This is an archive of past discussions with Icalanise. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
< Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 > |
All Pages: | 1 - 2 - 3 - ... (up to 100) |
I find very little support anywhere outside of Wikipedia for the capitalization used here for COROT discoveries. All exoplanet databases and almost all recent papers use CoRoT rather than COROT. The closest thing to a discussion I can find here seems not to have come to any conclusion. Thoughts? If there's interest I'd propose a move from COROT to CoRoT. — Aldaron • T/ C 01:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I see that you removed alternative planet designations from the planets around 47 Ursae Majoris articles. Last night, I added a note about where alternative designations came from. Those alternative planet designations are taken from alternative star designations. According to the exoplanet nomenclature, planet designations are the extension of any star designations. For example, this parent star is most commonly referred as 47 Ursae Majoris, the most useful alternative star designations are HD 95128, HIP 53721, HR 4277, and Gliese 407, which they all included in starbox under other designations. That corresponds to the planets of 47 Ursae Majoris. For example, the alternative designations for 47 Ursae Majoris d are HD 95128 d, HIP 53721 d, HR 4277 d, and Gliese 407 d. Of all the exoplanets, some use HD, HIP, HR, and Gliese designations as the referring designations. HD designation is most commonly used for planets, such as HD 209458 b. HIP designation is sometimes used, such as HIP 14810 b. HR designation is also sometimes used, such as HR 8799 c. Gliese designation is used for several planets, such as Gliese 876 d. BlueEarth ( talk | contribs) 00:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Would you like to look at Dreugol system on NukeVac Wiki that NuclearVacuum made? You can even participate discussion about the article. First you have to create your account in order for you to have discussion. BlueEarth ( talk | contribs) 16:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
No worries! I agree the issue should be revisited, maybe something you could bring up with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dinosaurs MMartyniuk ( talk) 00:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I had made that diagram years ago thinking it would be helpful to clarify the interactions between the various particles of the standard model. Now I feel that its is very misleading since, after all, all particles with every other particle after one takes loop effects into account. I would like to try to put this diagram up for deletion. Do you agree? TriTertButoxy ( talk) 20:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I was surprised to see your deletion nomination of these articles but I thought I have a word before contributing there since I see you are in Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects. User:BlueEarth is a prominent editor of both articles and he seems very much into exoplanets. Google scholar throws up many references (rather too primary in nature?) going back to at least 2003 where the word cold is not merely adjectival. I think the two articles could be merged with each other but merging with Gas giants would be awkward, I think, in listing discovered objects. Template:exoplanet also seems helpful. Are you really suggesting WP would be improved by deleting these articles or there is some significant breach of policy? Thincat ( talk) 12:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
It is fortunate Hot Neptune did not get deleted too. [1], or maybe some of these are merely Warm Neptunes :-) Thincat ( talk) 09:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
On 4 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HD 10180, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
-- Cirt ( talk) 18:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
You updated the orbits image for the 6-planet system. Do you have a ref? Did "d" become circular? because g was inserted? Also, could you use a frame from 2010 instead of 199 as it is now? Nergaal ( talk) 23:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
| | | | | |
Inner fringe | Habitable zone | Outer fringe |
| | | | | |
I would say the only way this image could be more perfect is if you added the habitable zone ring.
I don't need a reply, it's just a suggestion.
GabrielVelasquez (
talk)
08:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
"In our own solar system, the CHZ is thought to extend from a distance of 0.725 to 3.0 astronomical units, based on various scientific models:"
Inner fringe | Habitable zone | Outer fringe | ||
Sol System | L = 1.0 | 0.725 | 3.0 | |
Gliese system | L = 0.013 | ?? | ?? |
I don't know if it's a linear relation so I'll leave the math to you. GabrielVelasquez ( talk) 17:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with Icalanise. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
< Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 > |
All Pages: | 1 - 2 - 3 - ... (up to 100) |
I find very little support anywhere outside of Wikipedia for the capitalization used here for COROT discoveries. All exoplanet databases and almost all recent papers use CoRoT rather than COROT. The closest thing to a discussion I can find here seems not to have come to any conclusion. Thoughts? If there's interest I'd propose a move from COROT to CoRoT. — Aldaron • T/ C 01:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I see that you removed alternative planet designations from the planets around 47 Ursae Majoris articles. Last night, I added a note about where alternative designations came from. Those alternative planet designations are taken from alternative star designations. According to the exoplanet nomenclature, planet designations are the extension of any star designations. For example, this parent star is most commonly referred as 47 Ursae Majoris, the most useful alternative star designations are HD 95128, HIP 53721, HR 4277, and Gliese 407, which they all included in starbox under other designations. That corresponds to the planets of 47 Ursae Majoris. For example, the alternative designations for 47 Ursae Majoris d are HD 95128 d, HIP 53721 d, HR 4277 d, and Gliese 407 d. Of all the exoplanets, some use HD, HIP, HR, and Gliese designations as the referring designations. HD designation is most commonly used for planets, such as HD 209458 b. HIP designation is sometimes used, such as HIP 14810 b. HR designation is also sometimes used, such as HR 8799 c. Gliese designation is used for several planets, such as Gliese 876 d. BlueEarth ( talk | contribs) 00:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Would you like to look at Dreugol system on NukeVac Wiki that NuclearVacuum made? You can even participate discussion about the article. First you have to create your account in order for you to have discussion. BlueEarth ( talk | contribs) 16:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
No worries! I agree the issue should be revisited, maybe something you could bring up with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dinosaurs MMartyniuk ( talk) 00:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I had made that diagram years ago thinking it would be helpful to clarify the interactions between the various particles of the standard model. Now I feel that its is very misleading since, after all, all particles with every other particle after one takes loop effects into account. I would like to try to put this diagram up for deletion. Do you agree? TriTertButoxy ( talk) 20:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I was surprised to see your deletion nomination of these articles but I thought I have a word before contributing there since I see you are in Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects. User:BlueEarth is a prominent editor of both articles and he seems very much into exoplanets. Google scholar throws up many references (rather too primary in nature?) going back to at least 2003 where the word cold is not merely adjectival. I think the two articles could be merged with each other but merging with Gas giants would be awkward, I think, in listing discovered objects. Template:exoplanet also seems helpful. Are you really suggesting WP would be improved by deleting these articles or there is some significant breach of policy? Thincat ( talk) 12:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
It is fortunate Hot Neptune did not get deleted too. [1], or maybe some of these are merely Warm Neptunes :-) Thincat ( talk) 09:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
On 4 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HD 10180, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
-- Cirt ( talk) 18:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
You updated the orbits image for the 6-planet system. Do you have a ref? Did "d" become circular? because g was inserted? Also, could you use a frame from 2010 instead of 199 as it is now? Nergaal ( talk) 23:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
| | | | | |
Inner fringe | Habitable zone | Outer fringe |
| | | | | |
I would say the only way this image could be more perfect is if you added the habitable zone ring.
I don't need a reply, it's just a suggestion.
GabrielVelasquez (
talk)
08:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
"In our own solar system, the CHZ is thought to extend from a distance of 0.725 to 3.0 astronomical units, based on various scientific models:"
Inner fringe | Habitable zone | Outer fringe | ||
Sol System | L = 1.0 | 0.725 | 3.0 | |
Gliese system | L = 0.013 | ?? | ?? |
I don't know if it's a linear relation so I'll leave the math to you. GabrielVelasquez ( talk) 17:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)