Talk:Uranus/Archive 2

message: I propose to nominate Uranus to be the article of the day on December 7 2007—the date of equinox. Ruslik 14:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uranus on the main page 

message: Why does this appear in Physical characteristics - Mass: "GM=5,793,939 ± 13 km³/s²"? kandrey89 23:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I recall, it is because the value for G is not known very precisely, while the value for GM can be known very well. Since G and M always appear together in the realavent equations, there is no real need to pull them apart. 128.6.227.175 21:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does the gravitational parameter doing in Mass? 

message: Hello, in the introduction, there is written:
"It is the coldest planetary atmosphere in the Solar System,..."
Should that mean, the atmosphere is colder than on Neptun (20 AU compared to 30 AU after all, although the internal heat source is missing).
For what I read, Neptuns temperature on the atmosphere ist about -200 °C (1 Bar) and -220 °C (0.1 bar). And for Uranus, I read similar values. Is there a source, which cite this concise, that the atmosphere on Uranus is distinctive colder than on neptunes? regards, --FrancescoA 16:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ref [10] (Fig.6) shows that the lowest temperature in the tropopause of Uranus is ~49 K, which is lower than the same value for Neptune. Ruslik 18:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! This download is huge, so I didn't download this pdf. --FrancescoA 08:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coldest Atmosphere? 

message: but I haven't a clue how to do it. Can anyone tell me? Serendipodous 16:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, it was me. I'm not sure whether I confused you with Ruslik0. I don't want to force you of course. It was my bid, so I should have to do that. But it is not so urgent anyway, because my newly tranlated article (from the englisch WP, which is fantastic (so detailed and good), and from what I saw you and Ruslik0 made the bulk contributions, if I am not mistaken) , that I decided to try to translate the whole article), is (still not) accepted to be put it into the article area, because I made it in first line for myself without making a discussion before. I in the meantime saved the pictures and stored them for the time being onto the upload page on the german page.--FrancescoA 23:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you want you can use them in the german version or you can download them to wikicommons. Unfortunatly I don't have time right now to do this myself.Ruslik 08:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you, I will do this, when I finally really need them. --FrancescoA 16:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've been asked to upload the Uranus images onto the Commons 

message: well, some people really need lives. Vandalizing poor defenceless pages...T.T 
 Well, I've been here for five minutes and the page has been vandalised about twenty times.—Preceding unsigned comment added by RegaL the Proofreader (talk • contribs) 17:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor page 

message: Under the Uranus page, I had noticed that one person has humorously edited all the 'Uranus"s to say 'Your Anus'. While I do not agree with what said editor has done, I do believe that you should have a side note addressing the fact that 'Uranus' is phonetically pronounced 'Your Anus'. Furthermore, I believe that it is culturally relevant and is therefore deemed worthy of a spot on this page. If I may:
"Comically, when spelled phonetically, Uranus is pronounced 'Your Anus'. For example, a science teacher may ask, "What are the characteristics of Uranus?" In which a student, class clown if you will, may reply, "Hairy." "
Just think about it.
Jared H  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.66.50 (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under Miscellaneous 

message: Dude, this article is getting vandal'd every 2 minutes. Can someone lock this article from edits? --199.227.86.10 (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've semi-protected it for now, as the vandalism is heavy, even for a featured article, but be aware that another administrator may unprotect it again. Acalamari 18:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock This Article 

message: "Uranus' atmosphere, while still composed primarily of hydrogen and helium, ..." 
After reading the article more closely, and allowing for others' usage differences, I know what it means, but my first thought was, "What was its composition way back when it was discovered?" 
Tim1977 (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I rephrased it a bit. Is it clearer now, do you think? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 19:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion on Main page condensed version 

message: It says in the introduction that:
"It is the coldest planetary atmosphere in the Solar System, with a minimum temperature of 49 K (−224 °C, -371 °F), and has a complex layered cloud structure, in which water is thought to make up the lowest clouds, while methane makes up the uppermost layer of clouds.[10]"
This statement is misleading and may possibly incorrectly paraphrase the cited reference by summarizing too many details into one sentence. For water to make up the lowest clouds, a word or two about the corresponding atmospheric conditions (temperature and pressure) that the clouds of water face would be well spent. Particularly, since it is stated that (at least certain parts of) the atmoshpere is (are) relatively cold with just above 49K, and elsewhere it is stated that wind speeds are 250 m/s, poses the questions what keeps the most likely water-based ice/snow from forming a hard core or ice shelfs? Alternatively the temperature of the water clouds could simply be much higher then the reader might be led to believe. Yet another option is that the extreme wind speeds prohibit the formation of ice shelfs.
Lastly, why is solar system capitalized into "Solar System"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.103.18 (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partly confusing introduction 

