Talk:Uranus/Archive 3

message: "The ice mantle is not in fact composed of ice in the conventional sense, but of a hot and dense fluid consisting of water, ammonia and other volatiles.[11][57] This fluid, which has a high electrical conductivity, is sometimes called a water–ammonia ocean." If you can't walk on it, then why isn't it called a fluid or a water-ammonia ocean instead of ice? Maybe scientists understand it, but it confuses the rest of us. Ice#Other ices says: "The solid phases of several other volatile substances are also referred to as ices ...", not the "fluid" phases. 67.160.69.105 (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ice as used in astronomy can mean any volatile chemical, such as water, ammonia, or carbon dioxide, not necessarily in solid form. Most of these "ices" exist in the form of supercritical fluids. --JorisvS (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ice 

message: In the section titled "Axial Tilt," the article states that "Only a narrow strip around the equator experiences a rapid day–night cycle, but with the Sun very low over the horizon as in the Earth's polar regions" during Uranus' soltices.  However, this seems confusing (if not inaccurate) because during Uranus' solstices the sun would appear confined to a point on the horizon *only* at DUE NORTH OR DUE SOUTH (depending on which solstice) without moving east-to-west and, instead, uniquely bobbing vertically up-and-down 8-degrees above the horizon (and below the horizon) on near-solstice days (i.e., "remains stationary at the horizon).  In contrast, the sun at the Earth's polar regions always travels the full circumference of the horizon which, on Earth, is a continuous east-to-west travel no matter how high or low on the horizon (i.e., "travels the circumference of the horizon").  Accordingly, the comparison to the Earth's polar regions is misleading beyond the mere fact that the sun would remain relatively low on the horizon, whereas the current wording suggests a greater degree of similarity that ignores the very different and unique visual effect (which cannot be seen anywhere on Earth).
On a separate note, I think a whole article on the unique effects of Uranus' axial tilt would be welcome.  How does the heating/cooling of the planetary surface work?  How would life on Earth be different if we had a similar axial tilt?  Do its moons rotate the planet in conjunction with its axial tilt of rotation or closer to the plane of its revolutionary around the sun?  Because of its tilt, Uranus is one of the most unique and interesting planets in our solar system!
Thank you all for your outstanding work...  
-Rick
2605:6000:62C0:BC00:889E:FDE9:6470:77D3 (talk) 04:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing description re: "Axial Tilt" 

message: I wonder if it's confusing that the orbital period is given in the infobox as 84.32 yr.  Although strictly true, being stated that it's the osculating (instantaneous) value at the J2000 epoch, in fact the period averages out at 84.01 yr (see e.g. NASA Uranus Fact Sheet, currently reference 4).  The text, on the other hand, correctly states "Uranus revolves around the Sun once every 84 Earth years" which both is true and seems a more useful statement.  As an example, there is an instant just a few years after the J2000 epoch when the instantaneous period was (say) 83.8 yr, but this too is an unrepresentative value.  The point is that Uranus will be back to where it was after 84.01 yr, not 84.32 yr or 83.8 yr.  The same is true of other orbital parameters but I'd say it's fine for them to be specified for a given epoch (J2000).  It just seems odd that the orbital period, whose instantaneous values change quite a bit within just a single orbital period, is quoted for an effectively arbitrary instant.  Readers that happen to see the infobox and not the text may think 84.32 yr is the "true" (representative) value of the period, which it isn't -- David Asher (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The period isn't really that bad. The eccentricity is. In this table are five sources.  VSOP2013 is the newest in the VSOP series. VSOP87 is the most used (from Astronomical Algorithms ,by Meeus. The elements by Gaillot are probably a century old from Astronomical Formulæ for Calculators, by Meeus. The Horizons site is of course from this page. The 250 year best fit by Standish, the ultimate source of source on the NASA factsheet, comes next. The low Horizons eccentricity together with the a gives a perihelion distance never reached. 18.34 au, according to Solex, is the maximum within two millennia of present.
source  	period 	a      	e      	perihelion
VSOP2013	84.2514	19.2184	0.04638	18.3270
VSOP87  	84.2515	19.2184	0.04638	18.3271
Gaillot 	84.2494	19.2181	0.04632	18.3280
Horizons	84.3236	19.2294	0.04441	18.3755
Standish	84.0728	19.1913	0.04717	18.2861
Saros136 (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Without a source that gives all of the orbital elements for a given epoch (or average over a given time interval) the result will always just be an approximation since we are dealing with a n-body problem. Worse case I see for the Uranus Barycenter (around Sun body center) is epoch 2010-Oct-01 with PR= 3.090675052115868E+04 which divided by 365.25 days is 84.6 years. A good solution would be specify the Uranus Barycenter around the Solar System Barycenter (@0) which would be more accurate for any epoch since it would account for Jupiter. Using the Solar System Barycenter J2000 produces 84.01029 years (30684.76 days), which is very close to the NASA fact sheet at 84.011 years.. -- Kheider (talk) 00:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Any method will be an approximation. The proper way to calculate sidereal period would be from mean orbital elements. I didn't do so above. For that, just calculate from the rate of change of the mean longitude with respect to the equinox fixed to J2000 at the instant J2000. I get 30,688.48 days from VSOP87. 84.02 Julian years. The fact and figures page probably uses some mean elements. It has 30,687.15 days, 1.3 days less than VSOP87. Good enough. Standish's bet fit gives 30,687.40 Any of these ways give 84.02 years.  Saros136 (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The solar system barycenter option has been disallowed. You can still get it via telenet and, I presume, email. It doesn't help withe the orbits of other planets. Saros136 (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I received no error using the SSB barycenter "@0". Did you set "Ephemeris Type: Orbital Elements"? -- Kheider (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orbital period 

message: I believe "your anus" joke should be added to the culture section, it is by far the most known dirty joke in english speaking realms, and it is our duty to allow others to beware of this.
thanks you. 
71.17.109.113 (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can source such a claim, then sure.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: here is one emphasizing the pop culture of it: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UranusIsShowing 71.17.109.113 (talk) 05:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: TVTropes is a wiki; we can't source other wikis. The "Your anus" joke was moved into a footnote from the main body of the text; I would not object to it being moved back, assuming consensus could be reached. Serendipodous 09:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I would object. It's fine as a footnote - it's in the article but not given unnecessary prominence. This is an article about a planet, not childish jokes. andy (talk) 11:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  addition to culture 

message: Hi. I just noticed that on the basis of the quoted semi-major axis, eccentricity and orbital period (in the infobox) the average orbital speed is very slightly lower than the figure we cite: 6.80km/s (to 2d.p.), rather than the 6.81km/s figure quoted. Comments? RomanSpa (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably just a function of different epochs being used. At perihelion in 1966 Uranus was moving at 7.1 km/s wrt the Sun. As of 17 Sept 2014, Uranus is moving at 6.5 km/s wrt the Sun. -- Kheider (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not completely sure I understand your reasoning. All the figures in the infobox seem to refer to the same epoch (it's mentioned at the top), so I don't really see why there should be any inconsistency. The average orbital speed is a simple function of the orbit's semi-major axis, its eccentricity, and the orbital period (so long as your calculator gives elliptic integrals), so I don't quite see what you mean... RomanSpa (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the infobox orbital numbers come from JPL Horizons using epoch J2000. But the "Average orbital speed" comes from the Uranus Fact Sheet, which is a different source. Actually checking the 2nd source the number is 6.80 km/s. -- Kheider (talk) 12:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. Thanks. RomanSpa (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers Don't Quite Match? 

message: Are we supposed to be in UK or US spelling here? At the moment we have both. --John (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This 2001 revision is in British English, so I guess we should use British English, unless there was a special reason to change to US. --John (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have standardised on British English based on the above rationale. --John (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: Anders Johann Lexell wasn't Russian, but Finn-Swede who moved to St. Petersburg on king's permission. Please check the wikipedia article.Noseball (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lexell 

message: I disagree with the recent change of the lead image of Uranus (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uranus&diff=644167146&oldid=644105109). The old image was taken in the vicinity of Uranus by Voyager 2, and is correspondingly a very high resolution photo. It is also very close to how Uranus would appear to the naked eye, providing an accurate depiction of the planet to the average wikipedia reader, who probably just wants to know what the planet looks like and doesn't know much about astronomical imaging. It is such a nice photo that it was POTD in March 2013. By contrast, the new image is much lower resolution. It is the only lead image of a planet on Wikipedia that is not in approximate visible light and true color. Furthermore, it is very similar to several other images already in this article. So, if there are no objections, I will shortly change the lead image back to the visible-light Voyager photograph. A2soup (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing no objections, I have changed the lead image. Please discuss here before reverting. A2soup (talk) 05:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image 

message: Given the amount of easy copyediting I could just do (especially  and ), I question the correctness of FA status. I haven't gone through the whole article and even where I have it does not always flow as well as it should. --JorisvS (talk) 10:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You could always copyedit it; it shouldn't take too long. I'm not a good editor of my own work, so it would be best if someone else did it. Serendipodous 11:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Only I think that my usual copyediting may not be enough. --JorisvS (talk) 11:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, then submit it for FAR. Get some other people on it. And it would be cool if you could explain further what you mean. Serendipodous 12:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Except the ease with which I could copyedit it, I currently can't. It's a general impression. I was/am hoping for some comments to clarify it. --JorisvS (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA status 

message: Since methane is not an element in the chemical sense, the following sentence is confusing:
   The third-most-abundant element in Uranus's atmosphere is methane
Probably should be:
   The third-most-abundant gas in Uranus's atmosphere is methane 
Or:
   The third-most-abundant component of Uranus's atmosphere is methane 
--Ibarrac2 (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , thanks for catching it. --JorisvS (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

text: "Earth" isn't from Roman mythology. Stickee (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that the version as is suggests that Earth is from Roman mythology. Simply writing "Uranus is the only planet whose name is derived from a figure from Greek mythology" wouldn't suggest that. --JorisvS (talk) 07:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Yes, mentioning Roman mythology is unnecessary, so this point can be avoided by not mentioning it. This was already done in the body of the text, but apparently the same sentence exists in the lead, where it was not yet changed, until my edit just now. --JorisvS (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request, section Atmosphere/Composition: methane is not an element. 

message: I am surprised that there is no reference to the popular pun in English on the name "uranus", which makes it sound like "your anus". This should be added under the 'name' section or the 'in culture' section. I believe there are substantial cross-references that can be provided with this. And just as reminder, wikipedia is uncensored (in case that has been the reason that it did not make it to the article). -  Subh83 (talk | contribs) 17:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, it is a glaring omission. The page is already semiprotected, so vandalism to that part might not be as much of a problem as one might expect. I would avoid adding it until you can find a really good citation, though. A2soup (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It was moved to a footnote. Serendipodous 18:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well. The conspiracy amoungst the scientific community to pronounce it with the stress on the "your" rather than as "your anus" is a real thing. --81.102.247.247 (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pun 

message: There is evidence of a much earlier discovery of Uranus, as evidenced by its 84 year orbit, which is referenced as 7 times Jupiter's Orbit.  Uranus's 84 year period is also alluded to in several calendars, as well as Astrological calendars that break out the Zodiac.  Uranus is also indirectly referenced in a few metonic cycle calendars, and a few of the earlier attempts at calculating Axial precession.  So this should be updated to reflect that Uranus was in all likelyhood known in Antiquity, and incorporated into the 360 degree Zodiac as '7 times older than Jupiter'.  While faint, Uranus is visible to the unaided eye, so it is inconceivable that ancient astronomers who paid such close attention to other stars, would have missed it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjkell (talk • contribs) 15:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia needs reliable sources to back up claims, most especially such strong ones. --JorisvS (talk) 10:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Discovery

message: The link for "long a" in the name section is broken. It should lead to Vowel_length#Traditional_long_and_short_vowels_in_English_orthography. However for accuracy IMO the whole thing should preferably be reworded to remove the confusing and inaccurate "long a" terminology and instead refer to the sound as a diphthong. --2.125.24.55 (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ruslik_Zero 20:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: The reference 128 does not mention Uranus once (Used in the Exploration section)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teddyinahat (talk • contribs) 18:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Reference 

message: Should we use the 2005 image from later in the page, instead of the flat featureless disc we currently use? I think it would more accurately represent Uranus. --Sir Cumference π 02:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What is wrong with the present image? Isn't that what Uranus looks like in visible light? Hasn't this been discussed before? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The 2005 image clearly shows what Uranus looks like in visible light. It is also far more recent and shows Uranus' key features, like its rings. Sir Cumference π 03:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This subject has been discussed a lot. Please see all of the archives for this talk page. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different infobox image? 

message: Clicking on Synodic period in the right-hand column takes you to Orbital period. There is something very odd about the figures quoted, too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.124.230 (talk) 10:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synodic period 

message: 106.77.7.111 (talk) 08:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: as you have not requested a change.If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2016 

message: I notice the archive pages here have been comprehensively altered, moved around, and (as far as I can tell) had a lot of stuff simply deleted; all without any explanation or discussion that I can find: Which I thought was contrary to our guidelines on the subject.
So what's going on? Would someone care to post an explanation, as the alternative, reverting all the changes and getting the archives 5&6 un-deleted, would be a drag and a half.
Part of the reason I was looking there at all was for a discussion, about this time last year, which 
had the suggestion that the article was trying to re-write history on the pronunciation issue.
Ironically, it vanished in March with a load of other stuff with the summary “archived to 201”; is that code for “deleted”? Moonraker12 (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what's up but it starts here  with  starting a discussion on an archive page, then  made an edit using AWB, not sure why AWB should be editing an archive page, then  blanked the page.  - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: My goal with the archiving was to condense the info into fewer pages, to keep them in line with the established ~100k standard. Many of these archives were started by me years ago before I had an understanding of how they worked, and were of varying, random length. All the information should still be there in the first two archives. I just can't figure out how to get rid of archives 3 and 4. Serendipodous 20:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, you moved this thread out of sequence.  - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean, this one? I moved it to the bottom, where all new talk threads go. Serendipodous 20:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes I mean this one, all other threads were made by the same user, this was the first thread, check the time stamps.  - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

text: Maybe something should be posted at WP:AN pointing here, for someone good with lost content and page histories.  - Mlpearc (open channel) 21:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've come here from there. Everything seems fine,on a cursory check. I've deleted archive 4; it looks like archive 3 contains the most recent discussions. Graham87 05:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

text: Just to be clear, (the issue I raised with you was not my “starting a discussion on an archive page” at all; my issue was with the 14Kb of stuff I put in archive 6 (in 2009!), and which then vanished from sight, leading to the page being deleted (which you then told me about); and the edit you linked (above) was merely my evidence of the stuff in question. The note I left in Archive 4 was an explanation for my content move, not a discussion on the subject (that, I posted on the main page here, sometime in 2009)
Either: The reason why I've raised this (as I have already said) was that I was looking for a discussion from last year, which was “archived to 201” and is now missing. So it would be good to have a transparent audit trail, wouldn't it, to avoid any suspicion of covering tracks, if all this content-shuffling is above board? The simplest remedy would be to add an explanatory section to each archive page, with links to where stuff has gone; the alternative, as I've said, is a lot more messy. Moonraker12 (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

text: I specialise in dealing with talk page archives on Wikipedia, and even *I* can't find anything wrong with what Serendipodous has done. In fact, several years ago I advised this user about better archiving practices, and audited all their archiving until then. The notice on the archive template about not editing the archive is just an advisory; to me archive consolidation falls squarely under ignore all rules and I've done it several times without incident. The guideline against cut-and-paste moves is irrelevant here because archives are most commonly made by cutting and pasting text anyway, and all of the history is in the main talk page. As for the text you were looking for above, it's at the end of archive 2. Per your request on my talk page, I have undeleted archive 4 but have moved it to Talk:Uranus/Archive 4/Temp so it doesn't appear in the automated archive box. Graham87 01:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, it seems I am banging my head against a brick wall on this, then. It also seems that I was wasting my time (and everyone else's) by assiduously documenting any changes I made, if it is OK to comprehensively shuffle the contents without a word of explanation anywhere. You said you couldn't find anything wrong, which is part of my point; it is going to be a job-and-a-half trawling through 10 years worth of edit histories to follow what has been done here if there is no obligation to explain it, and it wouldn't be any easier with half the archive histories gone. On which note, thank you for restoring the Archive 4 history: And thank you for finding the discussion I mentioned; I hadn't thought of looking in the 2008-13 archive for a 2015 dialogue. Moonraker12 (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Also, If we are going to have a warning at the top of this page about “humorous comments” being inappropriate, it will need something more reliable than a TV Tropes page to back it up. 
For one thing, the original Greek  isn't OUR-an-os, it's OO-ran-os (|see wiktionary entry); the homophone to YOO-ruh-nus isn't “urine-us”, it's urinous, (see above) and stating “it is pronounced...” somewhat begs the question, doesn't it?. 
The usual way of dealing with repeated suggestions, objections, or questions, is to have a FAQ box, or dump page, and to refer/move such comments to there; see Talk:Danzig, Talk:Derry, and Talk:War of 1812 for examples. Moonraker12 (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does it say "is pronounced"? Serendipodous 21:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Here, where it it says categorically “it is pronounced YOO-ran-us”. Moonraker12 (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, it's a joke. Seriously dude you have a serious sense of humour deficiency. Serendipodous 15:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: So you are backing up a prohibition against humorous comments with a joke? Now that is a joke... (Seriously) Moonraker12 (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not add that, but regardless, it was simply saying we all know the joke, so don't bother mentioning it. Serendipodous 23:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is what it is simply saying, maybe it'd be better to simply say that...Moonraker12 (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It does say that. You just aren't paying attention. And I don't intend to redraft the article so that it conforms to the whims of one whiny editor. Serendipodous 08:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

text: And I haven't asked you to redraft the article ( I wasn't aware it was your article to redraft) I was proposing to make a couple of additions in one section (ie. Name) and to re-write/delete a footnote. I had thought that doing so boldly, then getting reverted and having a confrontational discussion here would be the wrong way to do things, so I opened a discussion first. Obviously that was the wrong thing to do... Moonraker12 (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

text: PS: To try and breakout of this row, I am restating my proposed changes, below (here) perhaps you can say what exactly you object to about them, and we can go from there. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humour warning 

message: This section should be removed. The section (absent from the FA version) does a terrible job at explaining Uranus' overall importance to culture. It lists (only partially sourced) indiscriminate trivia, ranging from two verses of a poem to names of chemical elements and military operations.
(pinging ) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Uranus's role in culture isn't all that defined. If we were to ask ourselves "What is the defining role of Uranus in our culture?", the answer would probably be "your anus" jokes. The five naked eye planets have longstanding roles in culture, and Pluto, thanks to cuteness, has gained one too. But Uranus and Neptune? They're the forgotten ones. But there are fragments, like Holst and yes, like Keats. Serendipodous 07:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It begs the question, why do we have a section on something that is not particularly important for the topic. On the other hand, what you say about importance to culture in general is what this section should really say, provided that reliable sources have come to the same conclusions. At minimum, these "fragments" ought to be sourced. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Holst is worthy of mention; I think Keats is worthy of mention. Not sure if you'd find a book to back up that assertion. Serendipodous 22:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  In culture section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Uranus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081221011537/http://www.allchemicals.info/articles/Uranium.php to http://www.allchemicals.info/articles/Uranium.php
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5glwILykY?url=http://home.comcast.net/~kpheider/MeanPlane.gif to http://home.surewest.net/kheider/astro/MeanPlane.gif
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5gOzK38bc?url=http://chemistry.unina.it/~alvitagl/solex/ to http://chemistry.unina.it/~alvitagl/solex/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Nice featured article, however right at the beginning, section 1.1 Discovery, you have the wrong homme. Professor Pierre Lemonnier (b1675-d1757) was the father of Pierre Charles Le Monnier, who observed Uranus twelve times during the years 1750-1769 without realizing it. I would have changed it but we IPs are kinda like Pluto around here and I'm hoping someone else will.
As for the different spellings of their last names, (they both signed their respective books as shown,) I imagine they didn't run into that much confusion being two astronomers named Pierre, but... 
50.64.119.38 (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the link. As to IPs treatment, you can always create an account. Ruslik_Zero 14:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

text: , who said anything about using a real name? Simply that using an account provides some advantages to editing. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

text: , I understand. And believe me, pointing out errors in articles is always appreciated. It's a moving target of course, but we want to be as accurate and complete as possible, and any help doing so is welcome. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faux Pierre Mon Dieu. 

message: Section 1.1 Discovery last paragraph. At a minimum I would like to propose the inflation adjusted amount of Herschel's stipend be added to the article. " King George III gave Herschel an annual stipend of £200 (2016 ≈ £31,445.45)http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/Pages/resources/inflationtools/calculator/default.aspx on condition that he move to Windsor ". However, since (unlike pounds) most people in the world can covert US$ to their native currency, we should add " stipend of £200 (2016 ≈ £31,445.45 /US$40,838.25)http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/Pages/resources/inflationtools/calculator/default.aspxhttps://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/yearly-average-currency-exchange-rates on condition ". I have included the relevant references in either case. This would help people realize the stipend was anything but chump change and remove the uncertainty as to whether or not the amount had already been adjusted. I would have added it myself, but see above.  50.64.119.38 (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  King George III stipend. 

message: Maybe this could be of use to expand on the section by those who are more linguistically & technically knowledgeable in astrophysics than I? 
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170626093453.htm
JanderVK (talk) 11:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnetosphere 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Uranus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/60qT4Vpn3?url=http://www.thespaceguy.com/Uranus.htm to http://www.thespaceguy.com/Uranus.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160310192014/http://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/wh%C4%93rangi/index.html to http://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/wh%C4%93rangi/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151107100736/http://www.vinnysa1store.com/historyofastronomy2.html to http://www.vinnysa1store.com/historyofastronomy2.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Right now all the pronunciation information for Uranus is in the 'Name' section. The pronunciations of the word should be in the first line on the article, after 'Uranus'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MennasDosbin (talk • contribs) 07:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You will also find this information already in the infobox to the right in the very first screen. Double sharp (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only that, but we don't use pronunciation info in that location for any of the other planets. I see no reason to do so here. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. My mistake. MennasDosbin (talk) 09:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  First line should contain pronunciation 

message: This article uses semicolon (;) extensively (222 times). This punctuation mark was not meant to be used this much and well respected newspapers and magazines hardly ever use it. 193.242.214.225 (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You're counting the citations. There are only 30 in the actual text. Serendipodous 17:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semicolon Abuse 

message: When was the extreme axial tilt of Uranus discovered? Up until some point, nobody would have known. Then someone figured it out. Who and when? Bizzybody (talk) 06:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume someone would've guessed by the time a few moons were discovered. It's easy to see the Great Red Spot rotating around the same axis as the Galilean moons and someone wouldn't have been freaked out enough to assume this is a freak planet like Earth (moon doesn't go around the equator) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In 1787, when the orbits of the moons were discovered. Planets bulge out at their equators, and so if the moons didn't orbit around the equator, their orbits would have been distended as they passed over it. It's difficult to know who exactly first drew that conclusion though. Serendipodous 07:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Amusingly, this natural assumption resulted in the tilt of Neptune being incorrectly known for decades, because everyone assumed that Triton was a regular satellite. Double sharp (talk) 08:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  When was the axial tilt discovered? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Uranus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720221646/http://www.news.wisc.edu/releases/12826.html to http://www.news.wisc.edu/releases/12826.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203065217/http://www.astronomynow.com/news/n1001/21diamond/ to http://www.astronomynow.com/news/n1001/21diamond/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This study was presented this summer 2017 with the aim at developing a mission concept to those planets, and it states that ice giants Uranus and Neptune are, by mass, about 65% water and other so-called "ices"; the terminology is "supercritical liquid water".  I browsed both Urarus and Neptune articles in Wikipedia and I did not read anything similar suggesting surface water nor such % mass.  I'm going to leave this 'on your desk' and am going to let more competent editors decide if this is a required update. The complete report is at . -Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surface water ocean 

message: There's a "0.210" that doesn't seem to mean anything. It should be defined or removed. 98.247.224.9 (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. Ruslik_Zero 20:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stray text in infobox 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Uranus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6BVZMMrHn?url=http://amateurastronomy.org/EH/Oct97.txt to http://amateurastronomy.org/EH/Oct97.txt
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Uranus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070624113641/http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Uranus to http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Uranus
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: Regarding the statement:
"In contrast to the other planets, whose motions around the Sun resemble that of spinning tops, Uranus's motion can be visualised as that of a ball rolling on the ecliptic plane near solstices and of a spinning rifle bullet near equinoxes."
I'm questioning the use of the 'spinning rifle bullet' analogy.  Aside from the fact that references to war/weapons/killing don't really have a relevant or appropriate connection here (e.g., why shouldn't it be a spinning satellite?) why is there a need for it at all?  The previous reference to 'spinning tops' was not further qualified, for instance, as 'centrifuges' or 'washing machines' near equinoxes.  The rifle mention is unnecessary, and one could argue, potentially offensive.
"... as that of a ball rolling on the ecliptic plane."  (period) KS 154 (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree there is no need for such analogies. I edited the entry. Adjustments are encouraged. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

text: Done Actually, I just removed it completely.  In the original, it was unsourced and reads like a 7th-grade science teacher's analogy for their students.  The corrected version that  created was an improvement, but left a sentence that was still uncited and was now redundant to the first sentence of the section while also being less precise.   Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2018 

message: Things sometimes "creep in" so would someone look at the "External links" for possible integration or trimming? With exceptions 3 to 5 (four to five as possible exceptions) seems to be a "reasonable number" but 11 links plus 4 in the "Further reading" starts looking like link farming.  Otr500 (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: The new values of brightest and faintest apparent magnitude in the ‘infobox’ were reported in a peer-reviewed journal article that includes updated equations for computing planetary magnitudes. Those formulas will be used to predict magnitudes for future issues of The Astronomical Almanac published by the U.S. Naval Observatory and Her Majesty’s Nautical Almanac Office. The equations were solved at daily intervals over long periods of time in order to determine the magnitude extremes. As noted in the journal article, the apparent brightness of Uranus depends on the latitudes illuminated by the Sun and viewed by the observer. The extreme magnitudes reported here take those factors into account. The paper in Astronomy and Computing can be located at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ascom.2018.08.002.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planet photometry (talk • contribs) 14:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated magnitude range 

message: The final paragraph of the "Name" section says that the planet has the same name in all four of the above languages - and then shows three Chinese characters in brackets (天王星), wrongly implying that all four languages are now written in Chinese characters. Obviously Chinese is, and some Japanese words are too, including "Uranus", which is thus also spelled 天王星 - only the Japanese pronunciation of the characters - "ten-nousei" or "ten-ousei", as there are two phonetic Japanese spellings, てんのうせい and てんおうせい - differs from the Chinese ("tiān wáng xīng"). Both Korean and Vietnamese were long ago written in Chinese characters, but have now replaced them with a uniquely Korean alphabet (Uranus = 천왕성, pronounced "cheonwangseong", which does sound rather like the Chinese name) and a Latin-based Vietnamese one (Uranus = sao thiên vương, which sounds very different). Although the four translations do indeed mean "sky king star", more or less, it is misleading to suggest that 天王星 is now standard Korean and Vietnamese, since neither language currently uses Chinese characters. I would suggest the Chinese characters simply be dropped, as they add nothing useful to the meaning of the text, and introduce confusing information. Alternatively the correct modern spellings could be inserted - but since the Chinese and Japanese names look identical and there would thus be only three translations for four languages, this would surely be confusing to readers who have no in-depth knowledge of East Asian languages (and that's the vast majority).89.212.50.177 (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Or perhaps clarify the content of the parenthesis to "".  William Avery (talk) 12:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name in Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese 

message: Information to be added or removed: Remove "(pronounce ɯranɯs, latin name after a greek god Οὐρανός - owranos)" from leader. Pronunciation is detailed in a lower section, so I propose something similar to "(from the Latin name "Ūranus" for the Greek god Οὐρανός)".
Explanation of issue: Non-standard pronunciations after no defined scheme; Greek should be capitalised; poor writing style.
References supporting change: MOS:IPA
83.93.197.115 (talk) 12:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: "Pronunciation" in the leader

message: There is this sentence in the article that I think needs clarification: 
::One of the hypotheses for this discrepancy suggests that when Uranus was hit by a supermassive impactor, which caused it to expel most of its primordial heat, it was left with a depleted core temperature.
The cited reference is not available. If a supermassive impactor hit the planet, would not that transform most of that energy into heat? What is meant by a planet "expelling its primordial heat"?  Maybe it lost part of its core? I think that sentence needs a re-write, and an additional source.  Thanks, Rowan Forest (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification requested

message: A discussion is taking place as to whether :Portal:Uranus is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Uranus until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 14:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination of [[:Portal:Uranus]] for deletion 

message: There seems to be some disagreement over exactly what constitutes the "surface" of an ice giant. The most obviously correct boundary, if it existed, would be the jump discontinuity in the planet's density where the gaseous hydrogen-helium atmosphere either becomes a supercritical fluid or gives way to the hot liquid water-ammonia-methane mantle. However, such a discontinuity might not exist. Some sources define the surface as the tropopause. Others define it as the layer of the atmosphere where the pressure equals 1 Earth atmosphere.  Finally, there is the boundary between the rocky core and the liquid mantle, but scientists really have no idea where this boundary is or what the conditions at this boundary are like, other than that the temperatures and pressures are very high. Consistency across Wikipedia articles mentioning the "surface" of a gas giant would be appreciated. 73.70.13.107 (talk) 09:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says 'For the sake of convenience, a revolving oblate spheroid set at the point at which atmospheric pressure equals 1 bar (100 kPa) is conditionally designated as a "surface"' which is quite unequivocal. Ruslik_Zero 20:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure; disagreements over defining the "surface" 

message: This was the first search result that seemed like a good source, but maybe it isn't. It still explains the story I heard and maybe this can somehow be an improvement to the article.— Vchimpanzee •  talk • contributions •  22:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Two citations are Geophysical Review Letters and Voyager 2 Constraints on Plasmoid-based Transport at Uranus. Others are , , , and . — Joe Kress (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what part of the article this should go in.— Vchimpanzee •  talk • contributions •  17:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It belongs in Magnetosphere, where the plasmoid is. The sentence "No heavier ions [than H] have been detected." must be removed. — Joe Kress (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like the information is there in the last paragraph. Am I right?— Vchimpanzee •  talk • contributions •  19:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I am removing the objectionable sentence. — Joe Kress (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uranus is leaking gas 

message: The semi-major axis of the orbit of Uranus is described here as 2,875.04 Gm long but one of the sources ( https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/uranusfact.html ) has the value 2,872.46 Gm. Where does the larger value come from? Which value is correct? 2001:1AE9:24B:4600:F9CE:D8CF:580E:5BE6 (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is in note "a". Ruslik_Zero 20:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-major axis 

message: see 2016 article ---> https://www.universetoday.com/65353/what-is-the-coldest-planet-of-our-solar-system/
Uranus is the coldest planet in the solar system. This has been confirmed by multiple sources, other than Universe Today. Thank you for your understanding. -Lukeskrobot11  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukeskrobot11 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  coldest planet? 

message: as feburary 17 the two planets are put together in a way that looks like a square this has not happened since 20  years ago  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3E22:0:802E:7AC7:28A:20CA (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  saturn and uranus 

message: It says that Saturn is Uranus's son, Jupiter is his grandson, and Mars is his great-grandson. But Mercury, Venus?, and Neptune are also direct descendants but they are not included in the lead. Either add the 3 (2?) or remove that fact entirely from the lead.108.46.173.109 (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: I wanted to add an image of Uranus in true colors, so that when someone sees this article, they will know how this planet would be seen by the human eye. Creativecomparisons1750 (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload.  Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. Please note that any such image must comply with Wikipedia's Image Use Policy, particularly where copyright is concerned. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 12:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2021 

message: I changed the date of the next perihelion to August 17 2050. 
I have three sources:
VSOP87 
Jean Meeus, Astronomical Algorithms (Richmond, VA: Willmann-Bell, 1998) p271  
Bretagnon's complete VSOP87 model. It gives the 17th.
http://vo.imcce.fr/webservices/miriade/?forms IMCCE  Observatoire de Paris / CNRS I calculated for a series of dates, five or ten days apart, in August 2050, using an interpolation formula from Astronomical Algorithms. Perihelion came very early on the 17th. INPOP planetary theory
And using the JPL Horizons web service in the same way: Aug 17.46 https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi#results Just before noon.
:Hello Saros136. For the Uranus planet center I get the 19th @ 18.28307512au. The Uranus barycenter (7) does come to perihelion on 2050-Aug-17 03:00 @ 18.28307572756au (1 hour stepsize). But I think the planet center (799) is a better solution for perihelion calculations. -- Kheider (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next perihelion date correction 

message: I checked the range rates on Horizons here. Vectors at noon each day. The sign changed twice. From negative-positive-negative-positive. Same goes for the rdot numbers on the Horizons batch file posted as a reference. And for distances, The 19th and the 15th have the lowest. (At 00:00) At noon, the 14th, 18th, and 19th have the lowest. The kind of oddities that at other times also arise in cases with slow-moving bodies near perihelion.  This is why with Uranus I much prefer using the best fit curve with a formula for an extreme value, and with positions at least 10 days apart. Neptune and Pluto are odder cases.
The differences in distance predictions between it and IMCEE http://vo.imcce.fr/webservices/miriade/?forms are minute: 30 km on August 17 0:00 here. 18.283075301 AU (using epoch 2470030.5, 20, 1 - day, TT) vs 1.828307553450090E+01 from Horizons. (Horizons, of course, gives far more digits than are meaningful.) The distances from the IMCEE decline daily, reach a minimum on the 17th, and increase daily.      
 DianaCLnomad (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Uranus (center body) https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi?find_body=1&body_group=mb&sstr=799 is under the influence of its moons, so yes, rdot can flip multiple times. You do need to pick the minimum on 2050-Aug-19 07:45 @ 18.28307581353au (15 min stepsize). Using different options I can get slightly different answers, but for Planet Center Horizons is always the 19th. The IMCEE still seems to be giving times based on the planet's barycenter. I am combining the two references since they do not agree. -- Kheider (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

text: From a month before and after perihelion, Triton will flip Neptune's rdot every 2-4 days (4 days negative then 2 days positive then the opposite after perihelion). -- Kheider (talk) 06:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed. The moons complicate it. The barycentric frame is better. If we applied your test to the next perihelion of Neptune, the date would be moved back to October 20. (2042-Oct-20 16:00:00.0000) Using the test for the last perihelion of Pluto would require an even bigger change: to. some date in 1990. (Jan 19 has a minimum distance. and sign change 0.5094212655h at	29.65639232 au. ) DianaCLnomad (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Neptune barycenter is 2042-Sep-03, planet center is 2042-Sep-04 @ 29.8064 7406. On 2042-Oct-20 planet center is 29.8064 8 from the Sun. -- Kheider (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

text:  Also, by the same reasoning, you could justify the 14th for Uranus. That date marks the end of the long period of declining distances just as well as the 19th marks the beginning of the long movement towards aphelion. DianaCLnomad (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You do need to look at the r column for "distance from the Sun in au". Uranus planet-center (799) comes to perihelion on the 19th, the barycenter (7) is on the 17th. A barycenter is a dynamical point, not a physical object. I think the common reader is more interested in the body center. -- Kheider (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on Uranus perihelion 

message: Uranus was discovered through telescope on March 13, 1781 AD by William Herschel while Neptune’s path was calculated by John Couch Adams and Urbain Le Verrier in 1846, based on whose calculation the German astronomer Johann Galle and his student Heinrich Louis d’Arrest discovered Neptune a few months later.  
However, Sage Veda Vyasa mentioned Uranus, Neptune and Pluto in his epic poem Mahabharata and named them as Sweta, Syama and Teekshana.
Uranus or Sweta (Greenish White planet)
Vishesheena hi Vaarshneya Chitraam Pidayate Grahah….[10-Udyog.143]
Swetograhastatha Chitraam Samitikryamya Tishthati….[12-Bheeshma.3]
Sage Vyasa states that some greenish white (Sweta) planet has crossed Chitra Nakshatra.
Neelakantha Chathurdhara, the Indian scholar who lived in Varanasi in the later half of the 17th century also had the knowledge of Uranus or Sweta.  Sweta means greenish white, which was later discovered to be the color of Uranus.
Neelakantha writes in his commentary on Mahabharat (Udyog 143) that Shveta, or Mahapata (one which has greater orbit) was a famous planet in the Astronomical science of India.  He calls this “Mahapata” which means one that has greater orbit and indicates a planet beyond Saturn. 82.34.150.113 (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: -> WP:Reference desk. (CC) Tbhotch™ 19:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uranus was known long before Hershel claimed discovery!!! True or False? 

message: The second sentence says "In 2033, the planet will have made its third complete orbit around the Sun since being discovered in 1781". The fourth says "Uranus will return to this location again in 2030–31" and I believe is referencing the same thing. I would suggest that one of these sentences is removed although I do not know which date is correct as I can't see what reference was used.
80.7.31.60 (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  First paragraph in "Orbit and Rotation" section contradicts itself 

message: from the Internal Structure section, second paragraph: CamphorNoodles (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skipped word? Rephrasing needed? 

message: The section “Orbit and rotation” mentions that Uranus “has returned to the point of its discovery northeast of Zeta Tauri twice since then, in 1862 and 1943, one day later each time”; however, I ran a simulation using Sky Safari Pro 6, and I instead get March 25, 1865 and March 29, 1949 as dates of return to its location among the stars, viz. south and barely east of the star 132 Tauri. The dates written in the article are currently 81 years apart, whereas “my” dates are 84 years apart, which corresponds to the period of revolution of Uranus around the Sun. I believe there was a mixup by the person who originally wrote 1862 and 1943, as 81 would seem to come from [17]81, its discovery date. As to why it says “one day later each time,” whereas I found eight and four days, respectively, of difference, that, I can’t think of a possible reason.
I will change the article to mention 1865 and 1949, but I will leave out the difference in days.
CielProfond (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orbit 

message: Caelus (planet) and Planet Caelus were recently created as redirects to this page. I can't find any mention in the article as to why these would redirect here and was wondering if they were useful and, if so, what should be added to the article to explain the terms. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently that is "supposed" to be its name because the Greek equivalent of Caelus is Uranus. But if this is not mentioned at #Name, they should be deleted as per WP:Redirect. (CC) Tbhotch™ 23:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are these redirects useful? 

message: I think somewhere in the image someone messed with the color since if one follows the link provided the image on the NASA site (which is supposed to be the image in the title pic) is more colorful.  Can anyone explain the discrepancy Lucinator (talk) 07:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color of title image 

message: It can be either pronounced as Your-a-niss or your-ay-niss. Maybe add pronounciation  Amogus girl (talk) 05:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is already covered under Uranus#Name. WhoAteMyButter (🎄talk│☃️contribs) 07:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add promounciation 

message: The “Orbit” section begins, “Uranus orbits the Sun once every 84 years, taking an average of seven years to pass through each of the dozen constellations of the zodiac.”  The clause “taking an average of seven years to pass through each of the dozen constellations of the zodiac” should be removed. It was added without citation and is scientifically incorrect and/or irrelevant.  It confuses the planet’s sidereal period with its synodic period and ignores the fact that there are 13 constellations in the astronomical zodiac. Also, as the time the planet spends in each constellation varies widely, the “average” referenced in the added clause has no significance. 2600:1700:CBB0:3490:193A:AB2F:1529:220B (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Serendipodous 14:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2023 

message: I believe that the credit of the discovery of the planet Uranus by William Herschel, as stated in this article, is incorrect.
My understanding is that it was his sister Caroline Herschel who made the discovery whilst assisting her brother, William, in cataloging hundreds of stars and comets over many years. William Herschel made the very large telescopes which allowed for the discovery.         Nicholas McCarthy MexicoNoel (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Citation? Serendipodous 17:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery of Uranus 

message: Change "Presently available data does not allow a scientific determination of which model is correct" to "Presently available data do not allow a scientific determination of which model is correct".  "Data" is plural. 97.99.5.125 (talk) 05:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: That's debatable. Some compare it to agenda (a Latin plural that is now almost universally used as a singular). Please see this article for more info. M.Bitton (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2023 

message: What is Uranus' number from the sun? 2601:586:8300:EBD0:40C4:63D5:C13E:9C4D (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It is literally the first sentence. Serendipodous 09:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science  

message: The redirect Uranus. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Gonnym (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Uranus.]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Anton Petrov has unearthed several new papers on Uranus. Don't have time to do the reasearch myself but here it is. Serendipodous 14:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Pinging @Serendipodous: See Talk:Neptune#True_color_image_of_Neptune, we are having the same discussion there. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  New papers on Uranus 

message: The article mentions the stress, but it still claims that the initially stressed syllable is pronounced like the word "your". This is a very English oriented way and not universally "scientific" at all, as the first syllable is not "your" but UH, literally "oohranus", not "youranus". 212.97.249.92 (talk) 10:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: But the Sun has moved too, so this is impossible. Grassynoel (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Wording revised so as to make clear that the text is about complete orbits, so that against the background of stars Uranus returns to the same position every 84 years, the movement of the Sun within our galaxy having no impact. David notMD (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Returned to the point of its discovery" 

message: Noticed that the K for Kelvin was not linked in the first paragraph, but instead is linked to its page in the Internal Structure section. I'm new to Wikipedia etiquette, but shouldn't the link appear in the first instance of the word? Thanks. Schwabeditor (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Kelvin