User talk:Urhixidur/Archive/2007

Template:MPCit MPES

Hello. I've come across a template you created, Template:MPCit MPES, while tidying up Category:Astronomical templates. This template now seems to duplicate the functionality of Template:MPCit JPL, which you also created. Is there a reason for these two templates existing seperately now, or could they be merged into one? (I'd recommend Template:Cite MP or something similar.) Thanks. Mike Peel 21:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the template description; it used to point to http://scully.cfa.harvard.edu/~cgi/ShowCitation.COM?num=nnnn, but the site has since been changed to refuse this direct link. There is a (now remote) chance that they will eventually re-allow it to work. Meanwhile I've redirected it to MPCit_JPL, which is increasingly complete (it used to be much less complete than MPES). I guess one could replace all MPCit_MPES invocations with MPCit_JPL ones... Urhixidur 23:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Planet infobox

As you may or may not know the minor planet infobox has been retired and a more general Infobox Planet has been adopted for all planets including minor planets. As a big fan of your AstOrb browser (and I'm sure there are others), it would great if you could update the AstOrb browser to reflect the change in templates. I had been using your browser to create new asteroid/minor planet pages and update older ones, however since the template change, using the browser only creates more work. The discussion of the move is here Template talk:Infobox Planet. Thanks Spot87 21:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get that done shortly. Urhixidur 18:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, version 1.44 is now available. It uses the new Infobox Planet format and also adds automated footers. Spread the word! Urhixidur 04:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of minor tweaks later, it's version 1.4.6. Urhixidur 03:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. Spot87 04:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Methane

I think the methane article is less readable now with 'a' replacing 'yr', though more correct I agree. I am not proposing it be changed back however, just would like to know if there is a wiki policy on this sbandrews 23:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Units_of_measurement:

« The Scientific style section of the Manual of Style states "For units of measure, use SI units as the main units in science articles, unless there are compelling historical or pragmatic reasons not to do so." »

« Use standard abbreviations when using symbols. For example, metre is m, kilogram is kg, inch is in (not " or ″), foot is ft (not ' or ′), and pound is lb (not #). »

If you feel readability suffers, maybe add a link to "year" when "a" appears the first time?

Urhixidur 03:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i put in a wiki link to annum, eg. Mass (Tg/a), I suggest you make a practice of that on any future pages you change in the same way, if only for younger or less science minded readers, or luddites like me :). I'm not sure that 'a' is an SI symbol for year, the sites I found only said that it was an international standard, or an ISO recommendation, kind regards, sbandrews 21:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've dug it up: NIST SP 811 (1995) says "Although there is no universally accepted symbol for the year, Ref. [6: ISO 31-1] suggests the symbol a." The year as a unit is not mentioned in the SI brochure (unlike the day, for example). The symbol "a" conflicts with the are (unit of area), but context should disambiguate. Urhixidur 12:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comet McNaught

Not sure that the dab links to lots of redlinks at the header of the article is very useful. I suspect that the info would be better at the Robert McNaught article which has already an extensive list of asteroids associated with him. While the comets listed might have been found by McNaught - I can't think they will commonly be called Comet McNaught and are unlikely to be as notable as this current one - if they are then surely their ame will distinguish them to one of the brightest comets for the last 40 years (ie pretty notable). --Golden Wattle ^talk 04:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, they are less well-known comets, but they share the common quality of all being called "Comet McNaught" (goto http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/CometDes.html and enter "McNaught"). That's what disambiguation is all about. You may want to tone down the dab entry (which is quite large, I'll agree) using a template such as {{otheruses}}. Urhixidur 18:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Had a go - thanks for the suggestion. Regards--Golden Wattle ^talk 19:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination: Meanings of asteroid names (139001-140000)

An editor has nominated the article Meanings of asteroid names (139001-140000) for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meanings of asteroid names (139001-140000). Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Meanings of asteroid names (139001-140000) during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Jayden54Bot 13:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diacritics for 8217 Dominikhasek

