User talk:PlanetStar/Archive 1

AfD Nomination: Planetary mass type

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem to me that Planetary mass type meets these criteria, I have started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planetary mass type. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, an administrator will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. Dr. Submillimeter 08:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination: Subterrestrial

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem to me that Subterrestrial meets these criteria, I have started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subterrestrial. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, an administrator will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. Dr. Submillimeter 10:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

Hi there. Concern has been expressed at the pages discussing the deletion of the above two articles that they are original research, which is not allowed. Note that per Wikipedia's policies, all articles must be verifiable with independent sources. I urge you to please read Wikipedia's policies and ensure that any new articles you create conform. Regards, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 16:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take it personally

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. I think you put a lot of work into the planetary mass page, and your classification scheme seems well-thought out. (I am assuming you came up with it: if not, put your references in there right away to prevent deletion.) But Wikipedia does not allow original research. You could submit your classification scheme to a scientific journal, and if your classification scheme survives peer review and is published, it will then be appropriate to put it on Wikipedia.

In any case, please don't be discouraged! Keep editing! Vegasprof 21:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I putted the extrasolar planet and astronomy stubs to planetary mass type and subterrestrial articles when they don't have references or sources. BlueEarth 16:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Planet-stub}}

Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 00:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I putted astronomy and extrasolar planet stubs to both planetary mass type and subterrestrial articles in place of planet stubs. BlueEarth 16:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving pages during discussion

I saw that you moved subterrestrial to subterrestrial planet while the article was still nominated for deletion. This was mildly disruptive to the discussion, although I would guess that you did not intend for it to be disruptive. If renaming an article is appropriate, then usually the rename is recommended in the deletion discussions. In the future, please wait for these discussions to close before moving the articles.

(You may also want to work on editing existing articles rather than creating new ones. That way, you can learn how to write good articles before creating new articles. Would you like some guidance?) Dr. Submillimeter 07:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation of subterrestrial planet is disruptive

You should not have recreated the article. The new references do not even support recreating the article. One of them leads to a webpage that describes the designation being given by an "Alliance Astronomical Union" which, as far as I can tell, does not exist. The other link goes to a NASA page that does not use the term. Neither of these pages is sufficient to support the information in the article.

I will now mark the article for speedy deletion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion). Note that the recreation of deleted content is disruptive (see Wikipedia:Disruptive editing). If you continue to recreate deleted articles, especially without discussing it with other people, then you will be banned from Wikipedia. Dr. Submillimeter 19:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend simply not attempting to recreate these deleted pages. I am a professional astronomer. I checked my professional resources for information on these terms, and they just are not in use in real-life astronomy.

I very strongly recommend editing existing articles for a while so that you can understand how to write good articles. One thing that might be useful would be to add references and additional information to articles on some of the bright, nearby stars in one of the constellations. Do you have a particular constellation that you are interested in? Dr. Submillimeter 21:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can I create subterrestrial planet and planetary mass type articles without deletion? BlueEarth 18:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

Hi, Blue Earth. I've deleted your user page, which used to contain enormous amounts of real-life information about you, for your own protection. Wikipedia pages are mirrored all over the net, and somebody malicious knowing your exact birth date, address, social security number etc. could generate huge problems for you, and possibly Wikipedia. Please don't recreate such a page, and I strongly suggest you ask your parents' approval before putting any real-life info at all about you on your user page. Feel free to ask on my talk page if you have any questions. Sandstein 19:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution to Talk:Gliese 581 c

Wikipedia is not a battleground for people who like to fight, nor a sandbox for immature adolescents, so I shall be both civil and adult. Your "contribution" to the Gliese 581 c discussion page under the "name?" subject heading was utterly useless. You are doubtless an intelligent person; why are you wasting your time, the time of others, and space in computer memories? Writtenright 02:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I named this planet and talking others about how to name a planet. BlueEarth 18:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, silly me

For some reason I was confusing two papers, and thought HD 155358 was a 2.3 M_sol red giant. I copied the numbers from the correct paper though! — Nicholas (reply) @ 11:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HD 155358 is a yellow dwarf because I calculated absolute magnitude as 4.31 and The Extrasolar Planet Encyclopedia saids that it is G0 star, combining with the calculated absolute magnitude, it would be G0V star. BlueEarth 01:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFD Nomination

When listing redirects for deletion, please be sure to provide the redirect names. If we don't know what you are referring to, then we cannot address the issue. In this case, I was able to determine the applicable pages, but it would have been much easier if I hadn't had to go searching for them. By the way, if you wish to delete a page you have created, you can tag it for speedy deletion with {{db-author}}. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 03:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your questions about extrasolar planets

Hello again. As the numbering system was designed by you, you or I can't create an article about it as it is original research and unencyclopedic. For the same reason, you can't include the numbers into individual extrasolar planet articles. I can't see how it can have reliable sources because the numbering system doesn't exist anywhere. We must stick on the traditional (and dumb) b, c, d, e, ... designation system as it is only one used by scientists.

