD1. I think we are facing a problem of "semantic". It is quite common that scientists prefer to not be too definitive, they bring evidence but it might be hard to be 100% sure of the results, therefore they might prefer to use the term candidate instead of confirmed. It can be subjective: some will accept that 3 sigmas is good while others will prefer 5 sigmas.
I therefore suggest either to reverse the initial change and put back HD1 in the confirmed list or to write to the Guinness World Record.
Finally, it is relatively frustrating to see that the top 3 of most distant spectroscopically-confirmed objects is still not peer-reviewed. You never know what can happen to these papers. Brolink (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Brolink: Well I suppose if you all prefer HD1 as confirmed, then I won't argue against your consensus.
By the way thanks for the GLASS-z12 update to the list, galaxy astrophysics isn't my field of focus so I tend to overlook these. Nrco0e (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Could you review the img I uploaded for the infobox? On WP-ru it's listed as a fair-use file from Icarus, but I can't verify it there. — kwami (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kwamikagami: I'd assume the copyright goes to the authors and the Keck Observatory just like the image mentions in its description, so it should follow its Media Use guidelines. There's another image use policy on the Keck Observatory's public data archive regarding its raw images, but this one seems to imply they're freely available in this statement: "images and video on Infrared Processing and Analysis Center (IPAC) public web sites may be used for any purpose without prior permission" (it also mentions special cases, but none of them are relevant). After all, that Actaea image shown in Stansberry's paper is still a raw image you can easily download from the Keck data archive, so maybe it could be okay to upload freely, but again I'm not sure if I'm interpreting this correctly. Nrco0e (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, that's how I read it too. I have no idea how to download the files (I select files but get an error because 'no files are selected'), so I can't ID the image. But I think the (c) notice should be enough.
@Kwamikagami: The Keck archive works for me, or at least for downloading individual images since it's more practical. All you have to do is click the [Calibrated] option under the Previews column and then you'll get the FITS file. The highest-quality Salacia images (target 120347_B) are the ones with 100.0 sec exposure times. For your convenience, here's one good-quality exposure clearly showing both Salacia and Actaea.
Ah, so the white dot isn't Actaea itself? Okay, need a different image.
Yes, I was able to download individual images, but there's a limit of 14, and I couldn't ID the one we have in that sample. But if I choose a new one that won't matter. Thanks. — kwami (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kwamikagami: Oh, no, I think you've misunderstood my explanation. Apologies if it's unclear, so let me rephrase: in the image from Stansberry's paper, the white dot overlaid on the fainter object to the left of the image is Actaea, and the black dot overlaid on top of the bright central object is Salacia. These dots were manually added by the authors to indicate their precise positions.
In the sample calibrated Keck image I linked earlier, Salacia is the very bright object at the upper left (10-11 o'clock position from the image center). Actaea appears as a separate fainter object positioned to the left of Salacia (it's in the same orientation as Stansberry's version). Nrco0e (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand now. I hadn't realized that Stansberry modified the image, and having a white dot obscuring Actaea would be misleading. I wondered how their image could be so much sharper than the others, which is why I wanted to preview them all at Keck. I've picked a couple other images, one like the one you selected (perhaps it is the one you selected) for the system, and one with a brighter exposure to bring out Actaea. — kwami (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kwamikagami: If you don't mind, I'll be replacing these files with better-resolution ones straight from the FITS files. The preview cutouts are pretty badly JPEG'd. Nrco0e (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thanks. Yes, they aren't much to look at this way. I cropped them to the same size, and in multiples of 8 px in the hopes of not further degrading them.
(BTW, there's a remnant file here on WP-en. I've transfered it to Commons, but until the local file is deleted, an update won't display here unless you upload to both places.) — kwami (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the above. Would you mind also taking a look at the infobox at S/2018 (532037) 1? For the magnitudes, I just added the difference between primary and secondary to the values for the primary, but I don't know that they can be added linearly like that. Also, the article on WP-de has an orbital period of 15.0 days, but I'm not seeing that in the ref. They might've calculated it themselves, but the implied 2-hr precision seems unlikely. — kwami (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kwamikagami: I've fixed a few errors in the infobox parameters and added additional references. I do have to mention that the Hubble image animation is wrong (the orientations of some frames aren't consistent), but I haven't gotten around to fixing it yet.
By the way, have you seen Nelsen et al.'s recent work on FY27's satellite orbit from 2022's DPS meeting? Not sure why it took this long for someone to finally work on determining its orbit, but knowing Sheppard, it shouldn't be surprising that he wouldn't publish his discoveries often. Plus, it's not as bad of a situation as Makemake's moon, for which I have no idea why Parker has seemed to have completely abandoned it. :P Nrco0e (talk) 07:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, i hadn't. Thanks for that.