Hi, I've reverted your page move. While Dominik Hasek's name may be correctly spelled with diacritics, 8217 dominikhasek's isn't. Hasek is a Czech name, so you can make arguments about correct spelling for it, but "8217 dominikhasek" is a purely English name from NASA. It's a minor technicality, but I thought I should point it out to you. --Wafulz 02:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the JPL page (JPL) does omit the diacritics, that is not conclusive by itself. The IPA pages are more trustworthy (I've exchanged correspondence with the main data keeper there, and he tells me the IPA slavishly follows the diacritics specified in the Circulars): See http://www.ipa.nw.ru/PAGE/DEPFUND/LSBSS/ALF/d.htm. See also http://www.astro.cz/planetky/detail.phtml?number=8217. The only way to tell for sure would be to get the actual MPC 31613, but the Minor Planet Circulars are not available on-line. Urhixidur 02:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a template you created a long time ago, and I read this line:

Those meanings marked with an asterisk (*) are guesswork, and should be checked against Lutz D. Schmadel's Dictionary of Minor Planet Names to ensure that the identification is correct.

Guesswork is pretty clearly original research, so I don't know if you want to reword it or something. --Wafulz 02:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the original intent was to mark the guesswork as such, but a lot of contributors have been ignoring that guideline. I've been thinking of rewording it along the lines of "meanings that do not quote a reference should be considered tentative". But since the {{MPCit_JPL}} pages have been steadily adding citations to their database, the number of guessswork entries is steadily shrinking...So the problem will eventually just vanish. :-) Urhixidur 02:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded the disclaimer following another editor's prompting. What do you think of this new version? Urhixidur 13:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suisun Shrew

Please see WP:BIRD for the rationale behind the capitalization. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I jumped the gun on that one...Again. :-) Urhixidur 14:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For my defence, I will state this would not have happened if the article creator(s) had followed the very guideline you quote: « [...] and always create a redirect from the uncapitalised form ». We need for a bot to check for these missing redirects. Urhixidur 14:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asteroid names

I added the comment below to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meanings of asteroid names (139001-140000), but I later decided that, as it is not really relevant there, I'm moving it here instead. I'm sure you have good reasons for doing things the way you do. This is just my perspective as a reader:

Comment (not really relevant to the empty list pages, but I want to put it here for more exposure): Urhixidur has put in an admirable amount of hard work on all these asteroid pages in general, and Wikipedia should be very grateful for that. But I wonder why the meanings of asteroid names aren't included in/merged with the List of asteroids series? As the names often have important references that need to be understood in relation to the identity of the discoverer (being named after national or political heroes, revered teachers, respected colleagues), it would seem that the etymology would be useful in the main list. Consider the case of 1834 Palach:

The List of asteroids/1001–2000 mentions that it was discovered and presumably named by (exiled) Czech astronomer Luboš Kohoutek in 1969, but does not give any reason for the name.
The Meanings of asteroid names (1501-2000) list explains that it was named after Czech protester Jan Palach (a student who burned himself to death in central Prague in January 1969, in protest against the Soviet invasion that ended the Prague Spring), but does not mention the discoverer.

In this case, there are articles both on Palach the person and Palach the asteroid to explain the background, but in many other cases the historical context of a name would be much clearer if both discoverer and name were in the same list. In the next few years after the Prague Spring, Kohoutek discovered several other asteroids which were also named after Czech national heroes, such as 1841 Masaryk (1971), which does not yet have an article. (BTW, is the politics of asteroid naming covered anywhere?) up◦land 09:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

up◦land 06:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can answer the above questions, after a fashion. This concerns the "pronunciation of asteroid names" pages as well, as you'll see. I've tried to keep the "List of asteroids" as language-neutral as possible: about the only language-sensitive column is the "Location" one, and I've tried to use the local name as far as possible (since they're redirected to the English entries anyway). Such language-neutrality is, obviosuly, impossible with the "Meanings" explanations. The unstated goal was to make the "List of asteroids" a sort of Wikisource set, or at least something which could be, very nearly, cut and pasted into other-language Wikipedias. Once you understand this perspective, the organisation of the lists (and the heavy use of templates) should make a lot more sense. Urhixidur 14:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian and Afghan provinces

Hey, thanks for moving all those articles to their correct spellings. However, you appear to have been reverted on three of them:

