User talk:Marskell/Archive 19

Titan: liquids section

Do you think the liquids section needs a rewrite to lessen the "press release style" as Volcanopele called it? Serendi^podous 09:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

para

"Since the solar photolysis irreversibly converts all of the atmospheric methane in hydrocarbons in a relatively short time compared to Titan’s age of about 50 My (Strobel, 2004, this volume), CH4 must then be continuously replenished from a local reservoir either on or under Titan’s surface."

try:

"Since the solar photolysis irreversibly converts all of the atmospheric methane in hydrocarbons in about 50 My, a relatively short time compared to Titan’s age, (Strobel, 2004, this volume), CH4 must then be continuously replenished from a local reservoir either on or under Titan’s surface."

I'm not sure if you meant "in hydrocarbons" or "into hydrocarbons."

No, I just think that science buffs as a rule aren't good writers. Facts not flair, as it were. Sorry; I thought you were asking me to correct that line. Didn't realise you'd quoted it from the text. Serendi^podous 15:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Serendi^podous 14:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to give your added para a go-over, but first I need to know...

Clouds have also been found over the south pole. While typically covering 1% of Titan's disk, outburst events have been observed in which the cloud cover rapidly expands.

To what? Serendi^podous 14:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Nature

Good call, although as a mindless civilian, I don't have access to Nature on my home PC. Serendi^podous 13:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah now why'd ya have ta go and do that? :) I was about to write kudos for calling Titan a planet! I personally call it a planet too, but only to myself. So do you want me to do the ref? Serendi^podous 14:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

re: "definitive evidence". This is one of those annoying instances when science reveals that it's about evidence, not proof. If the lead's changed, then the Liquids section should be changed too, but the issue is whether or not the evidence presented so far, compelling though it is, constitutes absolute proof. I dunno. I suppose it's about as certain as you can get, but even if it's 95 percent, is that enough to say, is? Serendi^podous 06:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, now I'm going slightly crazy thinking about that phrase. Language and science really don't mix. Best to say "half the size," really. Sorry to have to ask this, but are you sure that image is from Torola Macula? I got that image from a page claiming it was Genesa Macula, but it could have been wrong. Re: to date, I would say, as of August 2007, to keep the line from dating. Serendi^podous 18:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry; must have missed the history. I'll post the right guy. :( Hope there are no hard feelings. Serendi^podous 19:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What's the harm? :-) I jumped the gun on Uranus and lost the nom, but I don't think it's delayed its renomination by more than a few days. Titan's been stuck in GA purgatory for as long as I've known it, and it should at least have a chance. Serendi^podous 20:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: addition: polar region, or polar regions? Serendi^podous 20:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

A quick purusal on Google suggests that Titan does have a prime meridian (according to one paper I viewed but could not read, the IAU established prime meridians for all the planets and satellites in 1982, though they must have revised it since then since I happen to know that a feature on Venus, called Eve, was chosen as its prime meridian after the Magellan mission). One paper said that Titan's prime meridian is on the side facing Saturn, which suggests that it is probably the line on Titan's surface which is closest to Saturn. Serendi^podous 20:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't bother me, I just thought that was what Volcanopele wanted. Serendi^podous 10:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Lion ?

Is work still happening at Lion or have you all given up? I'm in a hotel, and there's a question on my talk page about the links I pruned eons ago when you first started work; I suggested s/he raise it on the talk page, since I can't track down that video today, and that's the place to raise the question anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll chime in here - it is still happening but there's a frustrating couple of facts which need sourcing from a book or something offline...and a couple of other things...progressing though...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Haha got the schaller lion today... :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick input needed

Given the size of the Lion article - I'm wondeering how big to make the communication section. It is as brief as i could be now, but could be a helluva lot bigger....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

PS: The Scahller book also has some infon on Leopards in it for sprucing up that article cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

PPS: Circeus also gave me some input in the form of a quick to-do list on my talk page - more stuff! Have a look....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Update