The IAU does not name extrasolar planets for practical reasons: It is likely that in a few decades the number if known extrasolar planets will be in tens of thousands. It is unpractical to maintain a huge list of names and set up a committee to approve or to disapprove naming suggestions. Minor and dwarf planets are named, but that is because originally it was not known that there are so many of them. Moons also have official IAU names, but no other objects including planets and stars whose names are based on traditions. — JyriL ^talk 08:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions to starbox template

Hi,

It would be appreciated if you could discuss revisions to the starbox templates on the talk page for WikiProject:Astronomical Objects before they are implemented. It is not clear to me that your revisions are beneficial, so I'd like to reach a group consensus. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest mentioning the changes in a new post and then waiting a few days to see if anyone comments. Simply saying "I changed something" and then changing it is not discussion. Other people may object to your changes; you need to give people time to respond. Dr. Submillimeter 10:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inline citation style

I would like to recommend that you use a footnote citation style like the one used in many of the articles on galaxies (see Sombrero Galaxy, for example). In general, this allows other users to automatically determine the validity of every sentence that you have written and every quantity that you add to the infoboxes. (Also, since you have had problems with writing unreferenced articles in the past, the use of footnote citations would demonstrate that you are actually using references rather than making things up.) Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 20:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For example, see what I did to part of the article on HD 155358. (Also note that you should not make up names for astronomical objects as you did with the star HD 155358 (which you renamed HD 155358A). This causes lots of problems. Dr. Submillimeter 21:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put HD 155358A, Nickshanks did it when he created article, but I should remove it because I didn't think that it is in binary system. BlueEarth 22:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I apologize for thinking that you renamed HD 155358. Still, I strongly suggest using the inline citation system. Dr. Submillimeter 10:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additions of galactic coordinates and space velocities to articles

No one has yet agreed to use these quantities in the infoboxes for stars. You probably should stop adding the information to the articles at this time and wait for a consensus on using the quantities at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects. Your actions right now seem mildly disruptive. Dr. Submillimeter 17:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Suspected" is not a variable type

"Suspected" is not a variable type. Do not add this to the infoboxes on stars. Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 09:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that "Suspected" is not a variable type. Suspected means maybe. I saw a lot of star articles that said "Suspected" or "suspected" under variable type. BlueEarth 17:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use "suspected" in the variable type field. Just leave the field blank unless you know what the variable type is. Dr. Submillimeter 22:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inline citations for infobox

Again, I would like to request that you use inline citations for all of the data that you are adding to the infoboxes. See any article on a galaxy (for example, Messier 81, Messier 74, Messier 94, Messier 108, Messier 110) to see what I am talking about. Ideally, each line of data in the infobox should have a footnote that refers to a reference that indicates where the data came from. This would be incredibly useful to add to the infoboxes. Dr. Submillimeter 22:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue dwarf

While you appear to have a lot of enthusiasm for astronomy, you probably do not have the expertise to write about the spectral classifications of stars. I know this because the H-R diagram is a 11th-12th grade or college-level topic, and you are not old enough to have had that level of education. I would suggest that you let other people handle the blue dwarf article and other articles on spectral classification. Dr. Submillimeter 23:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HD 154345b

I am planning on re-writing the article on HD 154345b which you made substantial contributions to. Please see the Discussion page there for my concerns with the present content. I'd like to know why you wrote that the planet was "disproven" or shown to be caused by stellar pulsations in 2006? What are the events in 2006 and 2007 that you cite in the info box ("unconfirmed", "confirmed"). In the future, please don't include information that you can't source. Enfolder 22:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naming extrasolar planets

Hi, and thanks for notifying me. No, you can't do that. We can use only nicknames that are widely used, and because none has become widely used, we can only mention them in article. You can't add your own nicknames, designations and such! You're just wasting your time as your changes will be reverted. If you want to create new names for extrasolar planets, that is fine, maybe even good think if people start to use them, but you can't do that in Wikipedia. Please read carefully what original research means. I checked Pi Mensae b article and saw that you have written about its moons and rings. We have absolutely no way to know if it has those. It is pure speculation and will also be reverted. It's sad since you've obviously worked hard to improve these articles. But do read the guidelines since we must obey them.— JyriL ^talk 20:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, I removed all speculations from Pi Mensae b page (I also removed some subheaders because the text is so short). What we can do: we can tell about its discovery circumstances (who discovered, when, how, how secure the discovery is etc.), what we actually know about it (its minimum mass, orbit). We can't tell how large it is (unless it is a transiting planet) nor can we say how hot it is since surface temperature depends on the albedo and we have no idea of that (but we can say something really vague, like "it is hot" etc.) We can't add our own nicknames, designations, speculations about moons, rings et cetera.— JyriL ^talk 20:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Other designations for planets etc.