(cur) (last) 10:13, 11 October 2006 Skinsmoke (Talk | contribs | block) m (moved Dāykondī Province to Daykundi Province: Name changed to new official version used by Afghanistan's Ministry of Interior)
(cur) (last) 16:58, 19 October 2006 Jahangard (Talk | contribs | block) m (moved Tehrān Province to Tehran Province: see discussion)
(cur) (last) 00:58, 27 October 2006 Khorshid (Talk | contribs | block) m (moved Khūzestān Province to Khuzestan Province: Move to regular letters because this doesnt work right in some browsers)

Just wanted to let you know, and was wondering if you think the pages should be moved back or not. Khoi khoi 01:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No skin off my nose; I was just idly integrating some FIPS code updates. The technical reason provided is intriguing; I wonder who actually uses a browser that doesn't do Unicode properly... Urhixidur 16:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: image map at Planet

Nice work... I was thinking of doing that one, but you beat me to it. I'm happy to see this new imagemap extension - it will really help improve clarity for a lot of the science diagrams and images. --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Others to do:

Image:Pluto_compared2.jpg
Image:ThePlutinos_Size_Albedo_Color2.svg
Image:Pluto_and_charon.jpg
Image:NewSolarSystem2.jpg
Image:Cha110913.jpg
Image:Lastlookneptune.jpg
Image:Pluto,_Earth_size_comparison.jpg (maybe not pertinent for this one)

Have fun. :-) Urhixidur 22:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a good idea to create a wrapper template for those images that are used in lots of places. That way the click-mask is defined just once. Urhixidur 22:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Re [1] - I closed as speedy keep merely because of procedural issues - go to WP:MFD, since the "template" isn't in Template: namespace. Cheers. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 06:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite completely true; the problem with the template as it currently stands is that it includes itself in Category:Wikipedia related user templates. In that sense, it is no longer private. Urhixidur 20:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pb image sous copyright signalé sur fr:

Bonjour !

Oui, je sais, j'écris en français. Mais je sais que tu le lis ;-).

Je viens de signaler sur ta page de discussion francophone une demande d'une IP postée sur fr:Wikipédia:Requête aux administrateurs à propos d'images sous copyright sur en et sur commons. À toi la balle ici ;-) Merci ! GillesC 20:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical names in Iran

I saw that you have moved Isfahan Province to "Eşfahān Province", based on FIPS 10-4. It's better to first discuss this kind of moves in the talk page, or in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran. Personally, I think using characters like "ã" may be helpful in showing the correct pronounciation, but using "ş" is rather misleading (because many read it as "sh", but in "Eşfahān" it should be pronounced exactly the same as "s"). Jahangard 17:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not me you should tell this, but the American federal agency that puts out FIPS 10-4. I apologise for acting rashly, but I thought the FIPS spellings would be the most likely to be "correct" (i.e. closest Latin translitteration of the local Arabic). And redirects ensure no lasting harm is done. Since the number of provinces needed to be updated in most cases, I was under the impression the articles were somewhat behind the times. Fix any mistakes of mine, please. Urhixidur 20:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of asteroids/120901–121000

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of asteroids/120901–121000, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of asteroids/120901–121000. Thank you. Nardman1 02:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:bsm

Template:bsm has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

Also, similarly for {{esm}}. — Kevinkor2 16:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Urhixidur,

I changed the documentation for {{smallcaps}}, and would welcome your comments. --Kevinkor2 11:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Barry_Nelson_autograph.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Barry_Nelson_autograph.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yonatan ^talk 21:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asteroid categories

I've been removing Category:Lists of asteroids from articles which are also in Category:Asteroid discoverers for various reasons, including:

the latter is a sub-category of the former
Marco Cavagna, for example, is not a list, he is a person

I noticed you restored the category to that article, which is why I'm bringing my rationale to your attention. I was thinking of doing something similar to the various observatories which are in the "Lists" category also, but I'm having trouble thinking up a suitable name: Category:Observatories where asteroids have been discovered seems ungainly if accurate. What do you think?

