Talk:Uranus/Archive 1

message: That picture is really crappy. It looks like it was made in photoshop. Is there another one you can put up there?
: As you can gather from the picture's description, it is in fact highly "photoshopped". Also from the description it states that in NASA's opinion this is what Uranus would look "as human eyes would see it". If all artistic depictions are excluded this propably is the best picture of Uranus. - Laisak 00:20, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Uh, I thought Uranus had rings?  Like Saturn but not as big.  This picture just looks like a blue ball.
Oh, here is a Hubbel Telescope pic of Uranus http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA02963
:: You would not be able to see Uranus's rings with the naked eye, because they're thin and dark. That Hubble picture is in false colour, so it would be better to put it further down the page, not use it as the main picture. The Singing Badger 16:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, because of the axial tilt, from Earth's view the rings form a target shape around the planet and do not cross the disk. The picture is cropped too close to show them, even if the resolution was high enough. CFLeon 22:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: : Revolution period	84y 3d 15.66h
: Synodic period	369.7 days
Are those the right way round? 'Synodic period' is the 'year', and revolution period is the 'day', right? Surely the outer planets have a much longer year than Earth, not just a few more days -- Tarquin 18:06, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The synodic period is the time that it takes for the object to reappear at the same spot in the sky, relative to the sun, as observed from Earth. This is the time that elapses between two successive conjunctions with the sun and is the object's apparent orbital period. The synodic period differs from the sidereal period since Earth itself revolves around the sun. Since Uranus is very distant from the sun and is moving very slowly compared to Earth, however, the synodic period is only slightly larger than one Earth year. "Revolution" is usually used to mean the planet's motion around the Sun, whereas "rotation" is usually used to mean its day (for Uranus, Rotation period is -17h 14m). Looks alright to me. Bryan 01:17, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data check 

message: Should we have something about that joke? From User:68.38.113.242
: 
::(NOTE: I'm kidding, there's no need to acknowledge the joke). --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:01, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, seems like we run a tight ship here.  At any rate, newbie here who wants to add something to, not edit, "Uranus in Fiction," but apparently failed on my first attempt.
So then, how do i present the potential addition, and who to, and how do i find them???   Thanks to anybody who can help me in this matter.  BTW, as an opener, Wayne Dyer wrote a science fiction book titled Gifts of Eykis about some folks from Uranus who had Stranger in a Strange land qualities and, i would like to share a very interesting experience i had when i wrote him with a question about same and received a fascinating  response from him...   Richard s.
:You don't present potential additions to anyone, you just make them! Welcome to Wikipedia, it's crazy but it might just work!ZoFreX 07:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Other users, that's who. By the way, don't put spaces at the beginning of your paragraphs, it turns them into a weird font (don't ask why...). I fixed it for you. The Singing Badger 01:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus a history of pages is saved, so vandalism can be quickly reverted. Btw, if you have a user typing 4 "~"'s (without quotes) will put your tag, like so: ZoFreX 20:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing [was: That Stupid Joke] 

message: Isn't Titania supposed to be pronounced tie-tay-nia and not ti-taan-ya? Drahcir my talk 22:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We had a long discussion about this on the Titania talk page. Short answer: we went with ti-taan-ya or tye-tan-ia because that is the Shakespearean pronunciation of the character's name. The pronunciation tye-tay-nia might be an influence of the pronunciation of the element titanium? (The effect goes the other way - one Shakespearean at least thought the element was pronounced ti-taan-ium !) kwami 02:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronouciation (one of the moons) 

message: This section has quite a lot of 'trivia', that is unverifiable. Can we agree on what should be in there and what not? Its current state is a bad mark on this article, IMO. Awolf002 15:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like it to be moved out in its own article, Planet Uranus in fiction or some such, and just have a link to that article in the "See also" section here. Sort of sweeping it under the rug, or at least away from here. I don't want it removed completely, or even kept tight and short, as I think there is merit in having popular culture on this elaborated on somewhere. The fiction article could very well be a good one, with real prose (not just a list like the section is now) and have elaboration on, say, how the planet's role in fiction has evolved from the first sci-fi novel to mention it, potrayal of life on it and so on. Not uninteresting and unencyclopedic stuff at all, but not something we want to expand much on here. So I'd like the fiction part to be split out in its own article. Shanes 05:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The unsightly section 'Uranus in fiction' 

message: The Physical Characteristics / Composition section states that "It appears that Uranus does not have a rocky core" and is composed of hydrogen, helium, and methane, but the Life on Uranus section claims it *does* have a rocky core plus water oceans.  These two descriptions are in conflict.  Also, the bit in the Life on Uranus section about pressure being a problem is an unsupported and (IMO) dubious assertion. Fasrad 01:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's nonsense. I deleted it. The Singing Badger 01:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent physical composition descriptions 

