Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 19

129:

extra-organizational initiatives, is premised on attracting and/or training new users, my aim is to figure out the sorts of things we can do to help the editors who are already engaged in the improvement of science content. The question is indeed wide open, but think about it this way: we have staff and a lot of institutional connections; how can we use our resources and relationships to support you? For example, is there a special collection of photos we should try to get on Commons? What about a document archive? Databases or specific journals? Organizationally, is there software that could be built that would help people working on these topics? What kinds of research could we conduct or help to organize that would help you to work more effectively? What are ways we can connect you with other human resources -- experts, for example (though, again, this is not intended to be an outreach program)? How could we motivate people to contribute, whether it be adding content, improving content, conducting reviews, adding images, improving sourcing, or any other part of the process? How can we get more astronomy-related articles to FA/GA? How could we help you to spend more of your time working on things you find fun and interesting and less time on process, organization, and functionary duties?

1380:

in the literature, nor even really on Knowledge (XXG), despite some attempts by an editor to insert his personal opinions. By, say, the Gladman classification scheme in SSBN, which is the closest thing I can find to an authority, a bigger than Pluto object in the outer classical/resonant populations isn't all that implausible). Brightness is R^{-4}, and Pluto's only at 30 au. 5x brighter than an equal-size object at typical KBO distances (and ~25 times brighter than equal size objects at common but far distances).

1308:

one every thirty degrees, call it fifty-fifty). As for bigger ... less likely. But hard to quantify - and, of course, we know there were hundreds of PLuto+ objects. If we're calling resonant objects KBOs (which we probably shouldn't, but we are calling Pluto), the 2:1, 5:2, and so on, are going to give us some decent changes. Unlikely, but I dunno about "very" unlikely. If only there was a reliable source we could ask, rather than bickering over our own guesses.

31: 918:. That article does not support either assertion, AFAIK, only suggesting a few KBOs in the size range of Quaoar and above are yet to be discovered, not saying anything about whether one of these should be expected to be larger than Pluto. It has me wondering nevertheless, how accurate is this statement about Pluto being the largest, without any qualifier, and why precisely? 1053:"Likely" is better than "known". It is simply misleading to suggest that something larger than Pluto will be found currently within ~100AU of the Sun. It also depends on how you define a KBO. If you separate SDOs from KBOs then nothing larger than Pluto will be found, but now-a-days it seems many astronomers (including the MPC) combine KBOs and SDOs as one group. -- 1722:

when we started finding objects with e = 0.2 at 50 000 au). So, it's not really true (and I'd say, if we started finding low e/low i objects at 70+ au, as was envisioned in the wake of Bernstein et al. 2004, we'd almost certainly call 'em KBOs, but be stumped as hell about what it meant). Beyond that,

2759:

I almost broke the initiatives article out into the constituent parts, but I decided there weren't enough firm plans from the project just yet which is why I kept it pretty basic yesterday. That said, I do think that the Listen article will be deserving enough shortly as it represents the only actual

1759:

we're relying on some other assumptions that're almost impossible to quantify (such as a Nice-y history where the drop-off at 46 au is the primordial edge, rather than the start of some trough that'll pick up, as was the fashionable assumption 10 years ago, say). So, it's a bit of a "lies we tell to

1244:

No, you're right; 3- or 5-sigma is the standard. But even 95% confidence could certainly be described as "likely", I think. That is, from my reading of the two or three lightly-cited ApJ papers we're discussing, it is within the realm of possibility but not likely that another ~Pluto-mass Kuiper Belt

1225:

Depends on the field...see physics, where often new discoveries need 5- or 6-sigma confidence to be considered confirmed. I was in a hurry while typing my post, and probably 95% would've been a closer estimate to what we know today, from what I'm seeing. 95% is still 2-sigma, which is enough for some

1103:

say that Pluto is definitively the largest Kuiper Belt object, because while it may be with 99% certainty, there is always a small chance that a larger object has avoided detection. Especially since Kheider notes that the scattered disk objects are often classified as Kupier Belt objects, we need the

1011:

Those're apparent magnitudes, which is a bit of a concern (Pluto gets pretty close to the Sun, and Solar system apparent mags are R^(-4)). The sky is mostly surveyed, but not as well as high latitudes, and we know shit-all towards the galactic centre. "Probably not" I'd agree with, "Definitely not"

669:

I believe the IAU standards were intended for use in comparing results. I.e. for scientific data exchanges. But, as a counter example, it makes little sense to use the IAU standard 'a' for year when you're communicating with a lay reader. Even the IAU admits that 'yr' is frequently used in scientific

124:

and through which we provide support for instructors and students who work on Knowledge (XXG) as part of a class assignment. This post is about something different, though. We'll be continuing to develop that program, of course, but we also want to start working on ways to help the existing Knowledge

3197:

Someone in this list is trying to get back Holmberg 15A to the top spot at a value of 170 billion M. I am always reverting it however, it just keeps going. I am getting tired these days, and I was not always around. If you even check Kormendy et al's reference in the list it clearly states the ten

1934:

Hmm, I sympathise. Trying to think how this would fit in policy. If it were copyvios it'd be easy, but it's just silly misinformation sprinkled into these articles. I've been doing one now and then and will step up the process. also, some have been attended to by others and not checked as yet. Would

1515:

a Kuiper Belt Object? If you do, then it's bigger than Pluto. So it is misleading to say Pluto is the biggest without some qualification on Eris not being in the particular definition of Kuiper Belt you're using. Since Eris appears in the lead of "Pluto", that's already covered, however, the meaning

1379:

article, where we talk about size, not brightness. So the disconnect between the two is important. Are there KBOs brighter than Pluto still to be found? No, almost certainly not. Bigger? Probably not, but it's not certain (and it depends on what we mean by Kuiper belt, which is not well defined

1341:

The size distribution is pretty wonky at the largest sizes, but it's very, very unlikely Pluto is not (currently) the brightest TNO in apparent magnitude, and will, I would guess, remain so until Makemake becomes the brightest KBO in something like a century. But we're not talking about brightness,

1144:

Wrong, your cited paper is only valid for a "distance limit of 26,000 AU for a Jupiter-mass" object. Depending on the background noise, WISE could have trouble detecting a 1.1 Jupiter mass object ~40,000 AU from the Sun and such an object could orbit 70,000 AU from the Sun. Yet no one is claiming we

1721:

Our article doesn't exactly define it, except to note (as an observational fact), that it appears to end at ~50 au. The closest thing I can find to a published definition is the Gladman chapter in SSBN, which calls all objects beyond 30 au with e < 0.24 KBOs, (although he'd presumably change it

1108:

doubt the largest. As for the Jupiter comparison, I could be wrong (I don't know much about the solar system and don't care to, because I think it's overtaught at the expense of extrasolar astronomy), but I would presume that the chance of any jupiter-sized object is so, so small as to basically be

773:

sometimes (I think) reviewers take a look and see that too much needs to be done. I looked a few times - I was happy that the nominator was enthusiastic but found too many things to correct so figured it was going to require too much of an overhaul....and couldn't rustle up the enthusiasm for that.