I've also been tidying up the tables where I can, hope you like it. I'm hoping to come up with an extension to the "collapsible tables" method whereby we could have separate sections for "asteroids" and "comets" which could be collapsed individually. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Cavagna is not a list, but the article includes one.

The category "Asteroid discoverers" initially was not categorised under "Lists of asteroids" (because not all asteroid discoverer articles included a list yet). Since it is now, you are indeed correct in removing the redundant category.

Collapsible tables would be a boon, particularly for those articles with long, tedious lists (whose maintenance in the face of additional discoveries and namings is an as-yet-unresolved headache, by the way).

I'll get back to you about a suggested observatory category name.

Urhixidur 13:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said, I'm making the tables collapsible as I go—having missed some early ones before I had the idea—using the current system (the improved version with separate collapsible sections is vaporware

but I've proposed it in an appropriate place so we'll see if anybody who can actually write JS can get there before I blunder in with something they'll have to debug

). HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the category, I'm not sure a sub-cat of "Asteroid discoverers" is needed. But if we must, how about "Asteroid discoverers (Observatories)"? Compact, and follows the pattern already established for various disambiguated pages. Urhixidur 11:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would make some sense. Are the discoveries attributed to the Observatory and to the person/people? —Phil | Talk 16:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It varies. The MPC listings sometimes use the location and discoverer interchangeably, and in some cases the discovery attribution made by the MPC to an Observatory is "personalised" on that observatory's web pages. For example, (94411) 2001 TA17 and (94892) 2001 YE5 are both listed as discovered at Ametlla de Mar Observatory, but the former is discovered by Ametlla de Mar whilst the latter is discovered by Jaime Nomen (as far as I can tell, Nomen is the only observer to operate from that observatory, anyway). (90370) 2003 NY5 is listed by the MPC as "Piszkesteto Station at Piszkesteto Station", but the Piszkéstető Station, Konkoly Obszervatórium web site attributes it to Krisztián Sárneczky and Brigitta Sipőcz. Urhixidur 19:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I've been having several ideas about this situation, ranging from the outrageous to the merely-tedious. My least outrageous idea was that we could do a "Ram-Man-style" mass addition of articles for those asteroids for which we have at least basic information:

name(s)
discovered by (person/people)
discovered on (date)
discovered at (venue)
named for (where applicable)
succession box

Maybe then we could replace all those tedious lists which get people so heated with categories. This would be ideally suited to the "wikidata" thing that's been tossed about for so many years: shame that seems to have been subsumed into the "OmegaWiki" dictionary thing. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the data points you mention, except for "named for", are excerptable from the MPC lists. I maintain privately a series of Excel spreadsheets (broken down by blocks of 15 000 asteroids) of precisely those data (that's how I manage to update the Lists so fast when new batches of asteroids get their numbers). The meanings of names we could for the most part get semi-automatically through {{MPCit_JPL}}, as the JPL web pages are increasingly complete as time goes by (except for the first few hundred asteroids, which got their names before the Minor Planet Circulars were created).

Add this to the astorb.dat data which my AstOrbBrowser already processes, and we could have the basics needed to create 150,000 asteroid stub articles. But do we really want to do this? Most asteroids do not deserve a full page: it may be smarter to create systematic redirects (e.g. the "(150106) 5084 T-3" page would consist simply of "#redirect List of asteroids (150001-151000)#001").

Urhixidur 13:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to that, it would be good for the same reason as the Rambot articles: they can then be copied to all other wikis. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 22:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right…done that lot: observatories next. What would you say to shifting all those lists to a sub-category of their own? —Phil | Talk 22:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, Phil, do you mean shift the "List of asteroids (xx1-xx0)" from the category "Lists of asteroids" down to a subcat like "Lists of asteroids (by number)"? (Kinda hard to follow two different threads here...) Urhixidur 03:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly what I meant; maybe something similar for the "Meanings…" lot as well. —Phil | Talk 05:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain use of <noinclude></noinclude>

You added the above tags around the Category designated at the bottom of the Template:Pressure Units. I don't understand what that does or when/why it should be used. Would you be so kind as to explain it to me? I will watch here for your response. Regards, - mbeychok 00:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's very simple and very useful. In a template, <noinclude> means the bracketed contents will apply only to the template page itself, and won't be carried through (included) when the template is invoked elsewhere. <includeonly> does precisely the opposite.