message: Is there interest in posting a list of the sightings before 1781? I have made such a list, although it's lacking in some detail (such as precise dates for some of the sightings), and can put it up. CFLeon 21:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How long is that list? We already mention some of them, and if it's a long list we're probably better off with just stating the number and details on some of the more interesting ones. I guess there could be some sightings on your list that are disputed (I don't know), and in that case we should be carefull and not start doing stuff bordering original research. But if it's not too long, and the sightings are uncontroversial, I wouldn't mind mentioning them in full here. Shanes 06:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As of 1982 (date of my primary source), there were about 25 known and I know of no others found since then (the last one found was in 1968). I have them sorted both by date of observation and date found; also a total by observer. No major controversies: two sources give different numbers by Lemonnier; the spelling of Lemonnier's name varies slighty depending on the source; and one of the astronomy magazines had an article about the hairbag story several years ago. CFLeon 21:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Since there hasn't been any objections to posting it, here's my list of prediscovery observations:
By date observed:
* 1690 Dec 23- John Flamsteed; catalogued as 34 Tauri  [J. E. Bode, 1785]  
* 1712 Apr 2- John Flamsteed  [J. K. Burckhardt]   [2 times in 1712?- 2nd may be typo for 1715]
* 1714      - J. Flamsteed (perhaps actually F's ass, J. Crosthwaite)  [D. Rawlins, 1968]
* 1715 Mar 4- J. Flamsteed  [Burckhardt]
* 1715 Mar 5- J. Flamsteed  [Burckhardt]
* 1715 Mar 10- J. Flamsteed  [Burckhardt]
* 1715 Apr 29- J. Flamsteed  [Burckhardt]   [may be typo for 1712]
* 1748         James Bradley [1864]
* 1750         J. Bradley [1864]
* 1750 Oct 14- Pierre Charles Lemonnier
* 1750 Dec 3- P. C. Lemonnier  
* 1753 Dec 3- J. Bradley  [F. W. Bessel, 1810]
* 1756 Sep 26- Johann Tobias Mayer [Bode, 1781- 1st prediscovery found]          Aquarius
* 1764 Jan 15- P. C. Lemonnier
* 1768 Dec 27- P. C. Lemonnier 
* 1768 Dec 30- P. C. Lemonnier
* 1769 Jan 15- P. C. Lemonnier 
* 1769 Jan 16- P. C. Lemonnier
* 1769 Jan 20-23- P. C. Lemonnier (4 consecutive nights)
* 1771 Dec 18- P. C. Lemonnier
By date observation found:
* 1781- J. E. Bode:  1756, Mayer
* 1785 - Bode: 1690, Flamsteed
* 1788- Pierre Charles Lemonnier found 9 of his observations; publishes only the 3 earliest (1764 & 1768 (2x)); 
* 1810 (1813?)- F. W. Bessel:  1753, Bradley
* (by 1820)- Burckhardt finds 2 by Flamsteed (1712, 1715 Apr 29)
* 1818 (published)- Alexis Bouvard finds 3 new Lemonnier sightings; publishes ALL 12, claiming most (9) as his own findings, including the 4 on consecutive nights.  [The dates given for Bouvard's work vary: Ley implies c 1808, the date of his first tables on Jupiter and Saturn: Rawlins says 1818; Grossner gives 1820. The 1820 date seems to be a confusion with that of B's updated tables.]    
* sometime after 1820- Burckhardt finds 3 more by Flamsteed in Mar, 1715
* 1864-   ??   :  1748 & 1750, Bradley
* 1968- D. Rawlins:  1714, Flamsteed
Running Total:
* Lemonnier (or LeMonnier): 12 
* Flamsteed: 7
* Bradley: 3
* Meyer: 1
* Total: 23 
Sources: 
*Grossner, Morton; The Discovery of Neptune (1962)
*Hoyt, William Graves; Planets X and Pluto (1980)
*Ley, Wiley; Watchers of the Skies
*Littmann, Mark; Planets Beyond (1988)
*Rawlins, Dennis; "The Unslandering of Sloppy Pierre" Astronomy Sep, 1981, pgs 24-8  (discredits the hair bag story)
*Standage, Tom: The Neptune File (2000)
*Tombaugh, Clyde (with Patrick Moore); Out of Darkness: The Planet Pluto (1980)
-This probably should be in tabular form, but I don't know to put it that way. CFLeon 21:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Cleaned up the list a bit and incorporated some newer information. CFLeon 00:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prediscovery observations 

message: What was it called while the british were calling it the Ge[o]rgian.
:Most of the rest of Europe (and America) called it 'Herschel'. BTW, please sign your posts with 4 tildes (~). CFLeon 21:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It actually was more complicated than that; France called it 'Herschel' for awhile, but Germany and most of the rest of Europe went with 'Uranus' almost as soon as it was proposed in 1782. It was 'Georgian' in Britain as late as 1850.CFLeon 01:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: A couple of cites are require early in the article(discovery & naming). I have tagged them with  . Gnangarra
The Discovery and naming section also needs to be copy edited, under the current lay out the size of the paragraphs makes this part a hard slog to read.  Suggest that the comment in brackets where it mentions Lemonnier's observations, be made a seperate para. With another break around Finally, Bode Gnangarra 04:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: in the section on physical characteristics, the use of it appears speculated probably disputed now non-existant all need to clarified and cited. I know that actually measured facts aren't available on the planet but this part of the article needs to show who is making the speculations, who's disputing them. Gnangarra 05:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That line's mine. I was actually trying to re-establish balance with comments made by other authors condeming Lemonnier for missing the planet and then throwing in his personality or the discredited hairbag story. My major reference is the Rawlins article given above. CFLeon 21:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't that line just be removed, unless someone can find a reference?Cromdog 22:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Nomination - Issues 

