Talk:Moons of Uranus

message: OK, this is very much a personal bugbear, but Herschel's four spurious satellites were not "small" stars but "faint" stars!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.109.12 (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. :) Serendipodous 11:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Herschel did describe them as "small", which was the word then used for "faint". Maybe we should mention both in the article? CielProfond (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We absolutely should, if we can find WP:RS to validate the authenticity. MaximusEditor (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  One wrong word ... 

message: The table has Mab listed with a diameter of about 25km, but the article on Mab states a mean radius of 24km.  Did someone put the radius in place of diameter (or vice versa) by mistake? -- 136.181.195.29 (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I can not access the reference in Mab (moon). But Scott Sheppard shows Mab (S/2003 U1) at only 10km in diameter. Something may be wrong with the references. -- Kheider (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mab diameter? 

message: http://home.dtm.ciw.edu/users/sheppard/satellites/ura2003movie.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.2.215.33 (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery image of Margaret 

message: I am not very impressed by the figure shown in the section "Large Moons":
* What is the red line? It's not mentioned in the file description and not in captions. So, why is it shown? Maybe it's Uranus' orbit, but why would that matter and what what it show? The angle of the red line would then be arbitrary and showing it thus misleading. Only it's curvature could be compared to that of the moon orbits but, to be honest, I see hardly any curvature at all. Maybe, I am just going in the wrong direction. As I said, I have no idea what the red line is. I can only see that it is the most distinct feature of the figure.
* What is this figure trying to tell? Are the diameters of Urnaus, the moons, and the orbits to scale? If so, that may be something. But enough to justify the figure? All those dimensions are specified and, since they are near circles, easy to visualize. There are other geometries that would benefit more from an illustration. 
* "Main" moons. The section is called "Large" moons and starts with defining the 5 "major" moons. Perhaps a bit picky here, but why do we use so many words if we mean the same thing. I know this is easy to fix, and I will, once we know what to do with the figure.
* The file description states that the other moons are not visible from the perspective taken. Why would that be? Tomeasy T C 22:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to remove this image from the article. Feel free to challenge this decision, if you see good reasons for its inclusion. Tomeasy T C 11:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to answer the questions as the uploader a few years ago – yes, the red line was Uranus' orbit around the Sun, though I agree that it's not something very interesting to show. The inner moons are too small to show up and the outer irregulars are both too small and too far away. And yes, everything is to scale. However I do agree that the image does not tell us all that much and have no problem with its deletion. Double sharp (talk) 08:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image discussion 

message: I will leave this on your desk: Uranus May Have Two Undiscovered Moons. Published on October 21, 2016. ArXive paper: Are there moonlets near Uranus' alpha and beta rings?.  -Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I added information about these moons. Ruslik_Zero 20:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two more moons 

message: A small point but I noticed this sentence in the wiki - "At 162 km, Puck is the largest of the inner moons of Uranus and the only one imaged by Voyager 2 in any detail.". From the image detail it would appear the opposite is true, the Puck images from Voyager 2 are very low detail compared to the imaging of the other major moons (Titania,Ariel etc...). Is that correct? Loweredtone (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Puck is an inner Uranian moon, but not a major Uranian moon. Double sharp (talk) 04:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imaging detail 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Moons of 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/20110823202755/http://orinetz.com/planet/tourprog/uranusmoons.html to http://orinetz.com/planet/tourprog/uranusmoons.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) 17:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Interesting paper (10.1016/j.icarus.2012.06.031)! (Also this). Double sharp (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instability of the Uranian system 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Moons of 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/20090112065252/http://infomotions.com/etexts/gutenberg/dirs/etext05/7030310.htm to http://www.infomotions.com/etexts/gutenberg/dirs/etext05/7030310.htm
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) 03:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Uranus has 27 moons and they will be there for ever — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.37.211.27 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moons of uranus 

message: the mass unit used in the table is (a) cumbersome and (b) doesn't agree with the mass units (x 10^21) used in moon of saturn page
perhaps you and hte moons of saturn and moons of jupiter people could get together and use a consistent format for the tables ?
thank you !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:4700:1f70:95d6:6193:3465:be7 (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the units are in kilograms for all three, but the difference is in the choice of how to display the scientific notation. Personally I prefer how it's done in the table at Moons of Saturn#Sizes. --DB1729 (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: suggestion

message: Reminder to myself to make some use of this article. Double sharp (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The discovery of Ariel and Umbriel 

message: Here. Double sharp (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Podcast on the naming of the Uranian satellites 

message: "their proper relative sizes and relative positions" makes it sound as if they are all very close to Uranus, because "proper...relative positions" implies that the distance from Uranusis truly represented.
I suggest that "their proper relative sizes and in the correct order" would be better. Verbarson (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion! Double sharp (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading caption on the lead picture 

message: Anton Petrov has unearthed several new papers on Uranus. Don't have time to do the reasearch myself but here it is. Serendipodous 14:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The papers: one, two. Double sharp (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New papers on the Moons of Uranus 

message: The last reference in "Names" is very strange: a 1949 article to prove the names of satellites discovered in 1985-2003?? Oleksiy.golubov (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, it's a mistake indeed. That 1949 article of course only covers Miranda. I moved the ref to what it actually covers, and put in a 2014 ref for the other moons' names. Double sharp (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong reference