I added that because although {{Pressure Units}} belongs in the Pressure category, the pages that display the template generally do not (e.g. Pascal (unit) belongs in the Units of pressure category, not in the Pressure category).

Urhixidur 18:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation. - mbeychok 21:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Unicode Latin

Template:Unicode Latin has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — ✉Hello World! 06:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroshi Araki

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Hiroshi Araki, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Dreamy 20:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asteroid userbox

As it happens, I chose my user name for a variety of reasons, and I did think of the asteroid at the time, although that was only one of the factors. But I certainly don't mind - does this mean that we are the only two so labelled? In any case, I'll let the designation stand - it is at least more accurate than the other one about the IPU. :-) As to why I answer so late - well, how often does one read one's own user page?

By the way, why did you choose Urhixidur - that has to be one of the more obscure names in the field? Cheers Io 20:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I quickly found a little over 20 "victims" to inflict the template on. <grin> I could probably find more by going further down the list of asteroid names (so far we have Icarus, Isis, Lutetia, Vesta, Flora, Aurora, Psyche, Leto, Victoria, Alexandra, Polyhymnia, and several where I had to stretch the definition slightly: Angelina Y., Daphne A, Minerva nine, Iris-J2, Minerva 7, Sappho of the Far Hemisphere, Aglaja e, Mnemosyne.true).

As for Urhixidur, it was one of the few names I managed to find by going through various reference works (in the pre-Internet days, circa 1976-1978). I liked it, and started using it as a pen name. It has stuck ever since.

Urhixidur 02:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of asteroids/88401–88500

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article List of asteroids/88401–88500, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Oo7565 07:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USS Ostara

Thanks for clarifying the name. Good work on both the facts and the wording. Lou Sander 12:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I try. Sometimes, I'm very trying. :-) Urhixidur 15:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sats of Saturn

[2] You added incorrect links: IAUC 7521 and MPEC 2000-Y14 is not about Helene. I revert your edit.
P.S. How do you calculate inclinations to equator and ecliptic (what formulae)?--Ahonc (Talk) 20:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful when undoing; the mistake you caught was real (copy-paste trouble on my part), but you undid several other legitimate edits. It's all fixed now.

As for the inclinations, detailed discussions are found here and here. Urhixidur 20:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Io and Enceladus References

I noticed you changed the format used for references in Enceladus (moon) and Io (moon). The references previously used where in modified Science mag format (to include article name for linking purposes). What format have they been changed to? I have preferred using the prior format, however if the format you use if from some agreed upon template or some compromise between the format I have been using and the format you changed them to can be reached, that would be good to know. --Volcanopele 20:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much changed them as uniformised the format. Manual bolding and such looked pretty bad. There is no outright consensus on formatting, but I guess it would be worthwhile to convert these articles' refs using {{cite journal}}. There are only a few annoyances left with that template, and this would be a good exercise to ferret them out and fix them. Urhixidur 15:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page names of biographies

Hi, according to WP:NCP, a part of our Manual of Style, biographical articles should be titled as <first name> <last name>. Exceptions should only be made if disambiguation is needed. And we most certainly do not add accents to the article title. As you may understand, I've reverted your move pf Aleksei Chichibabin to Alekséy Yevgényevich Chichibábin. Er rab ee 02:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The accents were there before I waded in (not sure where those came from, as Russian is usually not translitterated using accents). The real problem with most of these articles is typically the incompleteness of the set of redirects. Urhixidur 12:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zelentchouk