772:

Usually the way it goes is an article needs a minimum of three supports. If an article stalls for a time then it gets archived, even with one or two supports sometimes. The idea (I guess) is that the process is supposed to be rigorous. Sometimes articles stall for lack of interest and bad luck, and

247:

Both are fine, and using both in the article is fine too. No need to pick one. (It should perhaps technically be Messier 87 when at the beginning of the sentence of a sentence isn't supposed to start with an abbreviation.) I more often say M87 in conversation but try to say Messier 87 when speaking

128:

In 2016, Wiki Ed will be running a campaign tentatively titled, "Knowledge (XXG) Year of Science". The goal, generally stated, will be to improve the content and coverage of science-related content on Knowledge (XXG) ("science" interpreted loosely). Whereas our classroom program, as with many other

1679:

Yes, you keep suggesting we use your definition of the Kuiper belt rather than any published ones. This doesn't work with Knowledge (XXG)'s crowd-sourced editing model, for a few reasons - the next editor along is likely to prefer a different definition, there's no particular sense on the part of

1576:

It is the largest and most-massive known in the restricted definition of "Kuiper belt", the classicals, both cold and hot and resonant objects with semi-major axes in the relevant range. No one can disagree with that. The point of this discussion was whether we can be certain enough that it is the

1307:

Well, depends on what one means by large. And, of course, what one means by "unlikely" and "very unlikely". If you take the Schwamb result that we've got ~9 of the ~12 biggest, and call those "large", you might think it's kinda likely (the zero object hole is 15-20 degrees wide, so ~12 objects =

973:

that there ~12 KBOs with m(R) < 19.5 does suggest that we're unlikely to find another object brighter than Pluto. "This suggests that the majority of the brightest KBOs have already been discovered, with perhaps one or two remaining to be found in the galactic plane or southern hemisphere.") I

386:

should be. Images are very subjective, so having more voices to help build consensus will be very useful. Come by to give your preference on the existing candidates or to propose a new candidate (with an explanation for why it is better than the existing candidates). Editors who can make informed

132:

These questions are really just intended to get the ball rolling as this really is a nascent idea. So all ideas are welcome: big, small, obvious, obscure, ambitious, simple, technical, organizational.... I want to be clear that this is not just some survey -- the feedback I get will help to give

316:

I compared the search results for "Messier 87" and M87 on Google Scholar. The predominant usage was M87, but there were plenty of instances of "Messier 87". Even articles labelled one way in the title switched to the other in the body. I would suppose that "Messier 87" is the more formal usage.

1698:

article is about the narrow definition, with which I had nothing to do. There are plenty of sources that distinguish the Kuiper belt and the scattered disc. Before I was active at Knowledge (XXG), I didn't distinguish them and then Knowledge (XXG) taught me to distinguish them. But, sure, it's

1885:

At this point, due to the magnitude of the problem of CarloscomB articles, and the fact that many of his articles have absolutely no salvageable content within, I think it may be worth it to simply take the axe to all his articles that have not been significantly edited by another human. See

605:

Thank you, Dondervogel2. I agree with Ashill wrt the timing (during discussion). I might add that so long as the consensus remains that either is acceptable, that it is also the consensus that there should be no changing of one to the other (given past circumstances). I still object to your

3351:

which should also be removed; (the classification is insane, the Viking results do not indicate any single species, only that there might have been life. If it was life, there's no way to determine that it's a single species instead of a whole population of various different lifeforms) --

1070:

Depends on what you think "known" implies. Obviously, "will" is way to strong. Could happen, probably not. I would agree with likely, but it'd be nice to have a published statement from somewhere. "Known"'s upside is that it's known to be true, while likely is only likely to be true.

1750:

Grammatically, one can kind of say "Pluto is the largest KBO" with a kind of implied "known" for people who're familiar with the subject. Estimating the likelihoods is a little dodgy - we're presumably all guessing it's more like 1% than 10% or 0.1%, but it's not totally clear,

2007:

He took another value off the SIMBAD page and assumed it was absolute magnitude - many I have found are just completely wrong. Checking them is mainly removing that value and updating coordinates and parallax. and seeing if the star is notable and has some other material on it.

136:

I should also mention that this community engagement program we're starting isn't limited to the Year of Science campaign. Researching and planning it is high on my priority list right now, but we can also talk about shorter- or longer-term projects you may have in mind, too.

1012:

I wouldn't. Mike 'n' 'em wouldn't have been searching last year in shallow surveys if it was definite, of course. Brown's paper gives Pluto's V-band magnitude as 14.0, which driven a lot by it being at 31 au (Eris ranks 4th, although it has the largest absolute magnitude).

757:

Certainly failed. For now at least. I don't know how these things usually work, but nobody ever said they supported the nomination so it was killed. Presumably the reviewers knew they had to do that and it was a deliberate choice not to rather than just an oversight?

162:

Astronomy appears to be one of the better supported areas on Knowledge (XXG). If you look at the list of vital topics, Astronomy is doing very well. But there are a few areas of weakness; one of those is in the area of cosmology. Perhaps more attention is needed for the

1425:

Well, except that each author defines "Kuiper belt proper" differently, often including the scatter(ed/ing) disk (or more wisely, excluding the resonant objects - and hell, "proper" should exclude hot classicals, which are just the scattered disk). So not easily, no.

572:

Right. Meaning there's no consensus to change to au. And making any widespread change based on an editor's own opinion while in the midst of an ongoing discussion is not good form, regardless of whether the change appears to be supported by the early !votes. —Alex

2226:

Those first two are ridiculous and should be deleted or redirected to the main articles. Even Pluto's heart is dubious, but as you said, at least there could be some minor rational in keeping it. I'd put them all on a "List of features of Pluto" article.

476:

That editor wants it to be mentioned in the MoS. He supports using "AU", but until it is mentioned in the MoS, he will use "au" and (sometimes?) change "AU" to "au". I have just made a proposal there to officially sanction using "AU" on Knowledge (XXG).

654:

There is an international standard that the abbreviation is in uncapitalized letters. However, common usage goes both ways. The consensus at WP is that either is acceptable usage. The disagreement is therefore about common usage vs official standard.

300:

I would say 'Messier 87 (M87)' at first usage, and M87 thereafter (with exceptions for stylistic reasons e.g. first word in a sentence). But both are fine and acceptable. The full version is preferable for article titles because it is less ambiguous.

1409:

Confusion over which population is meant (Kuiper belt proper or "Kuiper belt" as including the scattered disc), that is easily remedied using a note explaining we're talking about the Kuiper belt proper and hence not including the scattered disc.

551:". There is gathering support now for harmonisation, and I will support that process if it leads to a clear choice between AU and au. (I would also support a process that leads to either of AU and au being permitted - what I seek is clarity). 1322:

The Schwamb result is that we've got 9 (no ~ there) of the ~12 largest, where largest is R < 19.5. Pluto is R=13.65, if I read the sources right, so that's an awfully high confidence exclusion of an undetected Pluto-brightness object. —Alex

2611:, and that the latter should redirect to the former. I figure you guys are more knowledgeable about this area than me (I don't typically write about astronomy on Knowledge (XXG)) so I thought I'd ask for some opinions here. Note that I have 1577:

largest, not just the largest known. And then people went mixing in the problem that sometimes the scattered disc is included under 'Kuiper belt', where we know a more-massive object that could be slightly larger than Pluto (i.e. Eris). --

2028:

Most if not all of his 'Details' entries appear to be entirely OR; I can often find no sources for the data, and in many they are very uninformed and misleading. Those should all be scrubbed and replaced (where possible) with cited data.

992:

I've improved the references and cleaned that up. I added "likely" where "known" was (with a ref from the body of the article); that's stronger than "known" and I think more in line with the probability estimates from the sources. —Alex

491:

Is this about me? I will never apologise for preferring symbols that are defined by international standards bodies such as the IAU and the BIPM. JorisvS has summarized my position on use of AU accurately, and I support his proposal at

1356:

I'm just describing what the source you referred to says. It talks about brightness, not size (since brightness is far easier to measure and is a reasonable order of magnitude proxy for size. But it sounds like we mostly agree. —Alex

965:: they estimate a probability that there is one more object with V < 19 to be discovered to be 32%, and the probability that there are two or more such objects to be 10%. I've had trouble finding the R-band magnitude of Pluto, but 2249:

for now. Once the data are analyzed and more comes out about them, sources may well talk about them enough to merit their own articles. But not now. Turn them into redirects to a list or a section of the main Pluto article. —Alex

2174:

all have newly-made articles. While I can see the rationale for the latter page (name change notwithstanding), do the first two really merit articles, since (a) the names aren't official, and (b) they're one-sentence mentions?