Hi again. I'm not sure what you mean by the Word article, but it does sound like you have created it from a scratch. Like I've said earlier, you can't put it here. If you want to publish your planetary designation system, there are places like Scratchpad Wiki Labs. I haven't tried that, but basically it is another website based on the WikiMedia software (it works exactly like Wikipedia) and don't have these restrictions. There you can even create complete Wiki sites with your own graphics and everything.

What comes to the radius equation, I don't have an idea how it is derived. However, that is not the point; values those equations give are estimations based on approximations and obviously not reliable. If you see temperature calculations in a scientific paper, don't hesitate to include them here. But don't try to calculate them yourself. They may give an accurate estimation, but then maybe not. — JyriL ^talk 00:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extrasolar Visions

I suggest you don't add data from the Extrasolar Visions. It is a highly speculative site and the values are based on very simple calculations which are most likely incorrect. Use only values that are directly from scientific articles or from web sites that are properly referenced (like the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia). Exoplanet discoverers' websites are also OK. — JyriL ^talk 01:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Gameplay problem

Please post questions such as this at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. There is a special section just for entertainment questions.—WAvegetarian (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery locations

Hi, I noticed you're adding discovery locations on the extrasolar planets articles. I suggest you carefully check the facts before updating the articles. For example, the CORALIE spectrograph is located in the La Silla Observatory in Chile.[1] The SuperWASP planets cannot have been found at South Africa, since SuperWASP South observatory started its scientific operations in 2006 and the planets were originally imaged in 2004[2] (I'm not sure if they even are visible from the position of SuperWASP South). The planets were no doubt found by SuperWASP North located in La Palma, Canary Islands of Spain. — JyriL ^talk 16:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surface gravities of extrasolar planets

Hi, I notice you've been adding surface gravity values to various extrasolar planets. I've modified the template slightly to allow gravity to be specified both in gees and in m/s². To specify value in gees, you should use gravity_earth, since gravity is now used for m/s² values. Chaos syndrome 23:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extrasolar planet radii

That formula has no physical basis whatsoever! It looks like you've just made it up. Furthermore, it is not dimensionally consistent, and it doesn't work for our solar system. Adding speculative radius and temperature values to infoboxes gives the impression that these values are known, when they are not.

As a matter of etiquette, please don't organise my archives for me. I decide as and when I move topics from my talk page to archives. Thank you. Chaos syndrome 21:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used that radius formula for calculating the radius of Gliese 581 c and came up as 1.5 times Earth, identical in value to referenced radius. BlueEarth 22:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TrES-1 and successors

There seems to be at least three more in this TrES series, as suggested by this article. #4 looks like it needs to be created, but I know very little about astronomy to be able to help out. - CobaltBlueTony 20:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Derksen has just created TrES-4 at 20:59 UTC today. BlueEarth 23:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: updating Extrasolar Visions

As far as I know, it won't be updated. The site was basically a one-man enterprise, and he died in a tragic accident. It was decided to leave the site up as a kind of memorial to him. The only part of the site still active is the discussion board (and even that is slowly decaying - new users cannot register, and post editing doesn't work). Chaos syndrome 12:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this idea was put out at one stage, but it doesn't seem likely from what I've heard (mainly secondhand through John Dollan, who now acts as administrator of the forum, though not of the site as a whole) from the people in charge. Chaos syndrome 22:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Disappearance of 2007 planets from the Catalog of Nearby Exoplanets list

That's strange. I have no idea what's going on there, perhaps they've just forgotten to update the web version? Unfortunately they don't seem to have a contact email on the website, so its unclear who to contact. Chaos syndrome 22:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TPF targets

I'm sure you must have had a good reason for this, but I can't figure it out. ←Ben^B4 04:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Subdwarf-star-stub}}

Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 00:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Planet