I know the Schaller book is old but it is a really cool read and I've seen it referenced in peer reviewed journals to the present. It seems as though it was a hallmark production at the time. As well, much of the web material on lots of lion sites appears to come from it judging from numbers and phrases used. On the plus side it talks quite a bit about leopards so was going to slot in some reffed material as I want to facilitate leopard racing through FAC. It also has a note on cougar eating habits which I'll check later but tis after midnight and I'm knackeredcheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Luto

Hi Tim—Slightly concerned at the disjuncture between the conception of (the ever gentlemanly) RobertG and some of the reviewers at this FAC WRT referencing. At some stage, you may consider making a comment about this issue of interpreting the relevant FA criterion; or you may not. Tony 23:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Haaaaaaaa

Rumsfeld is giving Bush his daily briefing, and he finishes saying "Yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed".

"Oh my god!", says the President. "That's terrible!"

Bush puts his head in his hands for a second as Rumsfeld and the rest of the staff watch on.

Finally, the President looks up and asks, "So how many is a Brazillian?"

Ba-doom tscch. Neil ム 10:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Nude FAR

Yep, that was one of those FFAs that had Gimmetrow and I chasing our tails for quite a while :-) Of course I'll leave the archiving for you; I half expected you to say something last month, thinking you might be "sentimentally" attached. Because that file is now linked at WP:FAS, which I've taken to updating month-end, I get anxious to get it done :-) Since I gave three weeks of my life to correcting FAS, I got kind of attached there, too. All right, back to Asperger (contibuting to the highest monthly edit count I've ever had, and completely exhausting work, will need extra time in review to smooth things over). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone added the AFD to the FFA page; we need to hear from Gimmetrow on that to make sure it doesn't mess up any scripts/bots. I started a section at Wikipedia talk:Former featured articles#Nude celebrities. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

oh my gosh, it's back :-) Nude celebrities on the Internet. Coredesat overturned him/herself (and correctly updated articlehistory) and RickBlock fixed the WP:FFA page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ack. Raul closed Spoo, but the archiving is goofed up. It's halfway GimmeBotified, and he put it in August rather than September. Rather than messing with it myself, I'll leave a note to Gimmetrow to let him know it's halfway done, and that it should be fixed and moved to Sept. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Andrew FAR

So, are we supposed to vote now, or just continue discussion, or both?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I have the paged saved (both the FARC and the article) so I'll know if something happens. Right now, I'm for demoting because no one has even discussed the problems with the article, let alone taken any action to the page since it was put up for review. My "keep" is based around someone doing something other than sitting around and hoping it goes away. Thanks for clarifying.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Gender-neutral proposal

Some of these comments on GNL are nuts. Yours are sane, so have a beer! -- Hoary 15:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Tim—You asked me to remind you that this debate is proceeding. It's here. Please note that I've implemented two compromises today. I'm concerned at calls for this to be debated by "the broader community", which I see as an attempt to stymie the debate. I've suggested that links from anywhere to this MOS debate are just fine, but no, someone has called for it to be elsewhere (without saying where), and links provided in the opposite direction. I think this belongs at MOS talk. Tony 01:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Spoo

The reason I asked is because the article is still technically marked as a featured article; I'm afraid someone will speedy close the AFD nomination. Punctured Bicycle 09:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"One" as a gallicism

I've no idea if it's true or not, but if "one" is a gallicism, I imagine that it comes from the french pronoun "on", which is usually literally translated as "one", but used as "everyone" or occaisionally "anyone". For example, "on est dans le jardin" (that "le" might be wrong, I can't remember if it's masc or fem) would be used conversationally to mean "everyone is in the garden", for example when greeting someone as they arrive for a party.

Just thought you might like to know. SamBC(talk) 11:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Three ways

Marskell, comments on your comments to the ogre:

• Completely avoid this subject for the timebeing and at least admit the gender neutral suggestion in simple terms. I mean, just two lines in the MoS: "Please try to use gender neutral language. Do not be disruptive." Or something like that.
  • That doesn't seem so contentious and it has various advantages, brevity being one of them. But I wonder if it will have any effect. Those who insist that he is gender neutral will continue to use it. Still, it may work as a reminder for the non-dogmatic.