message: (There is a fault somewhere in the archiving process, so the threads are out of sequence. I've moved content from here dated June 2008 to March 2009 to a new page archive 6 and I'll try and fix the fault. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: (Archive)

message: Infrared photographs of Uranus taken in 1994-2003 (Fig. a, b, c). During these nine years the Uranus has moved for about 38,5° on its orbit (the planet’s year equals 84.014 Earth’s year). We can see the same change of about 38,5° in direction of orientation (in relation to HST) of warmer zone of Uranus’ atmosphere axis and the orbit’s plane of its satellites and rings. The warmer zone of Uranus’ atmosphere clearly turns away from the Sun together with the planet’s rotation axis and the plane of satellites’ orbits. It is an unquestionable proof for that the Sun cannot be the reason of this irregular distribution of temperature in the upper layers of the Uranus’ atmosphere. If it was the Sun that warmed the planet so irregularly, then the warmer zone would always be turned towards the Sun. In the photographs taken by HST we can see a clear correlation of this warmer zone of atmosphere with the plane of equator and the orbit’s plane of Uranus’ satellites. The only logical explanation of such irregular distribution of temperature in the atmosphere of Uranus can only be the big asymmetry of its hot interior. That is why a conclusion appears that the 'false colors' picture of Uranus (Fig. e) sent to the Earth in 1986 by Voyager2 shows the position of hot inner core of this planet, not a layer of 'smog' warmed by the Sun as it was misinterpreted by the members of JPL-NASA Imaging-team in Pasadena.
Tadeusz Tumalski (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources? Serendipodous 07:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

text: In other words, original research. Serendipodous 13:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inner Asymmetry of Uranus by Photos from Voyager2 and HST 

message: We have a diagram of Uranus Dark Spot, but can we include this somewhere in the article? The dark spot might seem like a storm. Actually Uranus globe I thoguht to seem baby blue possibly baby green sometimes in true color. Dark Spot might even be more inactive than Great White Spot of Saturn's, appears twice as long as the do on Saturn. Uranus Dark Spot appear in 1993, maybe next time is 2020s.--Freewayguy What's up? 23:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uranus Dark Spot 

message: Uranus is bigger then pluto  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.53.133.111 (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, how do you cite something like that? Serendipodous 17:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: References in popular culture? Maybe if a list was made on the discussion page it could be transferred to the article when it gets long enough  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.172.182 (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been looking for reliable sources, and I can't find any as yet. Serendipodous 20:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I doubt you'll find any sources explaining the humourous potential in pronouncing Uranus' name as "your anus", but you might make a list of films/games/cartoons/whatever where this gag is made. The only one I can remember off the top of my head is in Futurama, where the professor explains the planet had been renamed in order to put a stop to all the stupid jokes (it had been renamed to "Urectum"). 151.68.5.224 (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a list would probably be tagged for citation or notability. Serendipodous 11:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I agree with that logic. In English, "Uranus" can be read as a cognate of "your anus" as mentioned above. But I absolutely agree that pop culture references ("Oh, we scientists got tired of that joke years ago and renamed the planet." "What's it called now?" "Urectum.") do not belong here. The absolute most I could see is a single, reliably sourced sentence in the pronunciation paragraph under "Nomenclature". But even that's a stretch for an encyclopedia. Thompsontough (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comical name 

message: I’ve removed this (Where does this come from? I don’t remember seeing it before):
"this is the standard Latinate pronunciation"
This may be the  preferred pronunciation for astronomers, but it’s neither literary (the spelling isn’t in question) nor Latinate.
Are we saying the Romans pronounced “u” as “you” or “yuh” and the “a” as “uh”?
Was unus said as Eunice, or canis as cunnis? Mars as Murs?
We don’t really know how the Romans said anything (until someone digs up some audio tapes) but we can guess, from words like urban, ursine umbellifer, or like Milano, Roma, Napoli.
That's "u" as "oo" or "uh", and "a" as "ah". 
So it’s a safe bet the Romans pronounced Uranus like the Greeks did (ouranos) especially as it was a loanword; which is pretty much like everyone in Europe says it except the Brits.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonraker12 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomenclature 

message: 69.14.239.216 (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why thank you. :-0) Not all that  sure that comment qualifies as a valid addition under Wiki rules, but hey, it's nice to be appreciated. Serendipodous 22:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  wow nice article 

message: From the beginning of the article:
[snip] It is named after the ancient Greek deity of the sky (Uranus,
), the father of Kronos (Saturn) and grandfather
of Zeus (Jupiter). [snip]
I have no idea why this is formatted as:
 [snip] It is named after the ancient Greek deity of the sky (Uranus, Οὐρανός), the father of Kronos (Saturn)
 and grandfather of Zeus (Jupiter). [snip] 
Perhaps it was the template inside the link that caused this to fail, but I don't know. Please follow this up. --Ernest lk lam (talk) 10:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: fixed. :-) Serendipodous 10:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: Folks, what is the meaning of this sentence (Internal structure section, paragraph 3) :
:However for the sake of convenience an oblate spheroid of revolution, where pressure equals 1 bar (100 kPa), is designated conditionally as a ‘surface’
Ayrenz (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've copyedited it. Let me know if it's clearer. Serendipodous 12:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning 

message: Is there any source for "Its astrological symbol is "? Since no one of William Herschel, Jérôme Lalande and Francisca Herschel mentioned in connection with the symbol is known for promoting astrology, I doubt that the proposed division " astronomical" and " astrological" is universally valid. The latter symbol seems to have been used in an astronomical context at least in the past and at least in English almanacs, see  (1912),  (1913) and  (1989). --80.129.107.55 (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbol 

message: The link in it takes to the edit window for that section of the article. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 13:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well. That was ... weird. Fixed, anyway. Thanks for spotting it. Serendipodous 13:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's going on with "Astronomy Cast: Uranus" reference? 

message: Seems like 82 would be more logical.CorvetteZ51 (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In Uranus' case, the north pole actually ends up being on the opposite side of the plane than most planets. Either that, or the inclination is 82 degrees and the rotation is retrograde. --Patteroast (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't North and South pole defined by rotation (I'm assuming you're not talking about magnetic pole right)?--99.237.222.73 (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  axial tilt, 98 degrees ? 

message: I remember when Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" first came on television.  Before that, everyone called this planet's name something that sounds like "your anus," and Sagan got really, really tired of that, as well as the snickering of 5th-9th graders, so at some point he started pronouncing it "urine us" instead (like that's better).  That caught on, and was the predominant pronunciation in America for many years, but recently the original pronunciation seems to be making a comeback.
That's all based on personal observations and recollections; I can't edit the article on the basis of those non-encyclopedic sources.  However, the fact that the pronunciation of this planet changed for a couple of decades or so is significant, and should be included if anyone can find suitable sources to back it up.  I have not found any, but if anyone else does, please add such a section to the article.  In as serious a tone as possible, of course, as befits an encyclopedia.  64.72.43.69 (talk) 13:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Urine us" as you put it, is the original pronunciation. Remember, when it was discovered in the 18th century most educated people could still speak Latin. "Your anus" is a newer variant that has caught on. Serendipodous 17:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it isn't. See below.Moonraker12 (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Change in Pronunciation Involving Carl Sagan 

message: I remember sometime in the 1980's (does anybody have a date) Uranus was in the news and this was the first time that I had heard the 'polite' pronunciation. This was picked up by the series Spitting Image who assumed (as did I) that newsreaders were being coy. They did a wonderful sketch about a new moon of Jupiter called "Boom-Holly" and spelt "bumhole".  The fact is that nobody ever tries to force a new pronunciation on uranium.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.141.94 (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would assume it was around 1986 when Voyager 2 had its flyby. As for uranium, elements often seem to have quite different pronunciations than the words they're derived from. Example: Americium, named after America. I've only heard it pronounced 'am-er-ISS-ee-um'. There's a tendency to shift the stress to right before -ium, so I don't think that's a really helpful argument. --Patteroast (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

text: (Speculation alert.)  Uranium was an important element and its pronunciation was well known.  Is it possible that this influenced the common pronunciation (with regard to the stress on the second syllable) of the name Uranus in many cultures?  Had they used Neptunium instead in making atomic bombs, perhaps people would be pronouncing that planet's name as "nep-TYOON" (or "nep-TOON") instead? WHPratt (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I've extended the OED reference to cite that the word arrived in English from the Greek via the Latin; this is a different argument and, as far as I can see, not in dispute. However, the OED rendering of the Latin as "Ūranus" may be relevant. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, in English we pronounce Greek Classical names with Latin stress placement. That's been the norm since at least Shakespeare's day. So stress assignment in English depends on vowel weight, and never on Greek stress, which is utterly irrelevant. The alpha in Ouranos is short, so the stress is on the first syllable. (Of course, many words are idiosyncratic, and the alt. pronunciation of Uranus is an example.) kwami (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, fair enough; if the OED gives the Latin as Ūranus I can live with that, I reckon, though I have to say I’m really surprised. But, that would still make the pronunciation ooh-rah-nus, or uh-rah-nus, which is still some way away from a Latin pedigree for yoo-rah-nus, and still leaves the statement “as in Latin” misleading. (And the comment, that the Greek stress is utterly irrelevant to pronouncing a Greek word in English, (if that's what it meant) speaks volumes (I’m reminded of HG Wells’ comment about   ploughing the Little-go). And I still think the whole section protests too much.Moonraker12 (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: (arbitrary break)

message: There is a fault somewhere in the archiving process, so the threads are out of sequence. I've moved content from archive 4 dated June 2008 to March 2009 to a new page (archive 6), to correct that; and I'll try and fix the fault. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done (I think); perhaps someone who knows about the automatic archiving function can check. Or we could disable it and do the archiving manually. Thoughts? Moonraker12 (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't think this is working properly, so I've disabled it. It's probably better to archive manually, say when threads are about 6 months old, or in half-year/one year clumps. I hope that's OK with everyone. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: I propose the stub-class article at 34 Tauri should be merged into this article and the page 34 Tauri turned into a redirect. Icalanise (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Serendipodous 07:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[34 Tauri]] 

message: A question I didn't find answered on this article (or on the Moons of Uranus article) is why the alignment of orbital plane of the planet's moons matches the axial tilt of the planet? Naively it would seem that a collisional event that knocked the planet on its side would leave the orbits of the moons (or the orbiting material) in the previous alignment.—RJH (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea of a collisional event is somewhat out of date. Uranus's axial tilt is now believed to have happened gradually as a result of gravitational interactions with Jupiter and Saturn. Serendipodous 06:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. Are you referring to this Brunini (2006) paper? If so, then note that the article has been retracted.—RJH (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

text: The answer is that satellites formed after the collision. This is discussed in this paper. I actually know the only other way an obliquity can be generated—interaction between the planet and its interplanetary disk as described here (for Jupiter). Ruslik_Zero 18:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you, that is interesting stuff. I noticed the Mousis (2004) paper makes no mention of any pre-existing disk, like the one that presumably formed the moons around the other gas giants.—RJH (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Since the article has been retracted, there is currently no sources for the claim that obliquity can arise purely from gravitational interactions with J. and S. Therefore this claim should be removed. Though there is another paper that advances a different collisionless model. Ruslik_Zero 17:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tilt of the moon's orbits 

message: I don't know much about wiki code, so I'll probably screw it up more if I try to fix it, but half way down the quote's formatting is all screwy. Just letting you guys know! 116.212.212.41 (talk) 04:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Screwy in what sense? (It is fine on my PC) Materialscientist (talk) 04:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote halfway done runs over top of the picture of Herschel. 134.7.248.131 (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Try now. Materialscientist (talk) 03:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That works, thank you =) 116.212.212.41 (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A little blimp 

message: No sooner is the protection icon removed from this page then, whaddya know, the jokes come back. Personally I can't understand why it keeps getting unprotected. If there is any article on Wikipedia that deserves permanent semi-protection, surely this would be it? Serendipodous 18:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  And so it begins... again. 

message: I am very interested about uranus is there more information about it more pictures Alertfiend (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the JPL? VQuakr (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are a few links: JPL Photojournal, NSSDC Photogallery, NASA Images, Palomar Observatory. Try to keep these types of requests to a minimum however. The discussion pages are generally intended for discussing contributions to the article rather than chatting about the content. --Xession (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  inter 

message: The topic of formation contains this phrase "...the larger they became; the larger they became..."
It seems unnecessary to use "the larger they became" twice.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.238.221.22 (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is chiasmus; a perfectly acceptable rhetorical device. Serendipodous 19:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  formation 

message: The section on Axial TIlt comments that "Uranus rotates more like a tilted rolling ball", but this phrase might be misleading. Around the solstices, Uranus will rotate like a ball rolling around its orbit. Around the equinoxes, it will not 'roll around its orbit' but rather move like a rifle bullet. The paragraph does go on to accurately explain the effect on Uranus' days and seasons, but it would be good to clarify the phrase "Uranus rotates more like a tilted rolling ball" clearly but in simple terms - perhaps by including the spinning rifle bullet analogy?  --Kyuzo2000 (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Axial Tilt 

message: It should also be noted that the alternative pronunciation sounds like Urine Us, and would also cause embarrasment. AmericanLeMans (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Needs a citation. Serendipodous 06:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Hi I think we should add a section on sending a metallic probe to Uranus, and about some of the gasses that can be found on Uranus. Also the possibility of a man landing on Uranus someday.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.5.14 (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the first two are already mentioned in the article. As for the third, well there's not really anything for a man to land on. But you could potentially send a manned mission to the planet's moons. RJH (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uranus exploration 

message: At present we have "Uranian". Shouldn't it be "uranian"? We have "Earth" but "terrestrial". --John (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My Oxford dictionary confirms Uranian (and Jovian, and terrestrial :). Materialscientist (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

text: No, 'terrestrial' doesn't mean 'of the Earth', it means 'of the land'. Better parallel would be Terran. — kwami (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good enough. Thank you both. Like France and French. Excuse my senior moment. --John (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uranian or uranian? 

message: Why does "Urectum" redirect here?   Kaiserkarl13 (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a reference to a one-liner joke from Futurama. Probably somebody's attempt at humor. That can likely be 'd. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know what it's referring to (how do you think I found the redirect in the first place?), but this page makes no reference to that quote, so the redirect makes no sense and isn't funny since those who go there already know the joke.  It also shouldn't redirect here---redirecting to Futurama or to "A Big Piece of Garbage" (Futurama) would make much more sense.   Kaiserkarl13 (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Done. Serendipodous 21:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Although, A Big Piece of Garbage doesn't mention Urectum either. Serendipodous 21:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It does now Kaiserkarl13 (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Works for me. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urectum redirects here 

message: "Uranus is the only planet whose name is derived from a figure from Greek mythology rather than Roman mythology" This is incorrect. All the five original planets' names were originally Greek and translated into Latin later. Uranus follows that pattern by giving the Latin name for the Greek-based god. It differs in having been named by a modern rather than an ancient. This pattern was then followed for Neptune and Pluto. Earth is the only planet this isn't true for, though often sci-fi writers will call it "Terra," which is consistent. --Eponymous-Archon (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomenclature 

message: In the section Upper Atmosphere there is a typo in the liquid water ratio compostion: "The abundance ratio of water is around 7×10−-9". It should be: "The abundance ratio of water is around 7×10−9". Just one negative sign is all. Otherwise the ratio would be 7×10^9 due to the double negative.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.52.50 (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Must be s.t. w ur browser. There's no dbl negative. — kwami (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw the double negative in the displayed version of the page right after the IP posted. I checked something else got a second, came back to change it and it was gone. This page has been acting strange lately. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me  00:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Typo, Can't edit

message: When I go to the current article, the references section is blanked.
When I go to the current article in the 'history' section, however, 
the references section is not blanked.
This happens with two different web browsers.
Why does the 'history' section not show the current article when 
it says that it shows the current article?  
(Not sure if this question will be immediately 'archived' after 
it is posted.)
67.206.183.111 (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably visited the article first when it was vandalized so that the references section was blanked. This vandalism was later reverted and so does not show up in the latest revision in the history. To see the latest version of the article, you need to bypass your cache. Double sharp (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: @Double Sharp. When was this vandalism you speak of? There doesn't appear to have been any recent vandalism to the reference section and highly unlikely the IP's browser has managed to cache a version from say, several months ago, though Im not sure what is causing the problems described above. Everything looks normal on my end. More likely that the user just happened to be experiencing a temporary bug/glitch. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me  04:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. I should have looked at the history before responding. Double sharp (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Blanked reference section

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Uranus2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 13, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-03-13. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Uranus2.jpg]] to appear as POTD 

message: If you approach the problem logically, than it makes sense to name the poles not north and south, which is suitable for the ordinary rotated planets, but on behalf of the zodiacal or nearzodiacal constellations targeted by the Uranus rotation axis, to avoid any "north/south confusion".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.34.119.110 (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Axial tilt" addition 

message: I'm a little confused about the section about the naming of the planet. According to this article, Uranus is the Latinized form of Ouranus, Greek god of the sky. However, when you go to the actual article on the Greek god, it states that the Roman version is Caeluo. Probably doesn't really matter on a primarily scientific article like this one, but i always thought Uranus was the odd one out in terms of being named after the greek, rather than Roman equivalent.141.6.11.18 (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "Latinised" in the sense that the word was rewritten as it would have appeared in Latin, not as refers to the Roman god; though in truth, if they had simply decided to call the planet Caelus, it would have saved centuries of sniggering. Serendipodous 15:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

text: No, it was named after the Greek god of the sky, Uranus. Serendipodous 17:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: There were mentioned pressure on the upper level of core and lowest level of atmosphere, but the layer of Ice mantle surface lie far below this "atmosphere". Is there any info or predictions how huge is pressure on the surface of ice mantle or the surface of the ocean? 91.77.251.38 (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mantle pressure 

message: Noahmw25 (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please include the desired change with the request. —C.Fred (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 2 April 2013