Yeah, I suspect lots of people are frustrated by that, but sometimes life intrudes. I was even asked my opinion on appropriate names for MK2 (there's an obvious choice, but lots of other possibilities) and haven't heard anything in a couple years. But at least we have preliminary results, so we have some idea how MK2 compares to other systems. — kwami (talk) 07:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kwamikagami: Also I have one more dilemma I want to bring up... there is no official provisional designation for 2013 FY27's moon. Although "S/2018 (532037) 1" is correct in accordance with satellite provisional designations, there's no official journal article or web source that uses it. JPL's Small-Body Database explicitly says it is undesignated. This issue also applies to Xiangliu where it never had an official provisional designation in the first place (the discoverers never used it, see Schwamb's tweet), but some Wiki editor apparently made it up and called it "S/2010 (225088) 1", which stuck for quite a long time. Nrco0e (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to remove the designation, I don't have a problem with that. I suppose we could just call it "FY27's satellite". — kwami (talk) 08:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Might you know why we don't yet have a glut of small Uranian moons?
I wonder why we don't have a glut of small moons known around Uranus yet, actually. It's only about twice as far away as Saturn (for which we've seen moons down to 3km), and yet we haven't seen anything smaller than 20km diameter around Uranus. Is it just that no one has looked – or maybe someone has and the results haven't been publicly released yet?
And incidentally, do you think we should start applying the new line on notability to Uranus' and Neptune's irregulars too, or wait since it's not really a problem yet? (I suppose also since the known Uranians and Neptunians are quite large compared with the Jovians being put up for redirection.)
Changing the topic, thanks for beating me to updating List of natural satellites. Should we get rid of the column "Angular size from the parent", incidentally? Except in the cases of Luna, Phobos, and Deimos it seems to be of purely academic interest (as we don't have any human installations on the other parents), and for anyone who really wants this information it's an easy calculation by a well-known formula. Double sharp (talk) 08:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp: Believe it or not, Scott Sheppard has already found at least 5 new Uranian moon candidates plus one (or more) new Neptunian moon with Subaru back in September 2021. These 5 new Uranian moon candidates, which have apparent magnitudes 25-27 (H=12-14, diameters 10-25 km),[original research] were followed up with Gemini North on 7 October 2021. Further follow-up might have been done by Subaru from October to December 2021 according to its 2021B schedule,[original research] but other than that, that's about all we know about the current status of these new moons. I'm not aware of any additional observations past 2021. Previous Uranian and Neptunian irregular moon discoveries took more than 2 years to confirm, so I'd expect these new moons to be announced in the next year or so.
Uranus and Neptune's irregulars shall be free of article restrictions for the time being—most of them have known color indices, albedos and diameters, and interesting orbital dynamics and origins. That's why I mentioned only restricting Jupiter and Saturn. Also, the angular diameter column is pointless IMO. It's completely trivial for the majority of moons which are either very distant or small. We should stick with the columns used for the individual planetary moon lists and replace angular diameter with something more useful like inclination. Nrco0e (talk) 08:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks for the fast response! And good to know that my suspicion was apparently well-founded. :)
Thanks for writing this article! Hopefully you will write more articles!
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.)
@Double sharp: Well, it's in the IAUC 7132 reference already given in the Naming of moons list. I've done a bit of searching and couldn't find any other officially-published source prior to this one. Nrco0e (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for creating the article! Hopefully you can write more. Good day!
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.)
Can you confirm that the source compares the ring to Saturn's F Ring? Some of the wording seems like it might be unsupported, but I don't have access to Nature to check. Thanks. — kwami (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Contrary to Chariklo’s ring, Quaoar’s ring is strongly irregular in azimuth. As such, it is reminiscent of Saturn’s F ring that contains azimuthal features (clumps) or even local opaque structures interpreted as kilometre-sized moonlets. This clumpy nature is thought to be caused by the presence of thousands of small parent bodies (1.0 to 0.1 km in size) that collide and produce dense strands of micrometre- to centimetre-sized particles that re-accrete over a few months onto the parent bodies in a steady-state regime."
Thanks. I tried the library, but couldn't find it. I thought maybe Nature only became available after a certain time, since I got a hit for the Chariklo-ring article.
How could they possibly determine it's lumpy like that from just a few occultation cords, esp. given that it's rotated between events?