message: Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune all had nice photos taken of them by the man made satelites that flew past them.  Why not Uranus?  They all look pretty bad, and in false color I heard. Malamockq 13:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main picture at the top of the article is real color.. it just really did look that bland and boring when Voyager 2 went by. --Patteroast 15:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is annoying is that Hubble has identified more interesting cloud formations in the last decade, indicative of Uranian atmospheric conditions changing between when the planet is "pole-on" to the sun, and when it is half-and-half; the half-and-half seems to be the far more interesting, but Voyager 2 caught it during the lull time. -- 75.2.6.115 04:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no good photos were taken of this planet? 

message: Why are there 2 different symbols? Which one is more common? I seem to see both. Which one is more official?--Sonjaaa 22:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two symbols?

message: According to the article at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/22/tech/main1159048.shtml : "Scientists also measured changes in the orbits of Uranus' inner moons since 1994. The new measurements suggest the moons are in a 'random and chaotic' fashion, said Jack Lissauer of the NASA Ames Research Center."  Any truth to the theory/story? -- Kheider 20:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death of a Moon? 

message: Title: URANUS
Author(s): BERGSTRALH JT
Source: REVIEWS OF GEOPHYSICS 25 (2): 251-259 MAR 1987 
Try to get it!--Stone 16:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects#Planet_infobox_conventions_.28km_vs._AU_vs._miles.29 on standardizing the planet infoboxes, as well as the possibility of changing the planet diameter to radius. If you care about these things, let your opinion be heard there. Lunokhod 10:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Somebody reset this page! It's been vandalized! I was going to lookup the Greek God and the planet, but someone put the stupid joke in!!! -- Stone 17:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh dear! You mean a Wikipedia article based on a planet who is the butt (literally) of hundreds of schoolyard jokes gets vandalized? No way! Stupid kids! --SpyMagician 05:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalized?! 

message: This page isn't vandalized more. Is the "your anus"/"urine us" joke finally old?
:Nah, there are always good jokes for it, example :There are smelly cold gas clouds on Uranus, classic
::Is there life in Uranus? How big is Uranus? What colour is Uranus? Has a man ever been in Uranus? ...etc. Good, clean family fun :) — Jack · talk · 16:28, Tuesday, 10 April 2007
:::The problem is that to six-year olds, the joke isn't old, and there will always be enough people turning six to keep this joke alive.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm surprised 

message: Is this page permanently protected? 132.205.44.134 22:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  protection 

message: Here's a few thoughts for further development of this article:
* The organization could be more consistent with the FA'd planet articles.
* How does the Uranus compare density-wise with the other planets?
* The role of Uranus in the discovery of Neptune should be described. (Measurement of Uranus' orbital perturbations, the role of John Couch Adams, &c.)[done] Serendipodous 23:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only source I've been able to locate which is unequivocal about this is Britannica Online, which presumably, is not a valid source. Serendipodous 18:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: Why is there a section called "Uranus in astrology"? If you use Jupiter (the only featured gas giant) as an example, astrology is just a link to the astrological article on it. I think that that section and several other references make this article is too astrology-leaning when this is supposed to be about the scientific (not pseudoscientific) view of the planet. — Pious7TalkContribs 00:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are absolutely right on this one, Pious7. I was bold and went ahead and removed it. Pseudoscience is rightly marginalized because of the WP:WEIGHT policy of Wikipedia. --ScienceApologist 20:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The other planets have links to their respective sections in the Planets in astrology article, and I think that it makes sense that Uranus have one too; but no, it definitely should not be mentioned in the article. Serendipodous 19:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astrology 

message: The article says:
:"...the other planets (from Mercury out to Saturn) have been known since ancient times, since they are visible to the naked eye."
(implying that Uranus is not visible to the naked eye), and then later:
:"...under dark sky conditions it can be seen with the naked eye as a faint star."
Ideally this needs fixing. Matt 01:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: I had to read this several times:
:"The record belongs to a French astronomer, Pierre Lemonnier, who observed Uranus at least twelve times between 1750 and 1769, including on four consecutive nights. (Lemonnier is often called careless or even "sloppy" for this, but it is important to know that he realized 9 of these within a short time of Herschel's discovery and most of his observations occurred at the stationary point in Uranus' orbit.)"
The missing information – presumably the reason why he has been called "careless" or "sloppy" – seems to be that he observed Uranus twelve times without realising it was a planet. That needs stating. It's also not at all clear what "he realized 9 of these within a short time of Herschel's discovery" means. "Realized" as in "executed"? Realized that his earlier observations were the same object later identified as Uranus? Matt 19:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another slightly confusing paragraph 

message: How do we improve this article so it meets the criteria for good article status again? I'd like to see this big blue world (and Neptune as well) recieve GA status.  RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 16:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article Status 