Bonjour, j'ai vu que vous avez posé des questions sur en:Talk:Zelenchukskaya. D'abord, je remarque qu'il n'y a pas de page en français. Vous ne contribuez pas à wiki français ? Avec des dizaines de milliers d'edit et un goût pour l'astronomie, peut-être pourriez vous faire une petite page... Perso j'utilise wiki tous les jours mais je n'ai plus le temps d'y contribuer sérieusement. Pour ce qui est de votre question sur SAO et l'U de Kazan, euh, je ne comprends pas, leur relation sont...bonnes. Des étudiants de Kazan sont régulièrement envoyé en stage et en thèse à SAO. Euh, ça répond à votre question ? Pour la question des codes, [3] (liste pompée chez Harvard): 114 pour Engelhart et 115 pour SAO). Vous pouvez répondre sur ma page, j'ai une IP fixe 218.122.196.1 01:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Je contribue plus du côté du Wiktionnaire français que de la Wikipédie. Outre l'attribution des codes UAI, je me demandais quel est la relation (rapport) administrative entre le SAO et le KUO - si l'un est une extension de l'autre, ou s'il s'agit de deux entités indépendantes. Urhixidur 02:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

La liste IMCCÉ est comme les autres listes : ambiguë. On y lit :

« 114 Engelhardt Observatory, Zelenchukskaya Station »

« 115 Zelenchukskaya »

Pas évident qu'est-ce qui est quoi. Vous dites que 114 serait KUO et 115 SAO ? C'est plausible et cohérent. Urhixidur 03:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On voit sur la liste que Engelhardt a plusieurs stations, une à Kazan, une à "Zelenchuk" et une à Dresde. La station de Engelhardt à "Zelenchuk" partage le site des télescopes optiques de SAO (comparez les positions géographiques) mais il s'agit d'entités asministrativement différentes. SAO, en plus de l'équipement scientifique et de son personnel, gère le village scientifique de Nizhniy Arkhiz. KUO gère ses propres télescopes, que ce soit à "Zelenchuk" ou ailleurs. D'ailleurs il y a sur le même site un télescope automatique de suivi de satellites, et qui n'a rien à voir, administrativement, avec SAO. Si vous voulez un exemple en France, le Lise, labo d'Antoine Labeyrie (Acad.), se situe sur le site de l'OHP mais dépend bien sûr du collège de France. Je crois avoir répondu à voter question cette fois, mais sinon, ou si vous avez d'autres questions, n'hésitez pas (à passer sur ma page 218.122.196.1 07:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

née

Why have you italicised "née" in certain articles? It does not need to be italicised. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is optional, of course, but it is also somewhat of a convention to italicise most foreign expressions within English text (mostly Latin ones, like et al., but also French, etc.). See WP:MOS at 6.5 Foreign terms. Note the exception made for "etc.", which is so frequent it now rarely gets that treatment. Urhixidur 15:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haskell Free Library and Opera House

T:DYK is only for new articles, and only for articles nominated at T:TDYK, as is clearly stated in T:DYK. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-25 13:02Z

That policy seems unnecessarily restrictive (and is not followed by all wikipedias, you'll notice). "Did you know" should serve to bring attention to juicy bits of knowledge. The time-stamp of the associated article is irrelevant. Ah well, it'll be the English Wikipedia's loss. Urhixidur 16:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have been doing it this way for some time, but we are open to suggestions.

I have moved your comment to the discussion page - Wikipedia talk:Did you know - from the suggestions page - Template talk:Did you know - where you originally posted it. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CEA vs CÉA

J'ai vu que tu avais renommé CEA en CÉA. J'ai renommé en sens inverse.

Le CEA lui même écrit son sigle CEA, et non CÉA.
Tous les employés que je connais écrivent CEA.
Je n'ai jamais vu un seul document écrire CÉA

De la même façon, personne n'écrit ÉNS pour l'École normale supérieure. Wikipédia ne doit pas inventer de terminologies, mais seulement reproduire les terminologies existantes... David.Monniaux 20:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ça n'en reste pas moins une erreur. Il n'y a aucune raison, avec les technologies informatiques modernes, de laisser tomber les accents des majuscules —c'est une vieille habitude contractée à l'époque antédiluvienne où les machines à écrire (clavigraphes) ne pouvaient pas accentuer les majuscules.

Urhixidur 22:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certes, mais Wikipédia reflète l'usage (au besoin en prenant l'usage auprès des sources "autorisées"), et non ce qui devrait être. David.Monniaux 18:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

« De la même façon, personne n'écrit ÉNS pour l'École normale supérieure. » Faux. Il suffit de googler : il y a des tas de pages francophones qui utilisent ÉNS (une fois qu'on a fait abstraction des wikipages et des pages qui s'en inspirent, comme acronyms.thefreedictionary.com.