684:

Personally, I agree. More importantly, the editing community has decided not to force compliance. If you'd like to talk more with me, let's take it to my talk page. I think the editing community is tired of this subject.

606:

characterization of "au" as "harmonization". It harmonizes nothing. This topic has done nothing but divide and disharmonize the editing community, and I think the present way to harmonize things is to give it a rest.

1611:

I tend to agree, and with the original note, only the situation up to ~50 AU is relevant, where it is even less likely. Still, it would be better if we could have this quantified better and backed up with source(s).

1440:

No, because the Kuiper belt proper (a shorthand to refer to the more restricted definition) does not include the scattered disc. The comment would spell this out and leave no room for confusion over the definition.

223:...but what do folks call it most of the time? I've always abbreviated. The reason I ask is that in writing the article what we should call it each time we use the term in the text.....Messier 87 vs M87...input at 517:

Making the same change to three different articles which is clearly contrary to consensus in a discussion you are participating in (and are therefore well aware of) is not appears to me to be disrupting to make a

849:

and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of

457:

I followed it for a while, but it boiled down to one person with a fetish arguing with a bunch of people trying to come up with sensible policy and template settings. At least one person may now have started on

2615:

yet tagged either with a redirect template, because I figured I'd see if there was an overwhelming consensus here first. (Perhaps you guys would find they do warrant separate articles after all.) I've notified

1278:

47. 5 au e < 0.24 a outer main belt classical KBO (although I take issue with it), but the cliff at 46-47 au only exists in the Cold Classicals, so you're kind of hosed once you start mixing in other pops.

1173:

The paper basically says, "the outer solar system probably does not contain a brown dwarf or a large gas giant planet." It does not rule out a 1.1 Jupiter mass object around ~40,000AU even if such an object is

2308:

I can see the Pluto's heart article being kept, but it should probably be renamed to "Tombaugh Regio". Even though that term is informal, it stands a chance at being adopted. The other two...definitely not.

3139: 2742:- there isn't enough information for three articles, so the three stubs should be merged until such time as the content can be forked back out. Shift everything to Initiatives and redirect as appropriate. 1760:

children" that all articles necessarily contain, balancing those is always a bit of a dark art. I'd move it to the "size" discussion in the Pluto article, where cavaets are more sensible than the lede.

2106:- dunno - anything with a planet will have been discussed in detail in at least two peer-reviewed sources in around 99% of cases I suspect, which is the rule of thumb for general notability guidelines. 636:

It is fairly common practice in style guides to use caps for abbreviations that consist of the first letter of a series of words. There are some exceptions, such as for pronounceable abbreviations like

1226:

discoveries, but many, even in astronomy, from what I've seen, require higher 3-sigma to be considered confirmed. Of course, you're the expert here, not me, so please correct me if I'm wrong on that.

1804: 804: 1273:

And, of course, which populations count as "KBOs" is going to be a huge factor. A "Twotino" Pluto's size and albedo could be three or four magnitudes dimmer than Pluto at perihelion, if it's

2941: 740: 195: 3120: 3113: 1796: 2051:

What are the notability guidelines? Most of the stars are faint naked eye, or variables down to a magnitude fainter than that, but otherwise of no particular interest that I can see.

2065:

Generally it is anything visible with the unaided eye or has had some significant material published on it. Many variables have had significant amounts, anything with a planet etc.

3094:

team: with the final vowel like "cow" or like "law". The latter is traditional, but the former is how Stern introduced the Tombaughs. Anyone know which the family uses? Thread at

1293:

There is probably around a few percent chance that a large KBO could still be hiding in the galactic plane area, but it is unlikely and very unlikely to be bigger than Pluto. --

3319: 2826:

Publicity. It hasn't done anything, might not do anything much for some time, but it has been in the national news in a number of countries and people will be looking for it.

1597:

reads better WITHOUT the "known" (or the "likely") as it is simply "very unlikely" that anything bigger than Pluto will be found that is currently within 100AU of the Sun. --

351:

Switching to the abbreviated form seems to be fairly common practice in many science articles. As long as it is clear and unambiguous, I think that is a reasonable practice.

1975:

He also had the annoying habit of copying the infobox of a preceding article and not changing anything in the infobox to match the star the article is nominally about... --

493: 407: 1913:

Eek! I just stumbled across HD 183589 randomly. I didn't realise what a mess there was out there, although I think I've come across a few of the other articles before.

97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 2477: 2472: 2481: 1991:

I have to suspect that many of the unsourced absolute magnitude calculations on Knowledge (XXG) may be in error, as they don't appear to take into account extinction.

3154:

lived/worked in a remote section of Sicily, the catalogue had pretty much no impact in its day. The catalogue was rediscovered in 1985, and there's a few sources in

3198:

billion value. I am calling for someone who is responsible to keep watch of the list and find that particular person doing that edit and please reword the article

2464: 2085:

I would disagree that anything with a planet is notable now, given the thousands of exoplanets known... It would be like saying any O-type star is notable.

1203:

99% confidence would normally be considered certainty in statistics and science. Does the current word, "likely", address this concern? 99% confidence is

2517:); someone may want to keep track of that page. His/her additions were rolled back once on 22 July, and I just rolled them back right now on 23 July. -- 121: 2922: 284:

Nobody says Messier unless they're trying to make a specific point, or perhaps are incredibly pedantic. M87 in the pub, Messier 87 on its tax return.

3150:

of nebulae, although I'm not quite sure if this is the first attempt at cataloging nebulae. It predates Messier by a few years, but because its author

1955:

The absolute magnitude is often wrong, and the cooridnates are often not updated. However some of the material is accurate but annoyingly not sourced.

974:

think "known" is probably still a reasonable qualifier to include, but the explanation could be better and adhere more closely to sources. —Alex (

47: 17: 1887: 1626:

Your continued attempts to use Knowledge (XXG) as a venue to publish your own research and conclusions are highly inappropriate. Please read

1455:

Your continued attempts to use Knowledge (XXG) as a venue to publish your own research and conclusions are highly inappropriate. Please read

2782:-importance? How is this particular project that highly important? What has it done to be all that important? Why is "Initiatives" rated as 2210:. Then articles for individual features can be debated at AfD without the danger of removing the information from Knowledge (XXG) entirely. 2627: 2094: 1903: 1816: 1235: 1118: 448: 845:

that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the

1546:

more massive than Pluto, latest estimates are that it's smaller in diameter than Pluto. So it might be bigger, but it might be smaller.

2945: 1561:

So we can definitely say that Pluto may be the largest known Kuiper belt object for some definitions of "largest" and "Kuiper belt" :)

3353: 3247: 3218: 3072: 3045: 2996:

in the article. A suitable Ceres template can be created if needed, but I'm not sure if geohack supports any Ceres globes at present.

2861: 2809: 2787: 2518: 2468: 2429: 2425: 2386: 2372: 2341: 2287: 870: 3240: 2926: 2721: 2660: 2401:

Editor's summary: this is not how we handle names before they're official. article is about the feature, not the name (see WP:DICT).

1976: 1841: 1517: 878: 269: 1627: 1456: 268:

The problem with "M" is that it is frequently used in military weapons, so "Messier" is better terminology for article titles. --

3191: 2968: 1277:, it could be below the 19.5 threshold where we think we're mostly complete. Gladman's SSBN scheme calls everything with a : --> 1085:

We call Jupiter the largest planet in the Solar System, yet there could be a 1.1 Jupiter mass object 40,000 AU from the Sun. --

3171: 2514: 2323: 2117: 2076: 2019: 1966: 1946: 818: 784: 420: 342: 237: 874: 2460: 2259: 2203: 1723: 1366: 1332: 1254: 1216: 1043: 1002: 983: 582: 531: 257: 2199: 2726: 2665: 2552:

The project, while quite possibly notable, needs better links - again, a proper citation - and evidence of notability.