message: I'm a first time contributor so I'm not sure if my method of adding my two cents is right or not so just let me know if it isn't. But this article doesn't contain simple data such as length of orbit around the sun and length of rotation on its axis. This information is readily available in the articles about the other planets and should be in this one.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.68.109 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 14 May 2007
:This is exactly what the talk pages are for, so don't worry! Adding your comments to the bottom of the talk page with a header makes them easier to find, though- use the "+" tab at the top of a talk page to have the software do that automatically for you. As to your thoughts about the article; while the information you mention is clearly marked in the infobox at the right side of the article, you have a point in that it's not mentioned in the body of the article itself. Perhaps it should be. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 06:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing data

message: Why doesn't the infobox's "mean density" figure match the infobox's mass divided by the infobox's volume? 8.6832x1025 kg / 6.834x1013km3 equals 1.2706 g/cm3, not 1.318. Is this some kind of typo? The mass figure is likely to include the atmosphere, while volume and mean density would be meaningless for the atmosphere because there is no defined upper limit, but adjusting the mass downward makes the mean density go below 1.2706, not above. NASA's Uranus Fact Sheet says 1.270, although most of the other numbers don't match, even where both figures are for 2000 - presumably because the infobox's unnamed sources were different. However, one would expect the infobox's density figure to use the same assumptions as the infobox's own mass and volume figures. Art LaPella 06:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mean density

message: that this article is still not GA class, when Neptune, which is far less organised and well-sourced, is. Serendipodous 08:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Seems odd to me

message: This article has been vandalised!! If you block all the text you can see there are way too many spaces in the article (sometimes dozens after each other), can someone get them out please? 129.125.165.88 12:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to contact the person who protected the page from editing, but even his discussion page is protected, how am I supposed to discuss then. 129.125.165.88 12:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see where you see the vandalism, and I don't understand what it means to "block all the text". Could you please explain? I'm sorry about this page being protected against IP-edits, but mainly due to the planet's name, this article is being vandalized so often that we have to keep it semi protected for most of the time. But if you sign up an account (it's free, you'll be even more anonumous if you do, you don't even have to enter any e-mail address), you'll be able to edit this and every other semiprotected page on Wikipedia within 4 days. But if you could explain where you see the vandalism you're refering to, I'll fix it right away myself now. Shanes 12:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a screenshot of what I mean. As you can see there are way too many spaces, making the article bigger then it should be. I can't believe this is done by accident, but maybe I'm wrong. Nevertheless I think those spaces need to be removed. 129.125.165.88 13:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (This is also seen on the User talk:MartinBot page. I tried to get them away but I messed up, can someone else do that one properly also? 129.125.165.88 13:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The blank line is to show a paragraph in the article: the MediaWiki software ignores a single carrige return. Thanks for your concern though. Soaringgoldeneagle 08:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Per the new resolution at Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria, the Solar System featured topic will be eligible for removal after 1 January 2008 if Uranus is not improved to GA or FA level.  Thanks.--Pharos 03:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is somewhat ridiculous that Uranus is the only solar system article that is not GA or FA. Probably due to the constant vandalism. Soaringgoldeneagle 15:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know why it isn't already; it's as good as any GA on the list. Serendipodous 13:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then nominate it and fix any minimal problems if it doesn't make it. — Pious7 13:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll keep it in. Neptune and Pluto already have their own versions of that line, and if I get rid of this one I'd have to get rid of theirs too, which will bring on the Indian Brigade. I'm too tired to deal with them. Serendipodous 17:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Err... I wasn't aware this would cause a diplomatic crisis. All I can suggest then is to move that sentence onto this talk page, in a separate section, and request a reference so it can be put back. That'll at least temporarily resolve the issue in terms of getting the page up to GA. (That approach has worked for me in the past.) — RJH (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a problem not only for this page, then. The material first appeared on Wikipedia in Voyager 2 and I split off huge parts of that page for Exploration of Uranus. I then used a summary of that page to expand the exploration section of Uranus. All the involved pages need to be fixed, not just Uranus#Exploration. I can assume that more of Voyager 2 than just the second on Uranus was plagiarized. — Pious7 17:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be so, but our priority right now should be saving the solar system topic from being deleted. Once a better draft of the exploration section is written, it can be exported to the other articles. Serendipodous 17:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded and broken up the exploration section, so it shouldn't be much of a problem now. Still I would appreciate an examination of all the paragraphs marked with citation 42 just to be sure I haven't missed anything. Serendipodous 09:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That site works for Jupiter because Jupiter has a 12-year orbit, but Uranus's orbit is seven times longer. I think I'll need an ephemeris that gives absolute values for its apparent magnitude at any point in its orbit. Serendipodous 07:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Screw it. I'll stick to the one thing I can verify and delete the entire bloody section. EDIT: found a good source. Redrafting section. Serendipodous 16:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured topic deadline 