Hi, I notice that you've recently changed the template parameter "discovery_location" to "discovery_site" in Template:Infobox Planet. However, you may not be aware that this has corrupted a number of articles that are still using the old parameter name. (Their discovery location data is no longer displayed in the article). The affected articles can be found in Category:Temp_test_category_for_InfoboxPlanet. I went and fixed the two that I saw initially, but now it seems more articles are appearing there, so I'm not sure how many will be affected in the end. Are you sure you want to change that parameter name? I think you're more familiar with them all, so I'd rather leave the business to you if that's OK. Deuar 14:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Kappa CrB b

I don't know why it isn't listed on the main catalogue pages of the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia, but nevertheless the relevant star and planet pages do exist and can be found using the principle of "guess the URL". Whether it's acceptable to use data from such a "hidden" page is another matter: perhaps it might be better to wait until the paper itself is published, though as you point out the two other planets announced in that paper have been listed. It may be worth contacting Jean Schneider (who maintains the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia) about this issue. Chaos syndrome 22:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2007

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to Victor J. Andrew High School. Readers looking for serious articles will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write (almost) whatever you want. Arthur 23:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007

Hey Homeboy, what's the big idea messing with my charts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=55_Cancri_f&action=history.
I'm trying to add knowledge to the area to clear up arguments about habitability.
I don't understand why you messed with the order of the planets; they were arranged by insolation (%) percent.
Please ease off the caffeine or get the right amount of sleep or do this when you are fully awake.
Thanks. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... I'm impressed that you caught the typo for aphelion insolation percent (93.74% > 96.74%). I was all set to turn you in for vandalism, but keep up the attention to detail.
Thanks. - GabrielVelasquez (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forest planet

Hi, are this supposed to be an astronomical article? Has anyone discussed about them in scientific literature? There are lots of forest planets in science fiction, but please don't mix fact and fiction. As an example, desert planet article clearly deals science fiction only, as it should.--— JyriL ^talk 14:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I must disagree, there are plenty of astronomical articles and entries that deal with the theoretical and hypothetical. As an example, No picture of an extra solar planet has been taken, it is almost all theoretical, the light is decades, hundred and even thousands of years old and the exoplanet in question may not actually even be there anymore. By the present process of "Finding" extra solar planets it is only a matter of time (not a relative contradiction) before we "find" a so called "Desert Planet," a "Glacier Planet," a "Steppe Planet," a "Jungle Planet," a "[Water] Ocean Planet," a "[Neon] Ocean Planet," a "Super-Venusian Planet," a "Super-Ganymede Planet," (...I'll add more later) etc. I'm beginning to love this kid's spirit, and so I ask that you take a second look and Other Theoretical and Hypothetical Astronomical Articles before you judge his/her attempts. I'm curious about what his/her particular parameters are for a Forest Planet, what maximum axial tilt and what surface water percentage range, and what insolation range dimensions, etc. As it is, every thus exposition on an Exo-Astronomical Exo-planet is science fiction except for that one piece of raw data that they turn into an entire story of so called calculatable (maybe) attributes. It is only a matter of time before, in the reverese, this fellows calculatable data finds it's singular bit of raw data. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I don't think you understood what I meant. Has there been scientific or popular science articles about hypothetical planets covered with forests? If there is, fine, he should base this article on that information and provide references. Look ocean planet article for an example of actual hypothetical planet type based on solid science. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not just a collection of speculative articles that contributors have imagined or calculated by themselves. Do not be original. ;) World-builders are welcome to create own wikis or websites. See Orion's Arm for a good example of massive world-building site.

On the other hand, has there been forest planets in science fiction literatures? Troves. It is actually a real cliché. Provide examples, and make it clear that the article is about science fiction and not based on science. As an example, desert planet article is very specific that we're dealing with science fiction and not astronomy. But be warned, random collection of trivia is considered to be a random collection of trivia and will most likely not survive.

The fact that such planets might exist is wild speculation and not astronomy. No speculation, no original research, period. I don't want to learn from Wikipedia that there are about 85,000 billion moons in the Milky Way or that HD 28185 b has an Earth-like moon capable of supporting life.

And sorry BE for talking about you in third person on your own talk page.— JyriL ^talk 23:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur; I wish you had put this in the discussion page for the article itself. I'm copying this there. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't find, because there are none. I suggest you change the page so that it covers only science fiction. Now it is nothing but pure original research. If you can't find examples from science fiction beyond Star Wars or Star Trek, one has to ask is the article worth keeping. One solution could be a single article that includes all kinds of planets (forest, ice, lava, whatever) that appear in science fiction. Still, I don't know if it could be useful because such article would most likely be just a collection of trivia.--— JyriL ^talk 13:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]