The article Weywot you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Weywot for comments about the article, and Talk:Weywot/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Praseodymium-141 -- Praseodymium-141 (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp: Just heard back from the MPC--they knew beforehand that the S/2005 S 2 and 3 designations don't appear to be used, but they nevertheless proceeded with skipping ahead to S/2005 S 4 just in case. Rewinding the designations would prove too risky for avoiding accidentally reusing designations like what happened with S/2007 S 4/5. Nrco0e (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp: I emailed Ashton for his 2019 discovery observations two days ago and I counted at least 10 more moons waiting to be announced, plus several dozens of "unprocessed" observations that may or may not turn out to be satellites. Some of the 2020 satellites aren't included in these observations, so I expect plenty more than just 10 from 2019. Nrco0e (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Astonishing to think that it was just the classic nine within living memory. :)
Then, what is the true number of unconfirmed Saturnian moons? I was happily decrementing that at List of natural satellites#Moons by primary, thinking that the unconfirmed set was getting confirmed. But from what you just said, perhaps some of the newly announced ones are actually new, not previously known and just unconfirmed. Or should we even be counting those at all? Double sharp (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea really. The unconfirmed Saturnian satellites from Sheppard's 2004-2007 survey and Ashton's 2020 survey are proprietary and are currently stuck in the MPC's private backlog. Nrco0e (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I think we should remove the numbers of unconfirmed outer-planet moons, as the true number is not publicly available. Double sharp (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on board with that. It would pretty much be original research if we were to identify which unconfirmed satellites correspond to confirmed satellites, and counting up unconfirmed satellites would make for a very cumbersome task... Nrco0e (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On 28 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Weywot, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that scientists initially could not determine which direction Weywot was orbiting? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Weywot. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Weywot), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
The article Polydeuces (moon) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Polydeuces (moon) for comments about the article, and Talk:Polydeuces (moon)/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Etriusus -- Etriusus (talk) 06:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thank u for all the good articles on space rocks, i went down a rabbit hole, always a pleasure to see wikipedians who specialize in one field and contribute high quality stuff fbrh - cw 𓆈 (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On 22 September 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article J1407b, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that although J1407b eclipsed V1400 Centauri in 2007, nobody noticed for over three years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/J1407b. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, J1407b), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article J1407b 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of EF5 -- EF5 (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware of, I have not seen any astronomers calling Varuna a dwarf planet in recent scientific literature (2023, 2019, 2014). I think it's safe to remove the DP template and category from it.
(By the way, that 2023 abstract I linked above mentions JWST observations for confirming a possible satellite of Varuna spotted in Hubble images from 2005... it already took images of Varuna in November 2024, so we'll have to wait and see if it did find a satellite! Hopefully we can get a density from that, if it ever happens.) Nrco0e(talk • contribs)07:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What seems to be happening is that anything with a well-determined oblong shape, or a satellite with a well determined orbit, is excluded as a possibility. The ones that remain may be darker and therefore larger than expected, but if so are probably at best solid objects, not DPs. Our list of DPs seems unlikely to grow from known bodies. — kwami (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anyone's ever called Varuna a DP. But that's true for most of our candidate objects -- that's in not our definition of what a 'possible DP' is. But the density calculation is based on the assumption that it is a DP, whether the researchers used that term or not. It seems our logic here is: 'if it's a DP [in HE], then its density is too low for it to be a DP. QED.' — kwami (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it from the cat and template, but I'm not sure about this. An active thermal history might result in an icy body with a low density but still close to a HE shape, like Saturn's moons. They would be considered DPs even if they don't meet a literal reading of the IAU definition, which no-one actually seems to follow. So if Tethys with a density of 0.98 would count as a DP, why not Varuna? We don't expect TNOs to have been that thermally active, but Haumea and Pluto show that it's possible. Can we really justify removing any of the three low-density objects? — kwami (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, really. Tethys is generally thought of as a "satellite planet" / "major moon" AFAICS, but its density is so low that there's some talk about it potentially being quite porous (I discussed it with you back in 2022 at User talk:Kwamikagami/Archive 32#Is Tethys solid?). Of course TNOs would probably have a rather different thermal history in general, but we know too little about specific cases. Double sharp (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're thinking Tethys might be like Hygiea? If Varuna were similar, then indeed it would no more be a DP than Hygiea would, even if both were 'worlds' by Stern's definition. Too bad we haven't had a flyby of Hygiea to help inform us. — kwami (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, in the sense that Hygiea seems to be a gravitational aggregate of the pieces that used to make it up – such a thing might not necessarily be solid throughout, no? Double sharp (talk) 09:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