message: I've added two new paragraphs and 12 new citations, but before I can submit it for GA consideration there are a number of issues that still need to be resolved:
*The historically incorrect pronunciation [ jʊˈɹeɪ.nəs ], with stress on the second syllable and a "long a" (ūrānŭs) have become very common, however, perhaps through the influence of the related adjective "Uranian" (always pronounced [ jʊˈɹeɪ.ni.ən ] or the similarly-pronounced name of the element uranium, or from a mischievous delight in homophony. This sentence could be unsourcable: leave it in or take it out?
*in India it is named Aruna (Devanāgarī अरुण), the charioteer of the sun god Surya in Hindu mythology. Can't find a good online source for this. Any thoughts?
*:I'm not sure that the article should necessarily need to carry the modern non-English-language names of discovered planets. They're often difficult to reference and the name is already covered by the links in the "In other languages" table along the left-hand column. Any connection to ancient mythology is surely of no consequence in this instance. Just my opinion, of course. — RJH (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll keep it in. Neptune and Pluto already have their own versions of that line, and if I get rid of this one I'd have to get rid of theirs too, which will bring on the Indian Brigade. I'm too tired to deal with them. Serendipodous 17:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Err... I wasn't aware this would cause a diplomatic crisis. All I can suggest then is to move that sentence onto this talk page, in a separate section, and request a reference so it can be put back. That'll at least temporarily resolve the issue in terms of getting the page up to GA. (That approach has worked for me in the past.) — RJH (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a problem not only for this page, then. The material first appeared on Wikipedia in Voyager 2 and I split off huge parts of that page for Exploration of Uranus. I then used a summary of that page to expand the exploration section of Uranus. All the involved pages need to be fixed, not just Uranus#Exploration. I can assume that more of Voyager 2 than just the second on Uranus was plagiarized. — Pious7 17:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be so, but our priority right now should be saving the solar system topic from being deleted. Once a better draft of the exploration section is written, it can be exported to the other articles. Serendipodous 17:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded and broken up the exploration section, so it shouldn't be much of a problem now. Still I would appreciate an examination of all the paragraphs marked with citation 42 just to be sure I haven't missed anything. Serendipodous 09:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That site works for Jupiter because Jupiter has a 12-year orbit, but Uranus's orbit is seven times longer. I think I'll need an ephemeris that gives absolute values for its apparent magnitude at any point in its orbit. Serendipodous 07:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Screw it. I'll stick to the one thing I can verify and delete the entire bloody section. EDIT: found a good source. Redrafting section. Serendipodous 16:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: OK

message: until it can be properly sourced
:while in India it is named Aruna (Devanāgarī अरुण), the charioteer of the sun god Surya in Hindu mythology.
Does anyone know how to contact any of the various Indian language Wikipedias to see if we can get this (not to mention similar lines in Neptune and Pluto) sourced? 
Serendipodous 00:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is stating the obvious, but of course ancient Indians wouldn't have known anything about Uranus, and any name from Hindu mythology would be of quite recent origin.--Pharos 22:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yeah but the ancient Greeks didn't know about Uranus either. Serendipodous 11:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it's an English-language, the Greek mythology is relevant because of the etymology of the planet's name in English. For foreign-language names to be included, it's probably necessary that a reference be included. — RJH (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could always use http://nineplanets.org/days.html as a reference. It has the names of the planets in various languages. Doesn't seem to have Indian though... Dazcha 23:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved Hindi comment here

message: I found only three of them and they are not formated propely. I think it's important not to forget that they are the most reliable. They are also primary sources in a sense that all other references are ultimately based on them. Ruslik 08:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've got my hands full with Kuiper belt at the moment. Could you do it? Serendipodous 13:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm going to add ~20 of them in a few days. Ruslik 13:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer reviewed sources

message: Should the article contain some discussion about whether the rotation of Uranus is direct/prograde with a tilt of ~98 degrees or retrograde with a ~82 degree tilt, and perhaps how that would relate to the ambiguity about which pole is North?  Contrast with Venus, which everyone agrees has retrograde rotation, not a 180 degree tilt. 76.5.27.25 21:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does, right below the solstice table. Serendipodous 05:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direct vs. Retrograde 

message: The article says:
:"Although ... Uranus is visible to the naked eye ...its small angular diameter (between 3.4 and 3.7 arcseconds, compared with between roughly 16-20 arcseconds for Saturn and 32 and 45 arcseconds for Jupiter) and slow motion across the sky meant that it was never recognised as a planet by ancient observers."
This implies that the five classical planets were recognised as planets at least partly because a visible disk was noticed. Is this really true? I would have thought brightness and motion relative to the stars were the only necessary criteria. Putting it another way, if Uranus were somehow much brighter and moved much faster, while retaining the same apparent size, then it would have been recognised as a planet in ancient times along with the others, wouldn't it? Matt 19:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to recall reading somewhere that the planets twinkle less than the stars because they have a disk, rather than being essentially a point source. In terms of resolving a disk, however, the classical test of excellent vision was to resolve the Mizar/Alcor pair. These are separated by 12 arc-minutes. By comparison, Jupiter has a maximum disk of about 47 arc-seconds. — RJH (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recognition of Uranus as a planet 