Urhixidur 22:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bon.. On va dire, quasiment personne qui travaille effectivement à l'École normale supérieure, alors. :-) Le seul sigle d'organisme avec accent que je connaisse c'est l'IHÉS. David.Monniaux 18:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Le problème à refléter l'usage, c'est que si suffisamment de personnes se trompent, on se sent obligé d'"officialiser" l'erreur. Par exemple, si l'usage veut que la Terre soit plate, la Wikipédie se sentira-t-elle obligée d'affirmer cela ? C'est une pente glissante. Urhixidur 01:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Longpagewarning

Would you please stop changing this message? The newest change to "fairly large" is one of the most ridiculous system messages I've seen in a long time. I get you don't like this warning, but come on...you've been doing this for months now. - auburnpilot talk 04:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying various solutions, since consensus seems impossible, and the discussion not very vigorous despite my efforts to get the interested parties to participate. I cannot stand seeing "kilobyte" used in its 1024 sense without some indication that this is the case —Wikipedia being an encyclopaedia, it cannot afford this kind of sloppy word usage—, and since several contributors do not like linking the word (which would have been an imperfect but decent solution), and others have opined that the precise size of the page is largely irrelevant, this specific message seemed a solution worth trying.

Do you have any other solution in mind?

Urhixidur 11:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G. Pels

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article G. Pels, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 172.149.41.100 23:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polydeuces

Hello !

At the end of Talk:Polydeuces_(moon)#For_the_Record_..._from_Carolyn_Porco, User:Rebjon21 seems to suggest that the article mention the team only and be unblocked. Do I understand that this satisfies you ? If no objection is made, the article will be unprotected shortly, which is somewhat overdue.

Thank you in advance and good continuation. Rama 18:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not "mentioning", but "crediting". The question concerns the attribution of the discovery (which clearly should be to the Cassini Imaging Team). Whether the first person (team member) to glimpse the object(s) should be mentioned is a different issue. I think that little bit of trivia should be included, but it ought to be properly put in context, so there is no chance of a reader concluding that glimpser is the "discoverer". Urhixidur 00:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SI multiples

I have nominated Template:SI multiples for deletion. You can give your opinion on WP:TFD. Han-Kwang (t) 16:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random Smile!

WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-WarthogDemon 23:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

253 Mathilde

Hi Urhixidur,

Checking back in the history of this article, I noticed that you were the first person to insert a temperature for this asteroid. Do you happen to remember where you obtained that value? I'm seeking to provide a citation.

Thank you. — RJH (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was computed by the AstOrb Browser from the semi-major axis and albedo. More details here. Urhixidur 21:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — RJH (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why you blew away my updates to the 253 Mathilde page? That doesn't seem especially helpful. — RJH (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I figured we might as well go back to the source (astorb.dat). The previous mismatch you detected was probably due to some editor updating some orbital parameters without keeping others in step. Urhixidur 16:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Labeling the changes as "unhelpful" was rather unkind. What's unhelpful in giving a more up-to-date epoch? By the way, your computation of the average speed was off. The first seven terms of the exact formula yield successively:

18.30851421 km/s
17.9846549 km/s
17.98035834 km/s
17.98017594 km/s
17.98016954 km/s
17.98016927 km/s
17.98016925 km/s
17.98016925 km/s

Finally, what's the point of giving so many decimal places for osculating elements that change fairly swiftly in any case? Urhixidur 16:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you obliterated a number of my recent edits, so it didn't seem especially helpful from my point of view. Is the JPL data unsatisfactory? It seems more readily accessible, and I was trying to use it consistently. So is there a [Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects wikiproject] agreed-upon standard for how many digits to retain? I was trying to retain the values out to the first two digits of sigma. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I updated just the orbital parameters and related refs. If I obliterated anything else, the edit page did'nt advise me of an edit conflict, so there may be a wiki bug involved.