• Create a full section, based on what Tony has suggested. (I won't speak for him definitely, but I think Tony is very leery of 'singular they' himself, and would kill it, in order to move the central gender proposal forward.)
  • I don't have any particular interest in "singular they" myself, though I have enjoyed the unintended hilarity of some of the comments on it. It needn't be mentioned. All I ask is that WP's guidelines don't utter untruths about it.

• Create a full, distinct guideline, like WP:LEAD. And admit that we're going to need a month or two to actually create it. In some ways I prefer this. Tackle GNL, and 'singular they', and s/he, and all of it―even if it means a few more tendentious conversations.
  • If that's your thing. Tony seems to thrive on MoS discussions and perhaps you do to; I don't.

-- Hoary 23:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann and bolding the lead

Hi,

This has been discussed here and the consensus for a variety reasons is not to bold the lead (mainly because "Madeleine McCann" is not the title and it's not a bio article). Harry was a white dog with black spots 15:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I didn't take part in the discussion and I really don't have a view. I think it's the feeling that the article is about the event. not the girl herself. Maybe a way forward is to change the lead to the way it is here which is a similar article. Harry was a white dog with black spots 15:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll modestly agree with you! Keep an eye on it though. It could get reverted. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It just has been (by me). Those, more expert than me, advise that it shouldn't be bolded per WP:MOS#Article_titles and WP:LEAD#Bold_title since it is 'descriptive-like'. If you are not happy please argue the case on the talk page. TerriersFan 19:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The list

I should be able to catch up once I'm home; the slow dialup when I'm traveling makes it hard to keep up with anything but the most urgent. Every edit seems to take ten minutes, and I have limited time. (That Madeleine article really needs a bold title, per WP:MOSBOLD and WP:LEAD. If I were home on my own computer, I'd be hardpressed not to just fix it.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's up to date now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

GNL

Thank you; but the day I see "MOS breach; not gender-neutral" at FAC, I will regret this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. "If someone were being stupid" is singular they; it couldn't possibly be the subjunctive. ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

My French class was terrible too: immersion for 22 minutes a day. But "if she were" is grammatical English; there is no plurality about it at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

So what do you think of adding some language to say this is not a FA criterion? These stylistic choices, however, are editorial judgment; they should not be used to discriminate between articles is the best I can come up with off-hand. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Saying anything more than please consider (no harm in considering, like the old Jacobite song) is a deal breaker. As I have said elsewhere, every substitute for the non-existent generic pronoun has its drawbacks, different in kind and degree. Editors should choose between them on their merits; it is reasonable to remind them the choice exists. If in fact GNL is the wave of the future, then this is all the supporters of GNL need to do; once one reminds bien-pensant editors not to be sexist, they won't be. Much of the rest of MOS is (or was until fiddled with) similar reminders. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My inner curmudgeon suggests: "And like many of the fashions of the 70's, it was never really established, and has now washed out again. It's too soon to be retro; try again in a decade or two." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Consider this, then, a difference of national dialect. My position has indeed changed; you have changed it by claiming that even the innocuous suggestion I supported was a mandatory, if non-pressing, requirement. This is also what Radiant says; I find any requirement on the matter, however polite, unacceptable and inappropriate; I always have. This may be a change of application of the same philosophy, therefore. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Congrats!

Good job on Titan! You got any other projects in mind? Serendi^podous 07:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait, it's not featured yet... Serendi^podous 07:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Uranus ain't featured yet! It's still going through copyediting before it can be resubmitted. I suppose after Uranus Ruslik and I will be tackling Neptune. It would be nice to have more than two people working on it :). I would also like to get Formation and evolution of the Solar System properly sourced. Serendi^podous 08:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Another thought: I'd like to see all the Solar System's seven great moons (Ganymede, Titan, Callisto, Io, the Moon, Europa and Triton, achieve featured status. So far, three have (the Moon, Io and Titan), and if we do Europa, that would make four. Serendi^podous 09:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Galileo Galilei article

Apologies for dithering over my reply to your query on my talk page. I was contemplating a fairly long response on the FAR page, but now that that's closed I can make my reply much briefer.