message: Lalande's proposed name of Herschel was readily adopted by French astronomers. Prosperin, of Uppsala, proposed the names Astraea, Cybele, (now the names of asteroids) and Neptune (which would become the name of the next planet to be discovered). Lexell, of St. Petersburg, compromised with George III's Neptune and Great-Britain's Neptune. Bernoulli, from Berlin, suggested Hypercronius and Transaturnis. Lichtenberg, from Göttingen, chimed in with Austräa, a goddess mentioned by Ovid (but who is traditionally associated with Virgo). The name Minerva was also proposed.
This sentence too is uncited:
Examination of earliest issues of Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society from 1827 shows that the name Uranus was already the most common name used even by British astronomers by then, and probably earlier. 
and the Indian comment still has no source:
while in India it is named Aruna (Devanāgarī अरुण), the charioteer of the sun god Surya in Hindu mythology
A lot of interesting material, but where did it come from? If anyone can come up with proper citations for this info, I'd appreciate it. Serendipodous 15:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This entire paragraph is uncited

message: This info is partially cited, but its source  doesn't back up its claims:  
The name Uranus was in use in Germany at least as far back as 1791, however. 
Maximilian Hell followed suit by using it in the first ephemeris, published in Vienna and computed by the Benedictine priest Placidus Fixlmillner.
About the only concrete information in that page is that Placidus Fixliliner was the first to calculate an ephemeris for Uranus, though it doesn't say when. 
EDIT: OK. Found this page in Google translation that sets a date of 1787. Will replace the 1792 date unless someone can show that Fixliliner was wrong.  Serendipodous 17:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fixlmillner

message: OK, I may need to backtrack a bit from my comment in the history. Uranus's astronomical symbol does appear to be an alchemical symbol for platinum, but in 70 Google hits I have found only two references to it as such, and both place it next to its more common symbol. Neither was particularly illuminating, and neither said where their sources came from (they could have got their info from here, after all) so I think it's best for now to leave it out until a definitive source can be located. Serendipodous 11:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: alchemy

message: One proposed explanation for this dearth of cloud features is that Uranus's internal heat is lower than that of Jupiter and Saturn; in astronomical terms, it has a low thermal flux. Both Jupiter and Saturn radiate more energy than they receive from the Sun. This causes many powerful convection currents to form in the atmosphere. On Uranus that heat source is much lower; roughly 7000 K compared to 24 000 K at Jupiter's core and 12000 K at Saturn. The convection currents formed in the Uranian atmosphere are not as strong and hence it lacks the atmosphere banding of the other gas giants.
This paragraph seems to contradict the rest of the section. If no one is entirely sure why Uranus's heat emissions are so low (whether it be due to a genuinely cold core or to some form of insulation), I'm not sure how one could arrive at a single authoritative figure for Uranus's core temperature. Serendipodous 16:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Core temp

message: As I know Keck observatory is strictly speeking not a part of NASA, therefore the copyright tag claiming otherwise is wrong and should changed to smth more appropriate. Ruslik 09:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they aren't NASA, then they aren't public, so they'd have to be taken down. If there's another option, I'd take it. Serendipodous 09:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  They are public. Please, visit . However credits are different. Ruslik 10:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I probably erred here so I replaced the image. Ruslik 12:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Keck images

message: Ruslik, are you sure that Uranus's core is only 0.55 Earth masses? That seems remarkably low. Serendipodous 11:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Radius of the core is less than 1/5 of the planet, therefore volume is less than 1/125. Density of the core is 6 times higher than the average density. So the mass is normal and both refs 41 and 43 agree on this model. Ruslik 12:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Core mass

message: We need to make sure which is the standard plural to use for that unit. Serendipodous 11:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think 'bar' is correct form. Ruslik 07:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: bar/bars

message: Serendipodous, I think the apropriate place for this paragraph is a climate section, and I did not delete it yesterday but moved. Today I noticed that you reinstated it in the 'Seasonal variation' subsection. So I deleted its duplicate from the climate section. However I continue to think that it should be moved to climate section. Ruslik 07:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, didn't notice it there. But I think it belongs in seasonal variation, first because the picture in "seasonal variation" relates to it directly and second, because it is about climactic change with the seasons, whereas the "climate" section is more general. Serendipodous 08:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Fourth of July fireworks"

message: What compound do they represent? Serendipodous 11:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't correspond to exactly any compound. They simply chose two filters: one centered at 550 nm (y or yellow) and the second centered at 470 nm (b or blue). Both have width around 30 nm. However the yellow filter includes a part of the methane absorption band at 543 nm. Ruslik 12:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Which two spectral bands?