The JPL data are fine, but one must realise the precision elements given are not of much use to the casual reader. Rounding the figures as AstOrb Browser does seems a reasonable compromise. There isn't much lost in any case if the JPL link is kept around. As for a standard, there isn't one yet, but it may be worthwhile to put the question to the other project contributors. If there is enough of a demand, I just may recode the AstOrb Browser to use the full precision from the JPL data, fetched dynamically —but I suspect it's not worth the effort (besides making the browser slower, and unusable in disconnected mode). Urhixidur 17:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, your argument is reasonable. I trimmed the digits down to 6 and left a note in the infobox. I'm unfamiliar with the AstOrb browser, so it's unclear why it should serve as the standard. But no matter. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page history shows no "obliteration" except for the changes I mentioned.

On a different topic, I personally think providing the numerical substitutions whilst at the same time losing the units is not helpful. It detracts from the universality of the formulas provided. Don't you think? Urhixidur 17:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I merely left the units out of the intermediate steps due to concerns about crowding. There's no other objection to their inclusion. — RJH (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What platform are you on? Unix, Mac? If Windows, you really should download my AstOrb Browser and give it a spin. It simplifies a lot of the drudge work. Urhixidur 17:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well call me curmudgeonly, but I like to see how everything was worked out (when there isn't a direct reference). Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's all in the software's documentation, take a look, I beg you. Urhixidur 17:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor comes along and wants to check how the values on an asteroid page were derived, how do they do it? Seems a little as though you're asking them to take it on faith. It's fine that you have a program to do it methodically, but I still think it would help to have some documentation of the numerical steps in the article notes. I came to that page and I had no idea where the computed values came from. Also they could easily be changed to something incorrect by your random vandal and we'd never know. — RJH (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are valid points, with no easy answers. Well, one could add explanatory footnotes to the template, but as you say, nothing prevents the values input into the template from being changed later on. I could readily add the footnotes (at the input parameter level) to AstOrb Browser's output, and I think I just may do that, but, again, what's to prevent an editor from changing the value without deleting the footnote? One relatively safe bet may be to add these footnotes (as comments) to the template's discussion page. But would you have thought to go look at that page? Urhixidur 17:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added explanations about the computable values for minor planet infoboxes at the top of the template discussion page. Check it out. Urhixidur 18:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir_Alekseyevich_Soloviyov.jpg

I have tagged Image:Vladimir_Alekseyevich_Soloviyov.jpg as {{replaceable fair use}}. If you wish to dispute this assertion, please add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} to the image description page and a comment explaining your reasoning to the the image talk page. Rette tast 17:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you check a death year you added?

Hi there. Could you please check this edit for me? I think your original addition of the birth and death dates was wrong. All the references I've managed to find say he died in 1972, but I thought I should check. Carcharoth 23:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My source was http://careerchem.com/NAMED/Named-Rxns(A-D).pdf It is quite possible the year has had its digits switched around: 40 years is a fairly young age to die at (not impossible, though). Plus the source cites the biographical references:

Vickery, H. B., Biog. Memoirs Natl. Acad. Sci. 1975, 46, 3
Bentley, R., J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 185

...And those dates seem more in tune with 1972 than 1927. The clincher is that E-C reaction defining paper is Clarke, H. T.; Gillespie, H. B.; Weisshaus, S. Z, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1933, 55, 4571. It is very unlikely it could have been published posthumously. Urhixidur 23:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Do you think you'd be able to find a suitable reference for the article for his death date? An obituary or something would be ideal. Carcharoth 00:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=569&page=3 good enough? Urhixidur 00:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely! That looks like a very good resource for biographies. You know we don't have an article on this person yet... Carcharoth 00:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here he is in the US Social Security Death Index, too (the wrong month happens more than it should, especially in those without full dates of death):

HANS CLARKE 27 Dec 1887 Nov 1972 06330 (Baltic, New London, CT) (none specified) 095-26-0303 New York

Gene Nygaard 03:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miles in Antarctica

Just FYI: I recently followed up on your long-ago comments about those ambiguous miles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Antarctica. Now Eugène van der Pijll (master of the bot) has looked at it and agrees that there is a problem. Gene Nygaard 03:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roche limit FAR

Roche limit 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.