User talk:Urhixidur/Archive/2006

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there! -- user:zanimum

The chart is a really good idea. I take it that you created it? The only quibble I have is that the cross-hairs are hard to see unless you download the high-resolution image. Is it possible to expand them? Make the red? Something to make the actual location more visible? - Beowulf314159 19:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the star is supposed to be hard to see. Seriously, the problem with making a thumbnail-sized narrow-field finding chart is that you lose all context.

Urhixidur 19:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion about page naming at Talk:Units of measurement. You contributed to a discussion of such names before. I would welcome your input again. bobblewik 10:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your comments about structure on the talk page. Sorry I'm still new to Wiki so I don't really know how things work yet, but I'd like to contribute if I can (certainly not hinder) and as you seem to be active in the area!. I've expanded my initial comments (uneducated, but I'm getting better) on the talk page and set up a mock page under user:shrew/sandbox to try out the ideas - and it don't even know enough to give you a link there. Any views ? Shrew 14:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input on the discussion. I have now called for a vote at talk:Units of measurement. bobblewik 22:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the numbers arn't imagenary, thay are the real thing! I got them from this. If you check this out, 523927 is 2003 UB₃₁₃'s number, if it's classified as an asteroid. This confirms it. — Hurricane Devon ( Talk ) 22:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see where the confusion arose. Taking 2003 UB₃₁₃, the number 523927 is just the orbit simulator's record number. It has nothing to do with the IAU designation. Note how the page you quoted designated the object as "2003 UB313", without a number. If you want to check designations, use the MPC's asteroid designation search form. You should also take a few minutes to familiarise yourself with the mp, mpl and mpl- templates: they'll save you a lot of typing.

Urhixidur 04:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a better way to fit the image into that page? Rmhermen 15:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it were just up to me, I'd dump the image entirely. The other option is to put some introductory text that would fill the white space to the image's left.

Urhixidur 18:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like your work on the periodic comet entries! There are about 15 more stubs I will make from the MPC orbital data, and I will add your improvements to all. Awolf002 18:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like a personal e-mail stating why you have taken out my corrected version of "Deeper Explanation". What I have said is inevitably the truth and you some how can not see it. Greyfades@Gmail.com

The text was moved to Talk:Hertz#"Deeper_explanation" until it could be made understandable before possible inclusion in the article. Please address your arguments there.

Urhixidur 14:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Portrait_de_famille_%281_px_%3D_1000_km%29.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Dethomas 02:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well delete it, since it is now on Wikimedia Commons (meta:Image:Portrait de famille (1 px = 1000 km).jpg). Urhixidur 17:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest changing the resonances in the TNO footer from 3:2 (and 2:1) to 2:3 (and 1:2 respectively)?

• as far as I can tell, current papers about the related subjects switched to p:q where p<q,
• more importantly for a casual reader, if a plutino makes 2 orbits, Neptune makes 3 and not the other way around. Regards Eurocommuter 08:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm...There are no resonances listed in the aforementioned footer. Could you be more specific?

Urhixidur 17:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, please bear with a beginner; I mean {{TNO}} model used for the navigation in TNO, Kuiper Belt, cubewanos etc Eurocommuter 18:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Done.

Urhixidur 22:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merci! Eurocommuter 09:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think B = byte and bit = bit are the standard. — Omegatron 02:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The key point is that there is no standard. Markus Kuhn originally proposed b for byte and bit for bit, in order to leave the B for the bel. « The IEC recommends to use only "bit" [as a symbol for bit] (e.g. Mbit for megabit) for maximum disambiguation from byte » (from the byte article). According to http://www.cofc.edu/~frysingj/binprefixes.html, the IEEE (IEEE 1541) uses b for bit, but the IEC (IEC 60027-2) uses bit (no word on the byte). At the very least, the IEC column should use the IEC symbol!

Urhixidur 17:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

« The IEC recommends to use only "bit" [as a symbol for bit] (e.g. Mbit for megabit) for maximum disambiguation from byte »

Yeah, I think I added that.  :-)

the IEEE (IEEE 1541) uses b for bit

Ohhhh, I didn't notice that. I thought they just absorbed everything that the IEC suggested. I like the IEC's version better, but I guess there's no standard. — Omegatron 21:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's no standard, I'd like {{Quantities of bits}} to use "bit" for both. 00:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it "fairer" to use "b" in the left column and "bit" in the right? That way we celebrate the computer industry's chaos...

Urhixidur 00:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At AfD, scilicet, here, User:Olliminatore who appears to have contributed copiously to the German-language Wikipedia but only to have recently ventured into the English-language version, has nominated your ":)" template for deletion, ostensibly thinking the template simply to be a smiley face. Another user advised her to relist the template at TfD, and, so, I thought perhaps you might drop her a note to let her know of the continued import of the template (should the template continue to be important. Cordially, Joe 23:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:) 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. --Olliminatore 08:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost the templates: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 20

I see you moved Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale to decapitalise "hurricane scale", however the tropical cyclone wikiproject has discussed this before and agreed that since the NHC does not decapitalise the words we would follow the NHC standard, so I'm reverting your move. NSLE _(T+C) at 04:46 UTC (2006-03-26)

I see the exception to the usual rule was noted on the Talk page. Mea culpa and sorry for the trouble, then.

Urhixidur 13:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new Wikipedia user so excuse me if I'm wrong. Are you the person who included the statement about OSSETT "Its ancient name was Deira." on 6 August 2005? If so - I think this is not correct. Ossett has never been known as Deira as far as I know.

That's what Cyril V. Jackson believed, anyway. Look at Meanings_of_asteroid_names_(1001-1500)#201: under 1244 Deira we read « Ancient name of Ossett, Yorkshire, the discoverer's birthplace ». The sources are [2] and Paul Herget's The Names of the Minor Planets. Was he right in his belief? http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Y/YO/YORKSHIRE.htm mentions « The kingdom of Deira, which was afterwards to include the whole of modern Yorkshire ». So the Ossett-Deira connection is just an exaggeration. I'll edit accordingly. Thanks for spotting that.

Urhixidur 00:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got that abbreviation from this. And I think this was a good idea, so it dosn't get confusing with Mars.
— HurricaneDevon @ 19:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I added a note explaining that H for Mercury is a USGS convention, likely taken from the IAU. This leaves the question of "S/1974 H 1" open --although I agree this is what the code should be, I suspect it never has actually been used. Urhixidur 00:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you happen to know the French term for Point Spread Function (as used for HST 'direct' measures)? I updated the graph of the

biggest TNO to take into account the recent Brown’s measure and wanted to do the same in fr.wikipedia. Many thanks Eurocommuter 10:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faudra que je vérifie Termium lundi, mais pour le moment Eurodicautom donne « fonction instrumentale » (cf. http://www.termisti.refer.org/data/hubble/19.htm), mais on trouve aussi « réponse impulsionnelle » (cf. http://library.epfl.ch/theses/?nr=3288&lang=fre) et « fonction de réponse [d'un point source] » (cf. http://msowww.anu.edu.au/library/thesaurus/french/FONCTIONDEREPONSED'UNPOINTSOURCE.html). Urhixidur 14:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, merci beaucoup! Impressionnantes sources; honte à avouer, je les connaissais pas! Eurocommuter 15:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Termium, la banque de données terminologiques et linguistiques du gouvernement du Canada, spécifie « fonction d’étalement ponctuel ». Urhixidur 16:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh bien, ce dernier me semble correspondre à l’usage dans mon contexte. Merci beaucoup! Eurocommuter 17:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion on the WikiProject Astronomical objects page regarding a new look for box headers. I was hoping you could drop by and comment. Thank you. — RJH 14:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that i corrected a serious error "Alternate exact definition" that you made to the SI definition of the unit of electric current, Ampere. it's amazing that this error was left uncorrected for more than 18 months. in an article about objective physical convention, please be careful with applying words like "definition" and "exactly". do not apply those terms to things that are neither definitions nor exact. Rbj 01:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love a good argument. Considering:

1) CIPM, 1988, Recommendation 2 (PV, 56, 45 and Metrologia, 1989, 26, 70) recommends « that 25 812.807 W exactly be adopted as a conventional value, denoted by R_K-90, for the von Klitzing constant, R_K ».

2) CIPM, 1988, Recommendation 1 (PV, 56, 44 and Metrologia, 1989, 26, 69) recommends « that 483 597.9 GHz/V exactly be adopted as a conventional value, denoted by K_J-90 for the Josephson constant, K_J ».

3) Since K_J = 2he and R_K = 1/he², we have e = 2/(R_KK_J)

4) Hence the exact value quoted originally (defining the Ampere-second in terms of 1/e = R_KK_J with no loss of precision).

It should be understood, however, that this exact value is not endorsed by the CIPM, which was careful to state that « Recommendations 1 (CI-1988) and 2 (CI-1988) do not constitute a redefinition of Sl units. The conventional values KJ-90 and RK-90 cannot be used as bases for defining the volt and the ohm (meaning the present units of electromotive force and electrical resistance in the Système International d’Unités (SI)). To do so would change the status of µ₀ from that of a constant having an exactly defined value (and would therefore abrogate the definition of the ampere) and would also produce electrical units which would be incompatible with the definition of the kilogram and units derived from it. »

This "contradiction" holds true only if one keeps the original definition of the ampere, which is why I presented this as an alternate definition. So, you are right in saying it is not a definition --not an official one--, but you are wrong in claiming the value is not exact.

Urhixidur 02:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

taking it to Talk:Ampere. Rbj 03:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have added the minor planet template to various asteroid's articles (including 22 Kalliope). I suggest that you remove surface gravity from the table. This is not a meaningful concept for many asteroids, because rotation causes the gravity to change by more than 10% unless the object is spinning very slowly. Michaelbusch 16:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, and I would add that non-sphericity also throws local gravity considerably in some cases. This is a subject best covered under the microgravity or asteroid articles, though. Casual readers tend to want to draw up comparative tables of rotation periods, masses, surface gravity and so on, so it would be a disservice to "censor" that tit-bit away. Urhixidur 16:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reference for the following:

"Analysis of the radar return's strength can tell them apart, but this is not done in a busy environment because of the time it requires." Please leave the reply here as I do not sign in to Wikipedia and IPs can change.

Thanks 203.48.45.194 06:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not as such, that statement is just my own experience with the way things are done in the milieu (I used to work in operational research). The previous claim that the two could be "easily" told apart didn't ring true, in part because the Aegis only deals in tracks, and the detail of the track's physical attributes is not dragged along. Any signal analysis required (DSP, digital signal processing) would need to be done at the radar itself --the SIGINT folks do this as a matter of routine, the operational folks don't.

Of course, if we could find a quotable source either way, it would clarify things.

Urhixidur 12:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you response. I found a piece of info. somewhere, forgot to save the link :( - that it is not that easy for oncomming objects to differentiate the size but it is very easy if the object being tracked from the side. It is likely that they were not able to or did not try. 203.48.45.194 23:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I don't think putting coordinates at the beginning of the article is a good idea (like you have done for example in the Sudbury Basin article; first thing the reader should see when he starts to read the article is the subject, marked with bolded font). Instead, the coords template could be replaced with a box that could be located in the top-right corner of the article (a bit like the old astrobox template, see NGC 3109 for an example). It would be easily noticeable (unlike when the coordinates are within text), but it wouldn't be as obtrusive. There should be some sort of standard, every location article needs coordinates displayed.--JyriL ^talk 19:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there already is such a template (see Template:Coor title dms).--JyriL ^talk 19:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a floating box would be best.

Urhixidur 13:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a lot of your orphaned talk pages on names of asteroids have been tagged for deletion and some of them have been deleted. As orphaned talk pages are speedied, and these pages would mostly fit the criteria of little or no context for speedy deletion if created in article space, perhaps you would like them userfied? CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 21:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I restored the pages and added a paragraph explaining why they should be kept until later. I'm amazed the speedy-deleters showed less intelligence than the average Wiki bot does --they could have bothered to ask the contributor (me) the reason behind those pages...

Urhixidur 02:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thuresson 22:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I hereby award you this barnstar for your diligent work in cleaning up errors in spelling and categorization in articles about asteroids discovered by the Indiana Asteroid Program. -- Cuppysfriend 17:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Can I move it to my main userpage? Is there a user template version? --Urhixidur 02:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move it? I don't know why not. I've seen barnstars on other user pages, but I don't think there's a special user template. If you want to create a vertical format, I don't see why you shouldn't. By the way, I want to apologize for my two (known) misspellings of asteroid names that James Janderson transplanted to his articles. I left a message on his talk page pointing out where to check these things. From his latest contribution on 2300 Stebbins, it looks like he's picked up on the Template:MinorPlanets Navigator and Template:MinorPlanets_Footer. On a personal note, I spent most of the summer of 1970 in La Pocatière, Quebec, in a Peace Corps training program for francophone Africa. My French is okay for a tourist, but I wouldn't presume to try to write in French for Wikipedia. Cheers! -- Cuppysfriend 16:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain your tagging bodies like 2003 UB313, 2003 EL61, 1995 TL8, etc, as "binary asteroids?" I can understand the "binary" part, but describing these trans-Neptunian objects as asteroids seems a little far-fetched. Asteroid defines itself as "a predominantly rocky body that orbits around its star... The vast majority of the asteroids are found within the main asteroid belt, with elliptical orbits between those of Mars and Jupiter." I just don't think that you can list TNOs, Kuiper Belt objects, and the like, as asteroids... at the least, a little rationale would be nice. Ermar

You are correct in that the category we need is actually "Binary minor planets", but it doesn't exist yet. Shortsightedness on our collective part when the category structure was put in place, I suppose. The problem is that a whole slew of new categories (all of them sub-categories of Category:Minor planets) needs to be created and populated, only one of which already exists:

• Category:Minor planet discoverers (replaces Category:Asteroid discoverers)
• Category:Minor planet groups and families (replaces Category:Asteroid groups and families)
• Category:Minor planet records (replaces Category:Asteroid records)
• Category:Minor planet spectral classes (replaces Category:Asteroid spectral classes)
• Category:Minor planets named for people (replaces Category:Asteroids named for people)
• Category:Minor planets to be visited by spacecraft (replaces Category:Asteroids to be visited by spacecraft)
• Category:Minor planets visited by spacecraft (replaces Category:Asteroids visited by spacecraft)
• Category:Binary minor planets (replaces Category:Binary asteroids)
• Category:Lists of minor planets (replaces Category:Lists of asteroids)
• Category:Minor planets named from mythology (replaces Category:Asteroids named from mythology)
• Category:Minor planet stubs (replaces Category:Asteroid stubs)

I feel most should be replacements, unless we're ready to create parallel sub-categories such as Category:Trans-Neptunian objects named from mythology and so on...

Feel free to start tackling the task. --Urhixidur 11:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done Category:Binary minor planets. Your turn. :-) --Urhixidur 12:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Important matter:

I believe that this image is wrong. The error consists on calling mean anomaly M to what it is called true anomaly V. The mean anomaly goes from the center of the ellipse and it doesn't arrive at the planet but to the fictitious body that moves uniformly. If something parts from the primary one and it arrives at the secondary one, the angle with the periapsis cannot be other thing that the true anomaly. I suggest to correct this image or to use Image:Orbital elements.svg that doesn't have that error. There are many wikipedias that use this image in multiple articles like the English (en) and Catalan (ca). http:es.wikipedia.org/Usuario:xgarciaf july 24, 2006

The problem is not so much the illustration as the accompanying caption(s). The orbital element that needs to be explained is the mean anomaly, but you are correct in saying that this has no true geometric meaning. I'll try and fix this. Image:Orbital elements.svg is nice, but it avoids the "error" by omitting M altogether... --Urhixidur 18:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on 'Important Matter'

Forgive me if I seem picky, but the illustration does label 'T' (True Anomaly) as 'M' (Mean Anomaly) which is just not correct. It is comparable to labeling a square with the word 'circle'. Since the problem is with labeling, and the label is a part of the illustration (and it's successor Image:Orbit.svg composed by Arpad Horvath) then the problem is with the illustration. It genuinely misled me at one point while I was devising a fictional solar system for Celestia and my planets were winding up in the wrong places for particular times. My solar system description files were composed based on the misunderstanding garnered from this illustration, and it was the articles True Anomaly and Mean Anomaly and the accompanying diagram (Image:Kepler's-equation-scheme.png) that eventually set me straight.

I see you have posted caveats (orbital elements); I think that helps, since it puts literal-minded people (such as myself ;) on alert. Thank you for that, but the illustration is still labeling one concept as another concept so the misleading condition has not been truely eliminated. See also my comments at Image talk:Orbit.svg.

I feel the cleaner solution is to have a correct drawing in the first place. I'm not convinced that Image:Orbital elements.svg addresses the issue; it simply does not include the time argument. In truth, the visualization of M is problematical since it plots a position that doesn't correspond to the orbiting body, it revolves around the geometric center of the ellipse, not the focus, and plots a position on the auxiliary circle, not in the orbital path. Introducing these new components into the diagram will make for a more complicated drawing — Gosgood 11:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part of my problem is that I have not found yet, or had time to properly investigate, an SVG drawing tool. A drawing showing the various anomalies already exists, and is used by the anomaly articles. I wish Image:Orbital elements.svg were oriented more like Image:Orbit.svg, because as it is currently rendered the plane in which the argument of periapsis is measured is not as clear as it should be. I agree that Image:Orbit.png whould be done away with. --Urhixidur 14:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've reworded Seiji Ueda. Is it to your liking? Computerjoe's talk 21:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost. I've qualified the statement temporally. If you're going to do this with all the members of Category:Asteroid discoverers whose article uses the word "prolific", you'll be busy for a while... :-) --Urhixidur 21:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you moving Swedish observatories from their actual officially used English names to Swedish names (and incorrect Swedish names at that)? According to the "use English" policy, we should use English names where available. u◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 15:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, you say? I tried to retrieve them directly from the original sites. Please correct them if possible. As for the policy, you're right, I've been overdoing it; now that the redirects are created, I'll swap the relevant pages. --Urhixidur 15:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish names of public institutions usually use lowercase ("Stockholms observatorium"). BTW, "Stockholm Observatory" is both the name of the institute and the commonly used name of the oldest observatory building from the 18th century (the one depicted in the article). The institute has been known as the "Stockholm Observatory" all along, but was housed 1931-2001 in the Saltsjöbaden Observatory ("Saltsjöbadens observatorium") (image from the air), which should probably get an article of its own at some point. u◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 15:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Swedish is like French in that sense, then. Note, however, the illustration on the Uppsala Astronomical Observatory article, which uses an upper case O... --Urhixidur 15:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's an 18th century engraving. Uppercase was much more commonly used at that time (and well into the second half of the 19th century), and there was no standardized orthography in any case. With the current influence of English, some things may well change back to the way they were, at least if signs in shops are anything to go by... u◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 16:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again five-oh-one. The Slovak language WP has articles on 2177 Oliver (now en 2177 Oliver, thanks Urhixidur) and 2521 Heidi (now en 2521 Heidi thanks again Urhixidur) which are not yet included in this language. I'm wary of trying to copy their data into an infobox because I haven't a clue as to what it all means. Soooo kind Sir, have you the time or inclination to do justice for my deceased colleague Barney and my very much alive wife Heidi?  :-) --hydnjo talk 18:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to translate really, the sk articles are both crude stubs. They even get 2177 Oliver's diameter wrong. Done and done. --Urhixidur 20:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WOW, that was fast - I'm impressed! Good thing I didn't even try so it seems. Heidi and (Old) Joe thank you and please let us know if we can return the favor.  ;-) --hydnjo talk 21:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to switch [[{{{1}}}|{{{l1|1}}}]] with [[{{{1}}}|{{{l1|{{{1}}}}}}]] and so on if you want your edit to function properly. The way you have it causes every page to display an ugly number instead of the link if no value is specificed for l1. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 02:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It is done properly now.

Urhixidur 02:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really good addition, by the way. One thing, though. You have a slight error to correct. The third and fourth fields aren't formatted correctly. You need to replace the third and fourth fields with [[{{{3}}}|{{{l3|{{{3}}}}}}]] and [[{{{4}}}|{{{l4|{{{4}}}}}}]] so the link formatting will work properly. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, I'm usually better than this. Fixed now, hopefully for the last time. Good to know I have such a meticulous peer reviewer...

Urhixidur 11:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What determines the order of the navigations on the bottom of a satellite page (specifically, Saturn's satellites)? I ask this because the order of navigation sometimes differs from the order on the footers, and sometimes differs between two articles entirely. Example: The navigations for Pandora (moon) and S/2004 S 6 both place those moons after Prometheus (moon) while the Prometheus navigation bar places Pandora after despite the fact that the Template:Saturn Full Footer places S/2004 S6 after it; meanwhile, Pandora's navigation places Pan (moon) after it while the footer places Pan first -- even though the navigation on Pan places it after Pandora. Thus, are these order based on size, difference, year of discovery, group, etc? And no matter what order they are in (and by the way, the footer should explain the order -- e.g. "<small> in order of distance from <planet><small>"), the footer and navigation should match. 24.126.199.129 23:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complete agreement. The footers and navigators were initially set up in order of increasing semi-major axis (or period, which is the same thing). They've drifted out of synch as a result of multitudinous editors going over the various articles. Note that even this apparently simple sort sequence was not obvious to set up, as Jupiter's moons (for example) had inconsistent semi-major axis / period pairs in some sources, such as the JPL pages. I'll see what I can do to fix this.

Urhixidur 13:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saturn is fixed. It had been switched to order of discovery, which is itself dubious (order of permanent naming? order of original imaging? publication? See the timeline of discovery of solar system planets and their natural satellites to get an idea how complicated it can get). Methinks we should switch to proper succession boxes, which means we could then have sets by semi-major axis, by discovery date, by size, etc.

Urhixidur 19:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe rather than provide different navigators we could merge the group navigator and offer a single one. Example

Inner moons ( Metis, Adrastea,etc.), Galilean moons (Io,etc.), ..., Ananke group(Ananke, Praxidike,etc.), Carme group(Carme, Taygete,etc.),...

Such a navigator would be of more benefit for the reader I believe as it would organise the visit. The satellites inside a sub-category could be ordered following a or sizes (H) for the irregulars. I feel the Wikipedia articles on the natural satellites are far better than other popular sources by putting forward a structure as opposed to the raw lists found in other places. An organised navigator would fit this approach nicely IMHO. Eurocommuter 11:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you put together some samples of what you're thinking of in your sandbox? Then I'll comment.

Urhixidur 12:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about something similar to this. Fringe members could be in italic for example (formal classification is not a factor here I think). Prograde and retrograde could be separated in two parts of the table (left/right) etc. Eurocommuter 20:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...My preference would be to use the small Template:Jupiter and combine it with a small footer specific to each group. What do you say?

Urhixidur 13:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One could even modify the Jupiter so it accepts a sublist as an argument; this would give a footer that, in the case of each group, would develop the group into a parenthesised list. Let me make up an example and you'll see.

Urhixidur 13:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Examples:

{{User:Urhixidur/Jupiter}}
{{User:Urhixidur/Jupiter|AmaltheaGroup=x}}
{{User:Urhixidur/Jupiter|GalileanGroup=x}}
{{User:Urhixidur/Jupiter|HimaliaGroup=x}}
{{User:Urhixidur/Jupiter|AnankeGroup=x}}
{{User:Urhixidur/Jupiter|CarmeGroup=x}}
{{User:Urhixidur/Jupiter|PasiphaeGroup=x}}

User:Urhixidur/Jupiter User:Urhixidur/Jupiter User:Urhixidur/Jupiter User:Urhixidur/Jupiter User:Urhixidur/Jupiter User:Urhixidur/Jupiter User:Urhixidur/Jupiter

Hmmm...It's hard to get the breaks right this way...

Argh! Setting width makes non-breaking spaces break!

Urhixidur 14:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I like your idea of a more compact navigator, listing only the groups with a single group expanded. Formatting is a pain given the long lists for some groups but I hope you’ll get fixed. Expanding/collapsing groups the way some hide/show boxes work could be a next improvement. Eurocommuter 08:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're changing symbols around. Do you have a matching set? Some are black, while others are blue, and I had to adjust the size of Mercury's symbol in the Planet article and add spaces to the sides, since the svg does not have space around the symbol like the pngs. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Planet_symbols, there is no complete set yet, nor is there even a consistent naming convention. Still, we gotta move to svg and to Wikimedia, so...Someone will eventually do the missing images in a consistent style and colour. Then we can retrofix them. The Mercury svg is obviously a conversion of the png, so it's not in the same style or colour as the Mars svg (for example). It may be better (for now) to use the ant.png set until the svg set is done properly...

Urhixidur 18:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the blank svg of Uranus (with the help of my brother, so don't expect more from me): Image:Uranus_symbol.svg. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve noticed you’ve been fighting with Minor planet infobox template some time ago. I wandered if you could tell me whether it is possible to use #if: to have an optional row in a table (skipped if a parameter is unknown). I’ve tried and failed quickly on the pipes (Template:irregular satellite). Thanks! Eurocommuter 15:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ne serait-il pas plus simple de spécifier les valeurs par défaut des arguments ? Généralement un point d'interrogation. Ça serait mieux que d'escamoter la ligne du tableau.

Urhixidur 16:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that’s what I did. Still I fail to see how to use #if: (which is using pipes) inside a template (table) using pipes. Thanks Eurocommuter

Hmmm. J'ai fait quelques tests et il semble que substituer "&#124;" à "|" fonctionne. On peut même laisser les alinéas tels quels, sans avoir à substituer "<br/>".

Urhixidur 19:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exemple :

|-
! align="left" | Discovered | {{{discovery_date}}}

devient :

{{if|1={{{discovery_date|}}}|2=|-
! align="left" | Discovered | {{{discovery_date}}}|3=}}

NOTE : It seems <pre> decodes HTML entities. The above actually reads:

{{if|1={{{discovery_date|}}}|2=|-
! align="left" | Discovered | {{{discovery_date}}}|3=}}

Urhixidur 19:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merci! I'll give it a try. Eurocommuter 20:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See m:Help:Template#Restrictions_on_parameter_values. It seems &#124; is just like <nowiki>|</nowiki> or even an hypothetical template {{pipe}} that would return the character: it doesn't work inside templates. It doesn't work with parser functions, that I've verified. Urhixidur 19:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the very specific case of tables, where the ifs serve to hide lines, you can do it by using td tags inside the ifs. See wikt:fr:Modèle:fr-accord-mf for an example (see also how this is used in the example supplied in wikt:fr:Wiktionnaire:Liste de tous les modèles/Français). Urhixidur 19:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I remember you’ve played with re-calculations of inclinations from planet’s equator/ecliptic/Laplace plane in the past. Do you have some astronomical ref or just plain spherical trigonometry? I’m asking as I’m a bit stuck with some irregular satellites. On one hand I would like to avoid calculation (see discussion on project page) and stick to external sources, on the other Jacobson (JPL) is using some Laplace plane in some cases and the ecliptic in others. I would rather stick to ref data but giving inclination to some plane requires defining this plane and even then it may be confusing as differently tilted planes are used for different satellites. What would you suggest? Eurocommuter 17:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plain spherical trig. I validated the calculations using IAG TRAVAUX 2001 - Cartographic Co-ordinates and Rotational Elements of Planets and Satellites (disregarding the Phoebe value, obviously), so I'm pretty sure I didn't goof. As to planes of reference, they each have their value:

• to the ecliptic provides a common reference, since that's how the planetary orbits are described.
• to Earth's equator is not of much use by itself, but having the RA and Dec of the pole is nice because it allows one to visualise the object's sky using pretty much any simple astronomical software (such as Megastar).
• to the primary's equator is a solid visual reference; it allows one to visualise a mobile, and to do other calculations such as from which latitudes the satellite may be seen (e.g. Phobos), or what one can see from the satellite (e.g. Saturn's rings: it turns out the best view is from Mimas —the other moons are closer but at such low inclinations they don't see much).
• to the local Laplace plane is useless unless the plane's orientation is also defined —but it is a significant reference in terms of the satellite's dynamical evolution.

Talk:Phoebe (moon) gives an idea of the difficulty in getting access to the references.

Urhixidur 18:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The Phoebe talk was the one I remembered from the past but could not locate. (Varying) Laplace planes are used by Jacobson for irregulars of Jupiter, logically, as the elements are ‘mean’ and the objective is classification into groups. Eurocommuter 18:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm constructing some user friendly orbital charts for the moons of the gas giants but it seems like the lists of moons are a real mess (compare Saturn's natural satellites to Siarnaq (moon)). It seems like people confused inclination to the eclyptic with inclination to the equator. If there is no source for inclination to the equator, could you maybe help me with the formula you used to calculate the inclination to the equator from the inclination to the eclyptic? I'm not quite comfortable with spherical trigonometry. If I had the formula I could fix the mess as well. Krystman 16:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your best bet would be to use the NSES (Natural Satellites Ephemeris Service) to obtain ecliptic orbital parameters, although they do not cover inner satellites. I'm in the process of putting together a Celestia solarsys.ssc that uses the JPL mean orbital parameters as much as possible, plugging the holes from the NSES and few other sources. Wait until that's done --it should be a sound basis. Meanwhile, you have no choice but to brush up on your spherical trig...

Urhixidur 21:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The inclination for inner satelites is no problem. They are quite often very close to the equatorial plane anyway. NSES delivers inclination relative to ecliptic? That would mean that all inclination values in the table on the Jupiter's natural satellites page are wrong (At least for the irregular moons)! That explains why your values were so different.

My problem is that frankly, spherical trigonometry is absolutly new to me. I've tried the wikipedia entry and google but what I found was either very general or formulas to convert coordinates between different systems. I found nothing about the conversion of an angle. What formula did you use to calculate all those inclinations? Krystman 23:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, orbital elements are normally given with reference to the ecliptic. Compare, for example, the NSES orbital elements for Ymir and Paaliaq with the JPL mean elements (which are clearly labeled as ecliptic), and you'll see how closely they match. It's not perfect, of course, because NSES gives an instantaneous orbit and JPL lists a mean orbit --and some of the irregular satellite orbits can wander quite far away from their means.

Spherical trig boils down to drawing spherical triangles and applying the law of sines or the law of cosines (spherical). The spherical law of sines is similar to the plane trig case:

${\displaystyle {sina \over \sin A}={sinb \over \sin B}={sinc \over \sin C}\,\!}$

Urhixidur 00:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need some help with the article Near-visible EMR. It is partially covered by other articles Light, visible spectrum, Electromagnetic radiation. None of these terms are suitable for optoelectronic devices, to link from these articles. My new article is about a definition in terms of astrophysics, not school physics including irrelevant spectrum pictures. The articles are long, though the information could be included into a section. I ma not really an expert on the subject, however i hope for more easy-understandable articles. User:Yy-bo 22:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the status of {{-loc-verb-}} and {{-locution-}}? I'm just doing some maintenance in template space. Circeus 00:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 'em. I have forgotten what they were for by now, so...

Urhixidur 02:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be the first contributor for this article. Do you have a reference source that describes the spat? --Gerry Ashton 23:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nouvelle encyclopédie du monde, Éditions Leland Ltée. (Librairie Aristide Quillet), Montréal/Toronto/Paris, 1962, vol. 16, p. 5426.

Urhixidur 01:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been two whole months since I -- properly -- asked a question regarding these values at Talk: Jupiter's natural satellites and made changes in the article. Why are you only responding now with this aggressive language? Are you imputing bad faith to my changes? As best I recall, there was no consistent relationship between the older values in the table and the NSES values, suggesting that the older values were not only computed to a different standard, but were in error as well -- so restoring the older values in the table doesn't solve the problem. I must ask whether you know that the NSES data is computed relative to Jupiter's equatorial plane, or whether you are simply assuming that.RandomCritic 05:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you found my intervention "aggressive"; that was not the intent. As for the delay, it is a consequence of my limted spare time being split between family, the English and French Wikipedias, the French Wiktionary, and a few other pursuits.

You simply slammed the NSES orbital element inclinations into the table (sometimes incorrectly rounded off to boot), whereas the table column clearly states they should be reported with respect to Jupiter's equator. It is then a simple matter of computing the angle between the Jupiter rotation pole (reported in the Jupiter infobox) and each object's orbital pole (which can be computed readily from the NSES longitude of the ascending node and inclination). Adding a second inclination column reporting the ecliptic inclinations would be the better way of fixing this mess.

Urhixidur 14:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a detailed example. Let us take S/2003 J 2, the outermost moon.

Orbital parameters, as reported by the NSES:

Long. of the ascending node = (node) = 4.69404°

Inclination = (i) = 153.52114°

Jupiter's rotation pole, as reported by IAU Travaux 2001:

R.A. = 17 h 52 min 12 s = 268.05°

Dec. = 64° 29' 24 " = 64.49°

Ecliptic's (north) pole:

R.A. = -90° = 270° (by definition)

Dec. = 90° - (obliquity of ecliptic) = 66.56° (the obliquity of the ecliptic is 84381.412 (± 0.005) arcsec http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/astro_constants.html)

First, compute S/2003 J 2's orbital pole:

Draw a spherical triangle in equatorial coordinates; one summit (C in the diagram) is the Earth's rotation pole, one side (b) runs down from this summit along the ecliptic's RA as meridian, and has an arc equal to the obliquity of the ecliptic in length. From this second summit, the next leg (c) continues the first, oriented by the object's orbital ascending node longitude in the anti-clockwise direction (180° minus alpha). This second leg's length is the object's inclination in length. The last leg (a) is the orbital pole's codeclination. Hence, applying the spherical law of sines and the law of cosines:

orbital pole R.A. = (Ecliptic pole R.A.) + asin( sin(i)*sin(node)/sin(orbital pole codec.) ) = 305.24°

orbital pole dec. = 90° - acos( cos(90° - (Ecliptic pole dec.))*cos(i) + sin(90° - (Ecliptic pole dec.))*sin(i)*cos(180° - node)) = -86.37°

The object's inclination with respect to Jupiter's equator is then simply the angle between the Jupiter rotation pole and the object's orbital pole. The spherical triangle again uses the Earth's rotation pole as a summit (C), and has two legs running down the meridians corresponding to the Jupiter rotation pole R.A. (b) and the object's orbital pole R.A. (a). These legs' lengths are their respective codeclinations:

Incl. to Jupiter's pole = acos(cos(Jupiter rotation pole codec.)*cos(orbital pole codec.) + sin(Jupiter rotation pole codec.)*sin(orbital pole codec.)*cos((Jupiter rotation pole R.A.) - (orbital pole R.A.))) = 151.52°

Similar calculations yield the inclination to the primary's orbit = 153.62°, or with respect to Earth's equator = 176.37°.

Urhixidur 15:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A complication arises because of the angular ambiguity of the asin and acos functions. Fortunately, the ambiguity over the codeclination is easily lifted, since codeclinations cannot be negative. The ambiguity over the difference in R.A. is trickier, and requires that a third relation be used to pick the correct value. This third equation is Cos(i) = Cos(ε)Cos(codec) + Sin(ε)Sin(codec)Cos(Δα), where ε is the obliquity of the ecliptic. Urhixidur 05:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All angles in degrees. For Metis through Callisto, the orbital poles were taken directly from IAU Travaux 2001; the ascending node longitudes listed here were computed from the orbital poles (rather than computing the orbital poles from the NSES ascending node longitudes like what was done for the remaining moons).

Hi there Urhixidur. I took photos of the MHPCC and the DSS when we were out at Maui. You can find them here:

• http://flickr.com/photos/avriette/tags/haleakala/
• http://flickr.com/photos/avriette/tags/mhpcc/

Since I took them, I am happy to {{gfdl-self}} them. I just don't have time at the moment to add the images and format them as appropriate. ... aa:talk 05:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you identify which are which? Then I'll upload them to wikimedia. Urhixidur 16:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got two concerns about what you're doing:

1. The hyphen makes it hard to access the page from the search.
2. I don't think they should subpages like "X/Y-Z", but rather, "X (Y-Z)".

Just thought I'd pop in to tell you. Will ^{(Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?)}_{Merry Christmas!} 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pages aren't designed to be searched for, they are designed to be navigated from the main page (List of asteroids), to each other, or from the Category:Lists of asteroids pages. The sub-pages (those that contain just 100 asteroids) should be hard to get at, to discourage vandalism. Lastly, the "X (Y-Z)" pages all exist (they are redirects), and are used by the navigation templates. If you feel a further set of redirects should exist from "X/Y-Z" (normal hyphen) to "X/Y–Z" (en-dash), feel free to create them (this is a job for a bot!). Lastly, this move was started months ago, and you should have piped up then...Now, to switch all the pages would be either a tremendous amount of drudge work for a human, or a piece of cake for a bot.

Have a merry solstice! Urhixidur 19:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't know of the move, I just saw the creation of the articles in RC. Happy whatever-holiday-you-celebrate! Will ^{(Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?)}_{Merry Christmas!} 20:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just proded the article Sedris for deletion. Besides the annon who created the article you are the only one to give it any significant edits, as such I though I would let you know. --T-rex 20:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than commenting within the prod template[3], if you disagree with the deletion, you should actually remove the template. See WP:PROD for detailed instructions. NickelShoe (Talk) 22:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the article will be staying, sorry about bothering you with that --T-rex 19:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No bother at all. My overarching philosophy with Wikipedia is that pages are cheap, and its better to have stubby articles than no articles at all. Deleting non-sense is one thing, deleting trivia is another, in my mind. Urhixidur 20:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I noticed your posting in the above section of talk. Can you tell me if you were contacted by e-mail regarding that and if so under what username were you contacted? Thanks. (→Netscott) 00:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was an e-mail, signed Open stakes <phrog520@gmail.com>, and pointing specifically at:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Fall_of_the_House_of_Usher&diff=96344586&oldid=95833184
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fallout_%28computer_game%29&diff=96329698&oldid=96322768
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Beguiled&diff=96344525&oldid=95612185

Urhixidur 00:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, the sockpuppet Open stakes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indef. blocked for ban evasion. Thanks. (→Netscott) 19:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]