message: I have just finished expanding the article. So now the main problem is copy-edit and figures. I will probably add a couple of graphs. In addition some images can be removed. For example, one of two HST images showing rings and bands. Ruslik 10:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: End of major expansion

message: do uranus's moons orbit uranus the way uranus rotates or not?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.206.77.234 (talk) 20:32, August 20, 2007 (UTC) 
:All the large moons in the Solar System rotate prograde, except Triton. Serendipodous 08:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This question is answered in the infoboxes: if orbital inclinations are less than 90° (actually close to zero for inner moons), the satellites orbits are prograde. Ruslik 13:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  moons orbits 

message: that this page was semi-protected to stop the jokes, and now that the protection has been removed, the jokes have come back. So we need to come to some sort of agreement as to whether we want to spend the rest of eternity reverting the jokes, or whether we should re-instate semi-protection. Serendipodous 10:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why was it removed? Looks like asking for trouble. Didn't take them long to start up the, let's call them "jokes", again. It should be re-semi-protected. Deuar 22:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I just want to remind everyone

message: I think the first paragraph in 'Physical characteristics' section should be deleted or moved into 'Exploration' section. It actually provides a short summary of exploration. Ruslik 13:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted it. It just repeats the info in the exploration section. I also deleted the added paragraphs to exploration; they don't actually refer to exploration, and simply repeats information found elsewhere in the article. Serendipodous 18:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About one paragraph 

message: I have restored, with some distaste, the arguably spurious quantities like semiminor axis, spurious conversions to imperial units, and pecuiliar spacing of digits to the orbital quantities in the infobox. If this were an isolated article I would gleefully agree with their removal, but removing them and changing the formatting breaks consistency with the infoboxes for the rest of the planets. Imho, keeping consistency and easy comparability between them is a more important issue. If we want to let's bring it up on : Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects, and/or do it for all the planets in one fell swoop. Deuar 22:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox parameters format 

message: The pronunciation is given as "your anus".
Ask any astronomer, and they will tell you the planet's name is "YOOR-e-nes".  Hell, even the Discovery Channel gets it right!
Promoting the "your anus" joke in no way discourages further jokes.
August 27, 2007  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.197.117.47 (talk) 16:37, August 27, 2007 (UTC) 
:I agree that that is how it should be pronounced, but the alternate pronunciation has become so common that it can't really be discounted anymore. Besides, "YOOR-uh-nus" sounds like "urine-ous", which isn't much better. Serendipodous 16:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both pronunciations have been in use for a long time. Both are listed in the OED, which was published in, what, 1910? So it isn't even a matter of it being discounted 'any more'. kwami 05:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper Pronunciation is no Joke 

message: *In orbit and rotation we had:
::Its orbital elements were calculated in 1783 by Pierre-Simon Laplace and its orbit was calculated in 1787 by Placidus Fixlmillner.
:However, calculating the orbital elements is exactly the same as calculating "the orbit". What's special about the work of Fixlmillner in comparison to the umpteen other orbit calculations since Laplace? The references are of no immediate help, since the first has only the preface online (which doesn't reach the 1700's), while the second is in german. Deuar 17:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixlmillner doesn't really need to be there, I suppose; the only thing special about him was that he calculated the orbit used in Uranus's first ephemeris, published by Maximillian Hell. Unfortunately, I can't find any citable info that describes Maximillian Hell as the man who came up with Uranus's first ephemeris, so it's better if he's left out. I'll try and rework the link to Forbes's History so that it links to the right chapter. EDIT: OK, it links directly to it now. Serendipodous 17:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It is not known. However I can observe that under the pressure of 8 million bar it is difficult to speek about any solid surface. Ruslik 13:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Presumably because the saturation point is lowered and the excess freezes out and falls as snow? Is this right? Deuar 12:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is right. This explanaition is given in 'Atmosphere/Structure' subsection.Ruslik 13:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed 

message: Seeing the reverted anus jokes is getting tedious. Serendipodous 18:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: can someone please semi-protect this article again?

message: I think the Atmosphere section is detailed enough to become its own article. I'm not sure an article on Uranus needs to go into so much detail. Serendipodous 17:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds right. Most of the other major sections have their own articles, and the page is getting kind-of long. Deuar 18:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: In fact, it is not so long as it could be. I omitted lots of details. I think it is better to keep it in the main article for now. Ruslik 19:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: However a separate article can be created with possible future expansion in mind. Ruslik 19:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I don't think anything below "composition" is really needed for the atmosphere in this article. The rest could easily form a separate article that could link here. But I'm not entirely sure what the conventions are for dealing with planets. All I know is thatno other planetary article has as much information as this, and, besides Neptune, they're all featured. Serendipodous 20:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure there is any convention. Other article lack this information, because it is harder to find. I, personally, was dissatisfied by the lack of information regarding the structure of atmospheres, which made me eventually write about it myself. However, I want to note, the article about Earth contains structural information in the main text, and by writing about Uranus I wanted to extend this standard to all planetary articles.Ruslik 15:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Created subarticle. Also had an attempt at a shorter atmosphere subsection. Let me know what you think: Talk:Uranus/atmosphere Serendipodous 14:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will read it. Ruslik 15:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  I have read it. You do like composition more than structure. However the last paragraph hangs in the air. It mentions tropopause and stratosphere without explaining their meaning in the case of Uranus. It also mentions acetylene and ethane without providing information about their origin and mixing ratios. In addition the first paragraph mentions 'coronal gases' without defining corona. Besides some content further in the article is anchored to the atmospheric section.Ruslik 15:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I modelled it on the other featured articles. (see Saturn#Cloud layers, Venus#Atmosphere, Mars#Atmosphere). I don't think we need to go into such detail on the finer structure of the atmosphere in an introductory article. Such information is better off in a separate article on the atmosphere. Serendipodous 16:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I actually made some changes in the atmospheric section and removed one figure, because it was too technical. This figure is now in the Atmosphere of Uranus. As to the text you wrote I think it can (with some corrections) serve as a leading section in this article. Ruslik 16:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Atmosphere of Uranus]]