1654: 1483: 168: 2567:

from this discussion? It's a brand-new user, 2 days and just these 7 edits... unless it's a sockpuppet, of course. --

1894:

as a typical example. Thoughts? It seems drastic, but basically all his articles are doing are misinforming people.

1859:

and create it yourself! If you don't want to create account (so you get article creation rights), submit a draft to

205: 3151: 2320: 38: 2385:

Mordor was restored as an article, but I don't see a link to a another discussion, unlike for the whale Cthulu --

2371:

was restored as an article, apparently pending other discussions (at least that's what I think happened there) --

3376: 3068: 2641: 846: 834: 748: 670:

papers. I don't think those standards should be blindly followed when communication with the public is our goal.

2408:

lots of our astronomy articles are at unofficial names. that has nothing to do with whether we should keep them.

957:

Footnote h in the Pluto article is uncited, but seems to be supported (not contradicted) by the ref provided by

3041: 2894: 2765: 2698: 2645: 2621: 2604: 2600: 2589: 2090: 1899: 1812: 1231: 1159:

Ah, Jeez, read the paper, don't just skim the abstract. Super-jovian planets are excluded to more like 80k au

1114: 444: 201: 145: 3161:

Help with expansion would be appreciated. Also trying to find something DYK-able. I'd welcome ideas for that.

2921:(to which is it unrelated to), I thought you'd like to know about a change to the naming of that project, see 591:

No problem. I will refrain from editing astronomy articles for as long as the discussion at mosnum continues.

3014:

Oops! Yeah, just noticed that. There's a generic box that supports Ceres, though yes no globe support yet. —

2549:

The magazine article is probably not notable. Even if it were, it would require a properly detailed citation.

1130:. The largest undiscovered body in the Solar system is probably somewhere in mass between Mars and Neptune. 3380: 3361: 3341: 3311: 3283: 3255: 3226: 3208: 3184: 3132: 3128: 3107: 3080: 3053: 3023: 3005: 3001: 2990: 2980: 2956: 2954: 2934: 2898: 2882: 2880: 2869: 2839: 2817: 2795: 2769: 2751: 2732: 2692: 2671: 2576: 2541: 2526: 2437: 2419: 2394: 2380: 2363: 2349: 2329: 2295: 2281: 2263: 2236: 2232: 2219: 2184: 2143: 2121: 2098: 2080: 2060: 2038: 2023: 2000: 1984: 1970: 1950: 1922: 1907: 1871: 1869: 1849: 1820: 1769: 1735: 1716: 1689: 1674: 1639: 1621: 1606: 1586: 1570: 1555: 1551: 1537: 1525: 1499: 1468: 1450: 1435: 1419: 1389: 1370: 1351: 1336: 1317: 1302: 1288: 1258: 1239: 1220: 1187: 1168: 1154: 1139: 1122: 1094: 1080: 1062: 1047: 1021: 1006: 987: 951: 886: 859: 822: 788: 767: 752: 734: 694: 679: 664: 649: 615: 600: 596: 586: 560: 556: 535: 505: 501: 486: 471: 452: 433: 396: 360: 346: 326: 309: 307: 293: 277: 261: 241: 209: 184: 149: 273: 3357: 3307: 3279: 3251: 3222: 3147: 3076: 3049: 2865: 2813: 2791: 2522: 2433: 2390: 2376: 2345: 2291: 2207: 1531:

Eris is in the scattered disc, not in the Kuiper belt. So Pluto is the largest object in the Kuiper Belt.

833:

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Knowledge (XXG). Come check it out at the

172: 2127: 3103: 3019: 2976: 2930: 2716: 2655: 2139: 2034: 1996: 1980: 1845: 1521: 882: 675: 645: 356: 322: 180: 117:

wants to know what it can do to empower editors who work on science-related content on Knowledge (XXG).

1109:

0.00001% or less, and I'd say that's enough to remove the known in that case, but not in Pluto's case.

549:

There is no need to adopt a single harmonised unit symbol for the astronomical unit on Knowledge (XXG)

140:

Apologies for the long message and thanks for your time. Looking forward to hearing what you think. --

3372: 2835: 2702: 2056: 1918: 1879: 763: 744: 731: 690: 660: 611: 467: 289: 896:

I understood that it is exceedingly unlikely that objects larger than Pluto lay undiscovered in the

120:

If you're familiar with Wiki Ed, it's likely by way of our classroom program, which grew out of the

3095: 2890: 2761: 2706: 2617: 2608: 2596: 2585: 2546:

I just took a look at those, and they generally seemed to me to be good-faith additions. Problems:

2504: 2086: 1895: 1808: 1566: 1512: 1227: 1198: 1110: 842: 440: 154: 141: 3179: 2848:

until they discover something that makes the project actually significant? Is this topic actually

428: 3368: 3266: 3167: 3124: 2997: 2949: 2875: 2747: 2603:

was also started today. They currently wikilink to each other, but my first inclination was that

2537: 2508: 2415: 2359: 2317: 2277: 2228: 2180: 2111: 2070: 2013: 1960: 1940: 1929: 1864: 1547: 925: 855: 812: 778: 592: 567: 552: 522:

and seems to me like something for which an apology and self-revert might be appropriate. —Alex (

512: 497: 416: 336: 302: 231: 164: 2709:, we should simply have the Initiatives article, and redirect Message and Listen to that one? — 1935:

not oppose mass deletion but think it might not be in policy as such. Will check some more now.

519: 2853: 1833: 1826: 1712: 1670: 1617: 1602: 1582: 1495: 1446: 1415: 1298: 1183: 1150: 1090: 1058: 947: 482: 439:

Ugh, even being 3 kly (did that on purpose) away from the MOS is WAY too close for my liking.

171:

is an important topic that it would be good to bring up to a GA level. Perhaps another is the

3175: 1856: 1724:

Ask and you shall receive: "Pluto is almost certainly the largest object in the Kuiper Belt."

424: 3203: 3099: 3015: 2972: 2857: 2711: 2650: 2572: 2269: 2255: 2215: 2135: 2030: 1992: 1837: 1532: 1362: 1328: 1250: 1212: 1039: 998: 979: 671: 641: 578: 527: 408:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Symbol for astronomical units (again)

392: 352: 318: 253: 176: 2677:

B. Initiatives has two initiatives: Listen ($ 100 mln) and Message ($ 1 mln). Now there is

2131: 1860: 723: 711: 3294: 2831: 2368: 2195: 2167: 2052: 1914: 1764: 1730: 1684: 1648: 1634: 1477: 1463: 1430: 1384: 1346: 1312: 1283: 1163: 1134: 1075: 1016: 759: 727: 686: 656: 607: 463: 285: 224: 1658: 1487: 1175: 2171: 1657:) Do you even read what I'm saying? If you'd do that, you'd see I'm not proposing to do 1486:) Do you even read what I'm saying? If you'd do that, you'd see I'm not proposing to do 3334: 3303: 3275: 2563:

Rather than edging into edit-war, how about addressing the poster directly, say with a

1562: 459: 2678: 2246: 3323: 3290: 3163: 2743: 2688: 2635: 2564: 2533: 2411: 2355: 2337: 2312: 2273: 2191: 2176: 2163: 2107: 2066: 2009: 1956: 1936: 929: 851: 808: 774: 638: 412: 332: 227: 1274: 1128: 970: 962: 3348: 3199: 2918: 2874:

Definitely both low importance on our scale, at least for now. I've re-rated them.

1708: 1666: 1613: 1598: 1578: 1491: 1442: 1411: 1294: 1179: 1146: 1086: 1054: 943: 921: 478: 2917:

As the name of this Wikiproject may provide confusion with the article located at

2498: 739:

It looks like it failed, but it is unclear, perhaps no one said it was ready, see

3146:

I created this article yesterday. In particular, it contains one of the earliest

2844:

That's a very poor reason for mid-or-high importances. Should we re-rate them to

2683:

in the Message initiative; and I think that Listen can be started in near time. `

2568: 2251: 2211: 1800: 1726:(I didn't ask him to write that - but he does also call Eris a KBO, of course). 1695: 1376: 1358: 1324: 1246: 1208: 1035: 994: 975: 937: 933: 897: 800: 574: 542: 523: 388: 249: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1840:? We already have a Charon region article, and three Pluto region articles -- 1099:

Me and WilyD disagree on practically everything, but here I agree with him. We

3217:

carries only 1 reference, so is currently in poor shape w.r.t. referencing --

1761: 1727: 1681: 1644: 1631: 1473: 1460: 1427: 1381: 1343: 1309: 1280: 1160: 1131: 1072: 1031: 1013: 958: 907: 379: 220: 3327: 3298: 3270: 1891: 1145:

should call Jupiter the largest *known* "planet" in the Solar System. --

387:

comments on astronomical photography will be especially valuable. Thanks!

2684: 2631: 2399:

All of them have been restored, with the reason being along the lines of

838: 719: 707: 331:

Agree...but would you personally switch to M87 for the body of the text?

1792: 1245:

object will be found. (And I'm no expert on the solar system.) —Alex (

916: 966: 3326:

yet because I haven't got time right now to go through it carefully.

1516:

of Kuiper belt would still need qualification to deal with Eris. --

1127:

Nope, Jupiter mass planets at 40, 000 au have already been excluded

106:

what can Wiki Education Foundation do to help WikiProject Astronomy?

3119:

Please weigh in on whether this article should be kept or deleted.

3064: 2403:

I was bold, they reverted, there probably won't be a discussion...

1594: 901: 383: 372: 248:

to an audience that may not know what Messier objects are. —Alex (

3140:

De systemate orbis cometici, deque admirandis coeli characteribus

1680:

the reader that you're the person they should follow, and so on.

3037: 2354:

I think I've managed to redirect them all (save for the Heart).

805:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates/Eta Carinae/archive1

640:

I'm not clear why there is so much disagreement over the point.

1104:"known" qualifier to avoid misinforming readers that it beyond 547:

The consensus that I have seen, until very recently has been "

25: 2697:

Perhaps then, rather than having three separate articles for

741:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates/61 Cygni/archive2

196:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Self-creation cosmology

3318:

Gillevinia straata is obnoxiously stupid rubbish and I have

3121:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Exploration of the Sun

3114:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Exploration of the Sun

3090:

Hi. Hearing different pronunciations of "Tombaugh" from the

2948:, which is what it should have been in the first place IMO. 2286:

Mordor isn't a surface feature on Pluto, it's on Charon. --

3265:

Could someone who knows something about this take a look:

2104:(yes that was a misclick...damn rollback on smartphone...) 969:

says m(R)=13.65, if I read it right; that means that the

2786:-importance? What has it achieved that is important? -- 2967:

e.g. if you click on the coordinates in the infobox on

2494: 2490: 2486: 913:

reverted an edit of mine in which I removed the "known"

912: 406:

This discussion may be of interest to many of you. See

3371:. The life on Venus page actually looks reasonable. 1890:

for why his articles are so problematic, and look at

114: 1030:(Any reason this is being discussed here and not at 2410:; if that's true then those names should be fixed. 225:Talk:Messier_87#Messier_87_vs_M87_and_other_things 2126:I'm going to infer that at least one should be a 1807:...input on either would be hugely appreciated. 2424:There's a whole lot more of these articles now 829:Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project 3293:. Anyone willing to go through the edits of -- 892:Pluto, the largest (known?) Kuiper belt object 3367:That should be the target of a redirect from 8: 3202:in agreement with the reference. Thank you! 2599:today, and saw that the separate article of 915:, suggesting that this is wrong pointing to 3322:for deletion. Good catch! No opinion about 2503:has been getting weird additions lately by 2206:should be created, following the model of 133:shape to the "Year of Science" campaign. 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Astronomy 2268:I think I'll redirect the first two to 191:Need independent fresh eyes on this AfD 1888:User:StringTheory11/CarloscomB cleanup 875:Draft:Present_day_habitability_of_Mars 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3347:"Gillevinia straata" also appears at 900:, which is supported by note in the 7: 1628:Knowledge (XXG):No Original Research 1457:Knowledge (XXG):No Original Research 219:I am fine with the article being at 3261:Dubious article about life on Mars 3246:has been proposed for deletion -- 2426:Category:Surface features of Pluto 2204:List of surface features of Charon 1755:inserting our own guesses is bad, 24: 3233:Template:Infobox cometary globule 3192:list of most massive black holes 2270:Geology_of_Pluto#Surface_features 2200:List of surface features of Pluto 122:Knowledge (XXG) Education Program 2969:pyramid-shaped mountain on Ceres 2644:) (both of whom have edited the 371:Discussion about lead image for 29: 3349:Life_on_Mars#Gillevinia_straata 3063:The usage and primary topic of 3036:The usage and primary topic of 2648:page) about this discussion. — 1665:for it, for crying out loud! -- 2680:no plan to send these messages 2595:Hey all. I started a stub for 2190:I don't have an opinion about 382:about what the lead image for 1: 2461:Life on Mars (disambiguation) 2454:Life on Mars (disambiguation) 2130:, so the article can satisfy 1661:. I'm actually talking about 1375:Sure, but the context is the 2963:FYI, Ceres is mapped to Mars 402:Astronomical Unit at the MOS 3381:11:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC) 3086:pronunciation of "Tombaugh" 2940:This has been converted to 2923:WT:WikiProject Life on Mars 2913:WP:WikiProject Life on Mars 169:Cosmic microwave background 3397: 3362:05:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC) 3342:20:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC) 3312:19:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC) 3284:18:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC) 3256:07:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC) 3227:06:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC) 3209:23:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC) 3185:21:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC) 3152:Giovanni Battista Hodierna 3133:21:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC) 3108:17:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC) 1593:I still think the lead of 869:FYI, there is a notice at 125:(XXG) community directly. 110:Hi WikiProject Astronomy, 3269:. Is it even notable? -- 3081:05:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC) 3069:talk:Ceres (dwarf planet) 3067:is under discussion, see 3054:03:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC) 3040:is under discussion, see 3024:00:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC) 3006:23:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC) 2986:That's due to the use of 2981:23:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC) 2957:07:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC) 2899:14:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC) 2883:12:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC) 2870:17:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC) 2840:14:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC) 2818:17:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC) 2796:05:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC) 2778:Why is "Listen" rated as 2770:23:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC) 2752:07:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC) 2733:00:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC) 2693:00:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC) 2672:23:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC) 2577:18:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC) 2542:07:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC) 2527:05:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC) 2438:11:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC) 2420:07:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC) 2395:06:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC) 2381:06:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC) 2364:15:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC) 2350:05:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC) 2330:22:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC) 2296:13:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC) 2282:21:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC) 2264:21:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC) 2245:Yeah, these plainly fail 2237:21:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC) 2220:21:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC) 2185:20:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC) 2144:18:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC) 2039:17:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC) 2024:20:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC) 2001:19:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC) 1872:13:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC) 1850:09:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC) 1821:02:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC) 1770:08:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC) 1736:16:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC) 1717:10:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC) 1690:09:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC) 1675:09:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC) 1640:08:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC) 1622:19:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC) 1607:19:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC) 1587:17:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC) 1571:10:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC) 1556:08:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC) 1538:07:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC) 1526:05:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC) 1500:09:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC) 1469:08:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC) 1451:17:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC) 1436:11:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC) 1390:13:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC) 1371:12:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC) 1352:11:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC) 860:22:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC) 789:12:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC) 768:19:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC) 753:12:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC) 695:01:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC) 680:22:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC) 665:19:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC) 650:16:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC) 616:18:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC) 601:14:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC) 587:14:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC) 561:14:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC) 536:13:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC) 506:11:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC) 487:10:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC) 472:10:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC) 453:04:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC) 434:11:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC) 397:22:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC) 361:19:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC) 347:03:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC) 327:02:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC) 210:11:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC) 115:Wiki Education Foundation 3241:Infobox cometary globule 3042:talk:Eris (dwarf planet) 2935:05:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC) 2699:Breakthrough Initiatives 2646:Breakthrough Initiatives 2605:Breakthrough Initiatives 2601:Breakthrough Initiatives 2590:Breakthrough Initiatives 2458:The disambiguation page 2122:04:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC) 2099:01:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC) 2081:21:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC) 2061:09:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC) 1985:06:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC) 1971:06:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC) 1951:20:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC) 1923:20:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC) 1908:20:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC) 1707:others should follow. -- 1420:17:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC) 1337:17:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC) 1318:16:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC) 1303:16:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC) 1289:16:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC) 1259:17:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC) 1240:17:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC) 1221:17:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC) 1188:18:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC) 1169:16:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC) 1155:16:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC) 1140:16:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC) 1123:16:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC) 1095:16:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC) 1081:15:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC) 1063:14:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC) 1048:13:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC) 1022:15:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC) 1007:14:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC) 988:13:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC) 952:08:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC) 887:05:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC) 837:. This bot utilizes the 823:01:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC) 735:05:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC) 380:discussion at Talk:Earth 310:18:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC) 294:13:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC) 278:05:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC) 262:02:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC) 242:01:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC) 185:19:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC) 150:04:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC) 1703:definition and I'm the 718:For anyone interested, 3148:astronomical catalogue 2946:WikiProject Television 2607:should be merged into 2208:List of lunar features 1795:is now finally at FAC 847:EranBot reporting page 841:(ithenticate), unlike 835:EranBot reporting page 173:Cosmic distance ladder 378:There is currently a 42:of past discussions. 3158:that talk about it. 2804:Yes, they should be 2703:Breakthrough Message 1832:Can someone start a 153:(volunteer account: 3190:Repeating edits at 3096:talk:Tombaugh Regio 2707:Breakthrough Listen 2609:Breakthrough Listen 2597:Breakthrough Listen 2586:Breakthrough Listen 1513:Eris (dwarf planet) 871:WT:WikiProject Mars 843:User:CorenSearchBot 462:changing AU to au. 155:User:Rhododendrites 3369:Gillevinia straata 3267:Gillevinia straata 2830:, with redirects. 2162:So I noticed that 904:article. However, 165:Physical cosmology 2854:Talk:Johann Bayer 2406:edit: I just saw 2327: 1933: 1834:geology of Charon 1827:Geology of Charon 1573: 865:Mars habitability 839:Turnitin software 215:Messier 87 vs M87 158: 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3388: 3332: 3301: 3289:Also of note is 3273: 3245: 3239: 3183: 2995: 2989: 2858:Talk:Wow! signal 2760:program so far. 2729: 2724: 2719: 2714: 2668: 2663: 2658: 2653: 2502: 2484: 2409: 2402: 2328: 2315: 2128:secondary source 1927: 1838:geology of Pluto 1803:is still at FAC 1767: 1733: 1687: 1663:wanting a source 1637: 1560: 1511:Do you consider 1466: 1433: 1387: 1349: 1315: 1286: 1202: 1166: 1137: 1078: 1019: 941: 911: 571: 546: 516: 432: 152: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3396: 3395: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3373:Graeme Bartlett 3338: 3328: 3299: 3295:User:DN-boards1 3271: 3263: 3243: 3237: 3235: 3195: 3162: 3144: 3117: 3088: 3061: 3034: 2993: 2987: 2965: 2915: 2727: 2722: 2717: 2712: 2666: 2661: 2656: 2651: 2593: 2475: 2459: 2456: 2407: 2400: 2369:Cthulhu (Pluto) 2310: 2198:right now, but 2196:Mordor (Charon) 2168:Mordor (Charon) 2160: 1883: 1880:User:CarloscomB 1830: 1790: 1765: 1731: 1685: 1635: 1542:Plus, while it 1464: 1431: 1385: 1347: 1313: 1284: 1207:likely. —Alex ( 1196: 1164: 1135: 1076: 1017: 919: 905: 894: 873:about the page 867: 831: 745:Graeme Bartlett 715: 565: 540: 510: 411: 404: 376: 217: 193: 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3394: 3392: 3384: 3383: 3345: 3344: 3336: 3315: 3314: 3262: 3259: 3234: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3194: 3188: 3143: 3136: 3116: 3111: 3087: 3084: 3060: 3057: 3033: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3009: 3008: 2964: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2914: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2891:Hiberniantears 2850:more important 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2762:Hiberniantears 2754: 2736: 2735: 2618:Hiberniantears 2592: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2550: 2455: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2404: 2333: 2332: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2240: 2239: 2223: 2222: 2159: 2158:Pluto articles 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2087:StringTheory11 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1925: 1896:StringTheory11 1882: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1836:to complement 1829: 1824: 1809:StringTheory11 1789: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1228:StringTheory11 1199:StringTheory11 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1125: 1111:StringTheory11 1051: 1050: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 893: 890: 866: 863: 830: 827: 826: 825: 797: 796: 795: 794: 793: 792: 791: 714: 705: 704: 703: 702: 701: 700: 699: 698: 697: 633: 632: 631: 630: 629: 628: 627: 626: 625: 624: 623: 622: 621: 620: 619: 618: 455: 441:StringTheory11 403: 400: 375: 369: 368: 367: 366: 365: 364: 363: 313: 312: 297: 296: 281: 280: 265: 264: 216: 213: 192: 189: 188: 187: 142:Ryan (Wiki Ed) 107: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3393: 3382: 3378: 3374: 3370: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3359: 3355: 3350: 3343: 3340: 3339: 3333: 3331: 3325: 3324:Life on Venus 3321: 3317: 3316: 3313: 3309: 3305: 3302: 3296: 3292: 3291:Life on Venus 3288: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3281: 3277: 3274: 3268: 3260: 3258: 3257: 3253: 3249: 3242: 3232: 3228: 3224: 3220: 3216: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3207: 3206: 3201: 3193: 3189: 3187: 3186: 3181: 3177: 3173: 3169: 3165: 3159: 3157: 3153: 3149: 3142: 3141: 3137: 3135: 3134: 3130: 3126: 3125:Waters.Justin 3123:. Thank you. 3122: 3115: 3112: 3110: 3109: 3105: 3101: 3097: 3093: 3085: 3083: 3082: 3078: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3058: 3056: 3055: 3051: 3047: 3043: 3039: 3031: 3025: 3021: 3017: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3007: 3003: 2999: 2998:Pi.1415926535 2992: 2991:MarsGeo-Mount 2985: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2978: 2974: 2970: 2962: 2958: 2955: 2953: 2952: 2951:Modest Genius 2947: 2943: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2932: 2928: 2924: 2920: 2912: 2900: 2896: 2892: 2889: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2881: 2879: 2878: 2877:Modest Genius 2873: 2872: 2871: 2867: 2863: 2859: 2855: 2851: 2847: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2837: 2833: 2829: 2828:Support merge 2825: 2819: 2815: 2811: 2807: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2793: 2789: 2785: 2781: 2777: 2776: 2771: 2767: 2763: 2758: 2757:Support merge 2755: 2753: 2749: 2745: 2741: 2740:Support merge 2738: 2737: 2734: 2731: 2730: 2725: 2720: 2715: 2708: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2690: 2686: 2682: 2681: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2670: 2669: 2664: 2659: 2654: 2647: 2643: 2640: 2637: 2633: 2629: 2626: 2623: 2619: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2591: 2587: 2584: 2578: 2574: 2570: 2566: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2551: 2548: 2547: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2539: 2535: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2524: 2520: 2516: 2513: 2510: 2506: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2488: 2483: 2479: 2474: 2470: 2466: 2462: 2453: 2439: 2435: 2431: 2427: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2417: 2413: 2405: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2392: 2388: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2378: 2374: 2370: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2361: 2357: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2347: 2343: 2339: 2338:Whale (Pluto) 2336:Don't forget 2335: 2334: 2331: 2325: 2322: 2319: 2314: 2307: 2306: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2279: 2275: 2271: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2248: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2229:Fyunck(click) 2225: 2224: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2205: 2201: 2197: 2193: 2192:Donut (Pluto) 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2173: 2172:Pluto's heart 2169: 2165: 2164:Donut (Pluto) 2157: 2145: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2119: 2116: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2078: 2075: 2072: 2068: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2050: 2040: 2036: 2032: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2021: 2018: 2015: 2011: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1978: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1968: 1965: 1962: 1958: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1948: 1945: 1942: 1938: 1931: 1930:edit conflict 1926: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1897: 1893: 1889: 1881: 1877: 1873: 1870: 1868: 1867: 1866:Modest Genius 1862: 1858: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1835: 1828: 1825: 1823: 1822: 1818: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1787: 1771: 1768: 1763: 1758: 1754: 1749: 1737: 1734: 1729: 1725: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1714: 1710: 1706: 1702: 1697: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1688: 1683: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1653: 1650: 1646: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1638: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1575: 1574: 1572: 1568: 1564: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1548:Fyunck(click) 1545: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1536: 1535: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1523: 1519: 1514: 1501: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1485: 1482: 1479: 1475: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1467: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1448: 1444: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1434: 1429: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1391: 1388: 1383: 1378: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1350: 1345: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1316: 1311: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1287: 1282: 1276: 1272: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1237: 1233: 1229: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1200: 1195: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1167: 1162: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1138: 1133: 1129: 1126: 1124: 1120: 1116: 1112: 1107: 1102: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1079: 1074: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1060: 1056: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1023: 1020: 1015: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1004: 1000: 996: 991: 990: 989: 985: 981: 977: 972: 968: 964: 960: 956: 955: 954: 953: 949: 945: 939: 935: 931: 927: 926:Serendipodous 923: 917: 914: 909: 903: 899: 891: 889: 888: 884: 880: 876: 872: 864: 862: 861: 857: 853: 848: 844: 840: 836: 828: 824: 820: 817: 814: 810: 806: 802: 798: 790: 786: 783: 780: 776: 771: 770: 769: 765: 761: 756: 755: 754: 750: 746: 742: 738: 737: 736: 733: 729: 725: 721: 717: 716: 713: 709: 706: 696: 692: 688: 683: 682: 681: 677: 673: 668: 667: 666: 662: 658: 653: 652: 651: 647: 643: 639: 635: 634: 617: 613: 609: 604: 603: 602: 598: 594: 593:Dondervogel 2 590: 589: 588: 584: 580: 576: 569: 568:Dondervogel 2 564: 563: 562: 558: 554: 553:Dondervogel 2 550: 544: 539: 538: 537: 533: 529: 525: 521: 514: 513:Dondervogel 2 509: 508: 507: 503: 499: 498:Dondervogel 2 495: 490: 489: 488: 484: 480: 475: 474: 473: 469: 465: 461: 460:an edit spree 456: 454: 450: 446: 442: 438: 437: 436: 435: 430: 426: 422: 418: 414: 409: 401: 399: 398: 394: 390: 385: 381: 374: 370: 362: 358: 354: 350: 349: 348: 344: 341: 338: 334: 330: 329: 328: 324: 320: 315: 314: 311: 308: 306: 305: 304:Modest Genius 299: 298: 295: 291: 287: 283: 282: 279: 275: 271: 267: 266: 263: 259: 255: 251: 246: 245: 244: 243: 239: 236: 233: 229: 226: 222: 214: 212: 211: 207: 203: 199: 197: 190: 186: 182: 178: 174: 170: 166: 161: 160: 159: 156: 151: 147: 143: 138: 134: 130: 126: 123: 118: 116: 111: 105: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3354:67.70.32.190 3346: 3335: 3329: 3320:nominated it 3264: 3248:67.70.32.190 3236: 3219:67.70.32.190 3215:Holmberg 15A 3214: 3204: 3200:Holmberg 15A 3196: 3160: 3155: 3145: 3138: 3118: 3092:New Horizons 3091: 3089: 3073:67.70.32.190 3062: 3046:67.70.32.190 3035: 2966: 2950: 2919:Life on Mars 2916: 2887: 2876: 2862:67.70.32.190 2849: 2845: 2827: 2810:67.70.32.190 2805: 2788:67.70.32.190 2783: 2779: 2756: 2739: 2710: 2679: 2649: 2638: 2624: 2612: 2594: 2519:67.70.32.190 2511: 2457: 2430:67.70.32.190 2387:67.70.32.190 2373:67.70.32.190 2342:67.70.32.190 2288:67.70.32.190 2161: 2114: 2103: 2073: 2016: 1963: 1943: 1884: 1865: 1831: 1791: 1756: 1752: 1704: 1700: 1662: 1651: 1543: 1533: 1510: 1480: 1408: 1204: 1105: 1100: 1052: 895: 868: 832: 815: 781: 548: 405: 377: 339: 303: 234: 218: 200: 194: 139: 135: 131: 127: 119: 112: 109: 78: 43: 37: 3205:SkyFlubbler 2942:a taskforce 2927:67.70.32.20 2136:Praemonitus 2031:Praemonitus 1993:Praemonitus 1977:65.94.43.89 1842:67.70.32.20 1801:Eta Carinae 1696:Kuiper belt 1534:SkyFlubbler 1518:67.70.32.20 1377:Kuiper belt 971:cited claim 967:this source 961:as well as 898:Kuiper belt 879:67.70.32.20 850:interest.-- 801:Eta Carinae 672:Praemonitus 642:Praemonitus 353:Praemonitus 319:Praemonitus 270:70.51.46.11 177:Praemonitus 36:This is an 2832:Lithopsian 2053:Lithopsian 1915:Lithopsian 1788:FAC update 1342:but size. 1034:?) —Alex ( 1032:Talk:Pluto 963:this paper 760:Lithopsian 687:Evensteven 657:Evensteven 608:Evensteven 464:Lithopsian 286:Lithopsian 221:Messier 87 98:Archive 25 90:Archive 21 85:Archive 20 79:Archive 19 73:Archive 18 68:Archive 17 60:Archive 15 2856:? Or the 2108:Cas Liber 2067:Cas Liber 2010:Cas Liber 1957:Cas Liber 1937:Cas Liber 1892:HD 183589 1563:Gandalf61 1205:certainly 1176:unlikely. 809:Cas Liber 775:Cas Liber 333:Cas Liber 228:Cas Liber 175:article? 167:article? 3172:contribs 3164:Headbomb 2744:Primefac 2642:contribs 2628:contribs 2565:{{ping}} 2534:Primefac 2532:Can do. 2515:contribs 2505:Beite123 2412:Primefac 2356:Primefac 2313:Huntster 2274:Primefac 2260:contribs 2177:Primefac 2118:contribs 2077:contribs 2020:contribs 1967:contribs 1947:contribs 1655:contribs 1484:contribs 1367:contribs 1333:contribs 1255:contribs 1217:contribs 1044:contribs 1003:contribs 984:contribs 930:Drbogdan 852:Lucas559 819:contribs 807:cheers, 785:contribs 720:61 Cygni 708:61 Cygni 637:'laser'. 583:contribs 532:contribs 421:contribs 413:Headbomb 343:contribs 258:contribs 238:contribs 3176:physics 3059:"Ceres" 2478:protect 2473:history 1857:be bold 1793:Serpens 1709:JorisvS 1667:JorisvS 1614:JorisvS 1599:Kheider 1579:JorisvS 1492:JorisvS 1443:JorisvS 1412:JorisvS 1295:Kheider 1180:Kheider 1147:Kheider 1087:Kheider 1055:Kheider 944:JorisvS 936:, and 922:Kheider 803:....at 479:JorisvS 425:physics 39:archive 3032:"Eris" 2888:Agreed 2806:merged 2630:) and 2569:Thnidu 2482:delete 2252:Ashill 2212:A2soup 2132:WP:GNG 1861:WP:AFC 1799:, and 1705:leader 1359:Ashill 1325:Ashill 1247:Ashill 1209:Ashill 1036:Ashill 995:Ashill 976:Ashill 938:A2soup 934:Ashill 799:As is 732:Reader 724:WP:FAC 722:is at 712:WP:FAC 710:is at 575:Ashill 543:Ashill 524:Ashill 494:MOSNUM 389:A2soup 250:Ashill 3308:email 3297:? -- 3280:email 3180:books 3100:kwami 3065:Ceres 3016:kwami 2973:kwami 2860:? -- 2852:than 2499:views 2491:watch 2487:links 1878:More 1855:Just 1659:WP:OR 1645:WilyD 1595:Pluto 1488:WP:OR 1474:WilyD 1101:can't 959:WilyD 908:WilyD 902:Pluto 520:point 429:books 384:Earth 373:Earth 16:< 3377:talk 3358:talk 3330:Reyk 3300:CFCF 3272:CFCF 3252:talk 3223:talk 3168:talk 3129:talk 3104:talk 3098:. — 3077:talk 3050:talk 3038:Eris 3020:talk 3002:talk 2977:talk 2971:. — 2931:talk 2895:talk 2866:talk 2836:talk 2814:talk 2792:talk 2780:HIGH 2766:talk 2748:talk 2705:and 2689:talk 2636:talk 2622:talk 2573:talk 2538:talk 2523:talk 2509:talk 2495:logs 2469:talk 2465:edit 2434:talk 2416:talk 2391:talk 2377:talk 2360:talk 2346:talk 2292:talk 2278:talk 2256:talk 2247:WP:N 2233:talk 2216:talk 2202:and 2194:and 2181:talk 2170:and 2140:talk 2112:talk 2071:talk 2057:talk 2035:talk 2014:talk 1997:talk 1981:talk 1961:talk 1941:talk 1919:talk 1846:talk 1805:here 1797:here 1762:Wily 1728:Wily 1713:talk 1694:Our 1682:Wily 1671:talk 1649:talk 1632:Wily 1618:talk 1603:talk 1583:talk 1567:talk 1552:talk 1522:talk 1496:talk 1490:. -- 1478:talk 1461:Wily 1447:talk 1428:Wily 1416:talk 1382:Wily 1363:talk 1344:Wily 1329:talk 1310:Wily 1299:talk 1281:Wily 1251:talk 1213:talk 1184:talk 1161:Wily 1151:talk 1132:Wily 1091:talk 1073:Wily 1059:talk 1040:talk 1014:Wily 999:talk 980:talk 948:talk 883:talk 856:talk 813:talk 779:talk 764:talk 749:talk 728:Arch 726:. • 691:talk 676:talk 661:talk 646:talk 612:talk 597:talk 579:talk 557:talk 528:talk 502:talk 483:talk 468:talk 417:talk 393:talk 357:talk 337:talk 323:talk 290:talk 274:talk 254:talk 232:talk 206:talk 181:talk 146:talk 113:The 3337:YO! 3156:JHA 3071:-- 3044:-- 2944:of 2925:-- 2846:low 2808:-- 2784:MID 2718:ter 2713:Hun 2685:a5b 2657:ter 2652:Hun 2632:A5b 2613:not 2588:or 2428:-- 2340:-- 1757:and 1753:and 1275:5:1 1178:-- 1106:any 877:-- 202:jps 3379:) 3360:) 3310:) 3304:🍌 3282:) 3276:🍌 3254:) 3244:}} 3238:{{ 3225:) 3178:/ 3174:/ 3170:/ 3131:) 3106:) 3079:) 3052:) 3022:) 3004:) 2994:}} 2988:{{ 2979:) 2933:) 2897:) 2868:) 2838:) 2816:) 2794:) 2768:) 2750:) 2728:hn 2723:Ka 2701:, 2691:) 2667:hn 2662:Ka 2575:) 2540:) 2525:) 2497:| 2493:| 2489:| 2485:| 2480:| 2476:| 2471:| 2467:| 2436:) 2418:) 2393:) 2379:) 2362:) 2348:) 2311:— 2294:) 2280:) 2272:. 2262:) 2258:| 2254:| 2235:) 2218:) 2183:) 2166:, 2142:) 2134:. 2120:) 2097:) 2093:• 2079:) 2059:) 2037:) 2022:) 1999:) 1983:) 1969:) 1949:) 1921:) 1906:) 1902:• 1863:. 1848:) 1819:) 1815:• 1715:) 1701:my 1673:) 1630:. 1620:) 1612:-- 1605:) 1585:) 1569:) 1554:) 1544:IS 1524:) 1498:) 1459:. 1449:) 1441:-- 1418:) 1410:-- 1369:) 1365:| 1361:| 1335:) 1331:| 1327:| 1301:) 1257:) 1253:| 1249:| 1238:) 1234:• 1219:) 1215:| 1211:| 1186:) 1153:) 1121:) 1117:• 1093:) 1061:) 1046:) 1042:| 1038:| 1005:) 1001:| 997:| 986:) 982:| 978:| 950:) 942:-- 932:, 928:, 924:, 885:) 858:) 821:) 787:) 766:) 751:) 743:. 693:) 678:) 663:) 648:) 614:) 599:) 585:) 581:| 577:| 559:) 534:) 530:| 526:| 504:) 496:. 485:) 477:-- 470:) 451:) 447:• 427:/ 423:/ 419:/ 410:. 395:) 359:) 345:) 325:) 292:) 276:) 260:) 256:| 252:| 240:) 208:) 198:. 183:) 148:) 94:→ 64:← 3375:( 3356:( 3306:( 3278:( 3250:( 3221:( 3182:} 3166:{ 3127:( 3102:( 3075:( 3048:( 3018:( 3000:( 2975:( 2929:( 2893:( 2864:( 2834:( 2812:( 2790:( 2764:( 2746:( 2687:( 2639:· 2634:( 2625:· 2620:( 2571:( 2536:( 2521:( 2512:· 2507:( 2501:) 2463:( 2432:( 2414:( 2389:( 2375:( 2358:( 2344:( 2326:) 2324:c 2321:@ 2318:t 2316:( 2290:( 2276:( 2250:( 2231:( 2214:( 2179:( 2138:( 2115:· 2110:( 2095:c 2091:t 2089:( 2074:· 2069:( 2055:( 2033:( 2017:· 2012:( 1995:( 1979:( 1964:· 1959:( 1944:· 1939:( 1932:) 1928:( 1917:( 1904:c 1900:t 1898:( 1844:( 1817:c 1813:t 1811:( 1766:D 1732:D 1711:( 1686:D 1669:( 1652:· 1647:( 1636:D 1616:( 1601:( 1581:( 1565:( 1550:( 1520:( 1494:( 1481:· 1476:( 1465:D 1445:( 1432:D 1414:( 1386:D 1357:( 1348:D 1323:( 1314:D 1297:( 1285:D 1236:c 1232:t 1230:( 1201:: 1197:@ 1182:( 1165:D 1149:( 1136:D 1119:c 1115:t 1113:( 1089:( 1077:D 1057:( 1018:D 993:( 946:( 940:: 920:@ 910:: 906:@ 881:( 854:( 816:· 811:( 782:· 777:( 762:( 747:( 730:♦ 689:( 674:( 659:( 644:( 610:( 595:( 573:( 570:: 566:@ 555:( 545:: 541:@ 515:: 511:@ 500:( 481:( 466:( 449:c 445:t 443:( 431:} 415:{ 391:( 355:( 340:· 335:( 321:( 288:( 272:( 235:· 230:( 204:( 179:( 157:) 144:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 19 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index