The only specific plan for further work on the article that I have at the moment is for a short section on The Assayer as per my comment on the talk page. I have a draft written, but it's still a little too verbose. I'll probably post it over the next few days and let other editors have a go at pruning it. I also have some vague plans of adding and improving citations where I can, and removing a couple of pieces of what appear to me to be fluff. The latter would require some prior notification and perhaps discussion on the talk page, however.

I think ragesoss's criticisms were pretty much spot on. On the basis of my own relatively meagre knowledge of the matter I wouldn't assert that omission of the patronage issue was a serious defect. But in view of my ignorance, I wouldn't quarrel with ragesoss's assessment either. —David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Time to compromise?

Marskell, I think you may have to compromise a little. How about the following?

Please consider giving a moment's thought to the use of gender-neutral language where you are absolutely certain that this can be achieved in immaculate wording and without even a minuscule loss of precision. Within Wikipedia, the alien notion of gender neutrality is approached, when it must be approached at all, as a purely stylistic preference: an obvious ingredient of poor style. As such it should not convey a particular view point, political agenda or ideal that might in any way question the natural superiority of men over the weaker sex. This suggestion to consider giving a moment's thought to it does not authorize gender-neutral language as a criterion for featured article candidacy, other of course than the likelihood of stylistic failure for perpetrating gender-neutral language not explicitly approved by Strunk or White. Stylistic choices should be changed by consensus wherever they disagree with any edict by a language expert (NB a higher degree in linguistics is incompatible with true language expertise); avoid disruption when inserting gender-neutral language. Some suggestions on how to neutralize this language may be found in the essay Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language; its perpetrators do not need to be neutralized as they are sure to be left behind.

Might your opponents find this palatable? -- Hoary 14:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Gonna pin that one on my frigefrator; best thing to come out of this unreal journey back in time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Carnivores

(Yawn)...just fell out of bed...I do have a book for wolves like hte Schaller book for lions. was busy with a few other things but can look at it today I think. Someone else was massaging it a bit so I left it to 'em for the time being..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

sadly the big book I got on wolves is really dry and more a collection of sutdies from local areas - alot more frustrating than I orignally thought. On a roll with lion now and have limtied time. I think I'll nominate in the next day or two once I get some more material in and try to look at the man-eating bit which is the roughest bit of the article I think. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

Hi, we seem to be back to the old 'to bold or not to bold' issue. Another editor has started a discussion on the talk page in a, probably vain, attempt to find a consensus. I wonder if I could ask you to add your voice there please? Whilst I am in the 'no bold' camp I can live with it either way but simply wish to avoid an edit war on something so minor. I undid your bolding simply to go back to the established edit whilst we talk. TerriersFan 19:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

FWIW I have never used a bot and wouldn't know how to if I wanted to. The point I made was that a new discussion had started; I didn't claim a consensus above, I politely asked you to join the discussion so we can gain a consensus. What I said was that non-bolding had been established and explained that I reverted to hold that position pending talk page consensus. Reasonable surely? TerriersFan 20:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Leopards and all that...

Hey, I know what you mean about the bold stuff, I feel partially responsible, it was brought up at the WP:GA for the article. Anyway, life goes on. I'll head to the leopard page as soon as practicable. Nice doing business with you! The Rambling Man 21:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann - date dabs

Why have you removed the date dabs? The reason why 12 January is dabbed is to cater for user display preferences - by dabbing it displays as 12 January (UK) or January 12 (mainly US) according to which preference the user has set. TerriersFan 22:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC) WP:DATE#Autoformatting and linking may have a dispute tag on but until changed it remains current policy. TerriersFan 22:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Rightly or wrongly WP:DATE#Autoformatting and linking applies to date/month combinations - I intend to undo your de-linking unless there is a good reason not to. TerriersFan 22:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

To bed

I agree when you say "we really should mention when they claimed to put them all to bed. Surely that's in one of the sources.". However, I am not sure we have a source for it But I'll do a search and see what I can find. I also agree with your hidden comment about the weasil words. I'll try to find a new formulation. TerriersFan 22:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Callisto

You are right that Callisto is going to FAC soon. However I need someone not familiar with text to read it and copy-edit if necessary. Can you do this? I submitted this article to Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/proofreading‎, but they are not so quick in answering. Ruslik 18:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look...there's another FT...Jovian Satellites....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Puma

No idea yet, did not look into all studies that are available. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is just a single article, and that one is clear. If you had a series of contyradicting articles, it would be warranted. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind - Panther FT beckons...

Nevermind, it was a teeny bit of a convenient grouping, and one would be hard put to make a parent article. If you fix leopard nad lion gets through FAC that leaves tiger, and the genus Panthera, though given Uncia's status may be less controversial to go Pantherinae group and include Clouded leopard and Snow Leopard. It'd be a natural group Spawn Man has the last on his to-do list and I'm sure we could convince someone else to get stuck in. I'd find tiger too depressing personally...but then again...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No no, Panthera can be GA - the criteria allow for that. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Gonna get hit by a bus one day ?! what are you, Nostradamus or something..yeah I know there are fun articles and boring ones, gotta do something about fungus one day too...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

addendum

Y'know, tiger may be an easier do than leopard at the mo' - I just reorganized it and it seems to fall inta place a wee bit better...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Stuttering

I'm a bit stunned at the Stuttering FAR and feeling badly that I let it go for a full year; can you have a look and advise what we should do? I'm not sure who to ask since there's no strong WikiProject involved, and since I don't know the subject matter, I don't know if we should revert, start deleting, what. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I raised it in the current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria#Stunning example. I've been watching the article for a year, and I feel like an idiot for not getting to it sooner as I went through the medical articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed

Please do not remove disputed tags that are still in discussion. You may wish t contribute to the conversation, and I hope that you will; however, removing tags that describe an existing situation leave people with the impression that you are trying to marginalize dissent, and I think that isn't going to be an effective method of resolving differences in the article's dicussion page. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've commented on the article's Discussion page. In short, there is significant disagreement as to whether citations should appear in the Lead statements, since they - and it bears stressing, so as to avoid mis-characterization yet again - are an overview of the article, which contains all the citations. I hope that helps illuminate the territory we currently find ourselves occupying. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You have stated that you have twice asked a question, and twice its was pointed out that you were actually asking the wrong question. I myself have pointedly suggested that a person who is good at writing Leads should be able to write one that doesn't require citations. I think what prompted my User page addition (and had you not been stalking my edits, it would have remained a reminder only for me) was the fact that you keep quoting a policy in dire need of some revision; a policy we are discussing altering slightly. Using the argument 'well. we don't do that because it violates the policy you are trying to change' is a circuitous argument, and an exceptionally poor defense. You say that the rules say that Leads sometimes have to have citations. We are clearly suggesting changing that to adopt something which requires a bit more work and finesse - writing a Lead that is an overview of the article. Period. No introduction of info needing immediate citation. No inclusion of cites which are better placed in the articles so their proper context (and the context of the citation) is clear. If I disagree with your practice of hearing an answer to a question that you apparently do not like and then stating that the questions wasn't answered to your 'satisfaction', you shouldn't be surprised if that sort of behavior isn't going to garner you less respect. Mine was a no-wiki representation of how I felt you didn't handle the situation, and it was for me.

Both of the examples you wrote could easily be written in such a way so as to avoid needing citations. I am disappointed at editors pandering to what they perceive is the lowest common denominator, and hating readers so much that they feel that they are torn between spoon-feeding the readers and pandering to some loud-mouthed jerk screaming for citations about what Jasper T. Puddinhead ate the morning of the big race. I offer you the examples of any newspaper, magazine, trade journal or other encyclopedia. The Lead for them is defined as an introdcution to the material to be presented int he body of the entry, giving an overview of the contents. Nowhere does it suggest that citations should be in the Lead. In fact, I posit to you that the lack of citations in Lead statements is quite common in every other iteration/example of encyclopedic and professional article-writing work.

The policy needs to change with this. If people are too thick to actually read more than he first paragraph, perhaps they really shouldn't be using the computer for research. The Lead is not the place for citations. The body is.

I hope that answers your questions to your satisfaction. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just so I understand, what is your specific issue with suggesting that editors try not to include citations in the Lead. I think that is the most difficult thing about your viewpoint for me to understand. It just seems redunandant and ugly. Maybe you can exlain it to me, so I can understand.

And in retrospect, it wasn't really nice of me to include that on my user page. I just had a reminder a little while ago of a truly awful editor on Wikipedia. You I just have this little disagreement with. This other fellow is an kid and an utter tool who really needs to grow into the education he clearly has, and develop some emotional fine-tuning. Again, my apologies. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Future FAs

I did muse on Alpha Centauri meself...but at the moment I'm more taken with gastronomy rather than astronomy and was considering Potato and Pork (two fave foods - the former is in pretty good nick though needs some major work on the lead and much evening out of emphasis). Tiger struck me as just needing even expanding while leopard just looks a real mess in places but that is just an impression. You are dead right about amount of work needed though WRT refs etc....Spawny and I are doing Vampire -I figure he'll be major and I'll be minor on that one, and if the template works out good I'll get stuck into Werewolf for good measure...aah fuck it, who knows..I keep changing me mind. I just had a look at horse but figured that would be a monster job which'd dwarf lion...and the taxonomic debate is up in the air too....I've got books on all these, though, which is more than I can say for Gray Wolf, which may have to wait for another inspiration as the book I have is a bit too micro-focussed (lotsa small studies etc.) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Cherrypicking

Hi RJ. I figured Tau Ceti would show up on your watchlist soon. I've been twiddling about since Titan and, as I'll have busy October, wanted to throw something on FAC soon. So I cherrypicked Tau Ceti. If I gave a good hard run over the next week (I'll guess a hundred edits) would my posting a co-nom be OK? I did this with Serendip on Titan, with some success. You're the formulae formulas man, so I won't be able to speak for all of it, even if I look at all of it. It does need a prose audit. And I think the meat, under 'Physical properties', needs to be looked at for flow. Also, I think the "hook" to get the reader to keep reading is the solar analog/habitability bit, so I've been expanding that. Cheers, Marskell 21:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Marskell. I hadn't planned on taking it through for FAC unless a planet was discovered (or ruled out). But feel free to take it through; I was the primary contributor, so I doubt there'd be other objections. My main concern would be in not seeing information deleted/obscured or data getting mangled. Is that okay? I'm sure there's always some room for improvement. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It occurred to me to list at what Earth latitudes it may be sighted, which is why I left the buried note in the intro. Do you know of reference list for that? It would be useful in general. Marskell 16:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Chapter IV of:

• Young, Charles Augustus (1902). Manual of Astronomy: A Text-book. Ginn & company.

(which has been digitized on google books) gives the statement that the latitude is the same as the declination at the zenith. So it is theoretically visible ±90° from latitude -15°. But, of course, there's always the problem of scintillation, which varies from night to night, and will obscure seeing at varying distances above the horizon. So YMMV. — RJH (talk) 18:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I added "assuming perfect viewing conditions, it is visible ±90° from latitude 15°S." (Using regular latitude as that will be more intuitable to people.) Marskell 14:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Various sources list 15°–20° above horizon to minimize scintillation under normal seeing conditions, although I couldn't find a definitive ref. to pin it down. So it's probably more like ±70°. But that seems like just too much detail. — RJH (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Various

(Sorry, I'm going to have to bug you occasionally as I go through it.)

You have 81.6% solar radius in there now with a 2004 paper. I found this with this with 77.3% (unless I'm reading something wrong). I added a sentence mentioning it. It's only a year older and appears to be with the same instruments. Marskell 14:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes the 2004 paper mentions the 2003 result and explains why they are different. (The 2004 paper used a larger number of reference stars to minimize systematic errors.) — RJH (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I just had a small comment on this edit:

"This makes it the nineteenth closest star system to the Sun, and the next-closest spectral class-G star after Alpha Centauri A."

Unfortunately, new faint stars are still being discovered in the solar neighborhood. Also the distance to the 20th nearest is still not reliably known and may prove to be less than Tau Ceti. For these reasons I deliberately didn't list this star's position in the list of nearest stars as it may change at some point. — RJH (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey RJ. I dropped 19th closest, and added a short note on scintillation. Also, I realized that "only excludes hot Jupiters in close orbits" was not actually sourced (?). Trusting Sol Station's description, I sourced tothis (PDF). The exclusion parameters are a bit beyond me, but you might be able to come up with a sharper exclusion description. Marskell 16:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That looks fine to me, thanks. I've become a little wary of just referencing the SolStation site as I've come across a few errors there. So it can be good to include additional refs. — RJH (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You had actually already added the PDF I link above (I combined the two descriptions). It says: "Our survey would have detected all stellar companions within 17″ of our target stars, except for any lowest mass companions lying within 0″.5-1″ of the brightest." Not sure what 0.5 arcsecond would amount to in AU but intuitively this suggests the opposite of what we had on the page—it's the close-in orbits that haven't been excluded. And supposedly it has an optical companion at 10″.

I'm not sure whether we're reading this the same way. I see it as saying there were no previously undetected very low mass companion stars found within 17" of the observed primary stars, although there may still be companions within 0.5-1" of the brightest stars measured. It would have detected brown dwarfs in a certain age-mass range (before they had cooled down) but does not exclude older and/or lower mass brown dwarfs/large jupiters. I'm not sure how to say the details clearly and succinctly for the reader. The paper also says that "searching for extrasolar Jovian planets with the PC was nearly impossible". — RJH (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm seeing it differently. But does that not mean nothing "in close orbits" is exactly the wrong determination? That it's in close orbits that bodies may still reside? (As an opticial determination—motion perturbations will eliminate the closer orbits first.) Marskell 21:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The bright star/close orbit issue applies to those stars with V < 1.5, so I don't think it's relevant here. — RJH (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Sorry to play the dummy, but we're safe then? It's of sufficient (non)-brightness that companions below 1" are excluded by Hubble? Thus we can say that, period, there are no more or less brown dwarfs in the system. As word choice goes, "large Jupiter" may not be best. While wordy, "stellar or immediately substellar" may be better. Marskell 21:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes to the first. But I think that, at best, you can say no stellar or sub-stellar companions have been found by Hubble. Per the abstract, a brown dwarf below 10 Jupiter masses could still have been missed (since the star is 10 Gyr-old, making the companion probably than 5 Gyr in age). — RJH (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Notes on Sol Station

Hi again. Getting down to the last little niblets. In general, I agree with you about Sol Station. I used to use it frequently but now only sparingly for general observations and not hard data (they use 0.77 for the radius figure, for instance, rather than the updated number you found). Two points on the subject:

• If the T Ceti dust disk is 10 ten times Sol and the Epsilon Eridani disk is 20 times T Ceti, then E Eridani is 200 time Sol. Simple enough. However, our page on E Eridani claims 1000 times the dust (helluva of a disk), presumably lifted from Sol Station.[1] Do you recall what Greaves says precisely on this?
  • Hi. I am wondering where you got the statement that the Ε Eridani disk is 20 × Τ Ceti's disk? I'm not seeing that. — RJH (talk) 20:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

    The page currently states: "However the dust belt around Tau Ceti is only one-twentieth as dense as the belt around Epsilon Eridani." It's not even essential that we reference Eridani, but if we do it should accord with other pages.

    Ah okay. I see it now in the conclusion of the Greaves et al (2004) paper: "The dust mass around τ Ceti is 20 times less than around the younger star ε Eri, ..." The discussion almost leads me to believe that it is the solar system that is anomalous in the size of our belt. — RJH (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

    You should be able to access the ADS scan of the Greaves paper. — RJH (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• You'll notice I added a small 'Neighbourhood' section. Our own page on YZ Ceti suggests it's 0.72 ly from T Ceti (close to capture distance, I'd guess) but I'm not sure from where. Sol Station lists it at 1.6.[2] Is there a better source that we might use for that? Marskell 18:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's a bit of a problem. I suspect that the owner of the SolStation site ran the nearby stars data through a program to compute the separations. I'm not sure where you'd get a good reference for that, but maybe we could confirm the listed separation computationally. — RJH (talk) 20:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

    The YZ Ceti distance isn't essential either, but it would be nice to give the closest star distance. I've generally thought Sol Station doesn't do its original research but it might well be generated by them. Marskell 20:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

    I'll see if I can come up with something. — RJH (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

    Here's my take on the separation: User:RJHall/temp#separation. (It seems a bit too long for a ref. though, so maybe it could be compacted.) I get a separation of 3.3 ly. The minimum it could possibly be (if they lay along the same line of sight) is 3.17 ly. — RJH (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

First para in motion

Someone may ask for a source on the first paragraph of motion, particularly "although it only has an annual traverse of slightly more than an arc second. It will require several thousands years before the location of this star shifts by more than a degree." Remember where you grabbed that? Cheers, Marskell 16:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well... a degree has 60*60=3,600 arc seconds. The conclusion follows. =) — RJH (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking after I posted that it amounts to a simple calculation and thus not OR. Now a probably dummy question: what does a negative proper motion value indicate or are they always such? Also, given that it's −1721.94 in the infobox should it be "almost two arcseconds" rather than "slightly more than an arcsecond"? Marskell 16:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm all muddled up, sorry. SIMBAD's entry on Barnard's star has two mas figures: -798.71 10337.77[3]—it's the second figure, 10.3 arcseconds, that we use in the body but the first in the infobox. Tau Ceti's two figures: -1721.94 854.17.[4] Marskell 16:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the negative just indicates a decreasing coordinate over time. Yes, -1721.94 would be better as "almost 2 arc seconds". The two SIMBAD values for proper motion are just R.A. then Dec. The combined proper motion can be computed as is shown here: IK_Peg#endnote_Cnone. Did that answer your questions? — RJH (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That helps thx, tho I can't completely understand without understanding that formula. So then we should just be careful not to speak of proper motion as either the RA or Dec figure but only when we know the computed value. ARICNS, using slightly different figures, has 1.924 mas for total proper motion.[5] SIMBAD doesn't seem to provide it. We could list the ARICNS figure in a note or you could work out the total figure with SIMBAD numbers. Marskell 18:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's essentially using the Pythagorean theorem. The motion in the R.A. direction varies by Declination (it's like determining distance travelled in longitude from the angular change, which depends on latitude) so the cosine term is there to compensate. I hope that's clear. — RJH (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. So what should we do in the article? And other articles, for that matter. Use ARICNS or come up with our own calculation with SIMBAD for each? Marskell 19:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think is ARICNS is a bit outdated and SIMBAD would be preferable; but that's just my current opinion. I usually only used ARICNS for U-B and/or when there was no other source. Unfortunately the wikipedia template calculation functionality doesn't support transendental functions, or we could compute it in the infobox. But I can't image the net proper motion being all that interesting in most cases. I only computed it for IK Peg because it's a nearby supernova candidate; so as to show the net movement over time. It may also be of interest for some high proper motion stars. So possibly it could just be computed where needed? — RJH (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What qualifies as interesting :)? 10.3 arcseconds is certainly interesting for Barnard's star. And I just want to be accurate: are we talking about RA, Dec, or total proper motion? When we say "slightly more than one" or "almost two" for T Ceti, which of the three? We should avoid cloudiness—if it's not clear, I need you for the daylight! (The article is basically there otherwise, IMO.) Marskell 19:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay I added a note with a calculated net proper motion. — RJH (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

FAR/C, FAC and mediation

Hi Tim

I believe that it's a very bad precedent to take a nomination (Asperger's Syndrome, in this case) to mediation. Kind of undermines FAC and FAR/C. Tony (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikignome Award

I honestly thought you'd have seen it already and seemed to be deluged with other things. Anyway, no biggy. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Bye

Ha, just as I was clearing up! Everything is fine. I just got fed up with the infighting and competition here, so I've retired. I may be back in few years. Good luck to you. Yomangani^talk 14:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)