message: A question probably for Ruslik, who looks to be well versed in this: in the abstract of Lindal 1987 one has the following statement: "... also to contain small amounts of CH4 at ... below-cloud mixing ratio 2.3 percent by number density." Does mixing ratio always compare to hydrogen, or could it be in proportion to the rest of the atmosphere? The journal is not online :( Deuar 23:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The value for helium (0.15) is a molar fraction in pure H-He mixture. In other words, assuming that only H and He are present every 100 moleculars of gas contain 85 hydrogen moleculars and 15 helium. The mixing ration for helium relative to hydrogen is 15/85≈0.18. As I noticed molar fraction is usually used for helium and mixing rations relative to hydrogen for other gases. I can't remember what Lindal et.al meant for methane, but I can look into a hard copy of this article tomorrow. Assuming that 2.3 is mixing ratio and adding this ammount to the mixture leads to an adjustment of molar fractions of H and He. Roughly they should be decreased by 2 %. So for hydrogen we have 83.3≈83 and for helium 14.7≈15. Ruslik 06:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I looked into Lindal et.al and found that 2.3 % is actually a molar fraction, not mixing ratio relative to hydrogen. The phrase in the abstract is inaccurate. Ruslik 19:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for looking it up. I'll fix the values in the infobox and text. Deuar 22:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  mixing ratio 

message: The Climate section appears to contain much material that looks like it could just as well be in the "Atmosphere" section - discussion of global clouds, temperatures, energy balance even (this should go in the "internal structure" section, perhaps). It seems a bit messy at first glance, especially considering Rings and Magnetosphere intervenes between the two sections. Was there a rationale according to which one sort of information made it into Atmosphere and others into Climate? Deuar 21:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the atmosphere section discusses its composition and structure, the "Climate" section deals with dynamics, heat transfer, and movement. They could possibly be merged, but then the atmosphere section would balloon again. I think maybe a single paragraph on the blandness of the atmosphere and a single paragraph on the seasonal variation might be sufficient, with the rest going into the atmosphere article. However, I think that if it is included, the atmosphere section should be trimmed even more, since it is already three sections long. I still think that cloud features/seasonal variation are more important than structure, and that if we do merge the two sections, then the structure should go. I'll do a revision, and you tell me what you think. 
Talk:Uranus/climate subpage 
(I've also copied the Climate section into the atmosphere article)
I really don't think that detailed discussion of the structure is necessary with the Atmosphere of Uranus article now dealing with that. This article mentions that Uranus's atmosphere consists of a troposphere, a stratosphere and a thermosphere and where they are, and that's all it needs to do. The atmosphere article can do the rest. Serendipodous 05:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Be cautious with references. Ruslik 12:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, actually I don't really see the need to trim the atmosphere section any more in comparison to what is in the main article. For instance we have the article going on and on for pages about all the minor details of discovery and naming, and that isn't seen as a problem. After all the atmosphere and clouds account for most of what can be seen on Uranus, and for all the changes that can be seen during a human lifetime. Maybe they deserve a fair amount of treatment. Moving the old "climate" into "atmosphere" and shortening of that section is good, though. For the present length of that section we should, however, mention the South polar hood somewhere. The heat transfer discussion doesn't really seem to fit here either - maybe it should go into "Structure and composition"?  Deuar 22:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really know what to do. I don't like the current format, which was mandated by GA reviewers because it matched the format of other featured planet articles. I don't see why "atmosphere", "magnetic field," and "structure and composition" have to all be subsections, especially when the atmosphere section is so huge. That's why I split off the climate section; to avoid the Characteristics section becoming an atmosphere section with bits dangling off it. Serendipodous 07:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think the best solution is to finish copy-edit and go to FAC. If somebody opposes on the basis of the length of a section or because there is a separate climate section, it is always possible to trim and to merge. Triming is much easier than lengthening. However, as I noticed opposition is more likely to be based on commas, dashes etc. Ruslik 17:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atmosphere and Climate 

message: "The name Georgium Sidus or "the Georgian" was still used infrequently"
Is it?  I have never heard it called this.  Unless someone can come up with a reference this should be removed.
Mtpaley (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've revised the phrasing to make it clearer. Serendipodous 23:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: Article says the moon names were taken from Shakespeare & Alexander Pope -- incorrect. These names as listed were indeed present in Midsummer Night, but they're names from the Fairy Queen "universe" of fables, which predate Shakespeare. It should say the names come from Medieval fairy romances.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.118.190 (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That could be said about the large moons, but not about the smaller moons, which are drawn exclusively from Shakespeare. Serendipodous 02:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the Moon Names 

message: I can't get this page to archive. The current archiving system makes no sense. How is it done? Serendipodous 01:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving