Talk:Neptune/Archive 1

message: I have reverted an anonymous alteration of the article that states that Neptune is the Ninth planet (in light of the 2006 Redefinition of Planet).  I don't think it's a good idea to go around changing scientific articles until the relavant body has actually come to a complete decision on it.Sycomonkey 13:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you need to state that not all Astronomers support the discredited IAU in their ruling.Magnum Serpentine 21:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If Pluto is no longer a planet than it doesn't matter if it cross Neptune's path or not. Samuel Sol (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 Draft Definition of a Planet 

message: "core ..., surrounded by a mixture of rock, water, ammonia, and methane"?! I have hard time imagining a mixture of rock + water, and water + methane.
:What states are present at different depths will depend on the temperature and pressure. Some chemicals you might expect to be a gas will be liquid (due to the pressure), and some solids will be liquid (due to the temperature). You might have a high-temperature, high-pressure mix of liquid rock, water, ammonia and methane, though I don't really know if this is technically possible. The interior heat will also churn things up a bit, so some mixing between levels will still be taking place. 194.200.237.219 12:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interior 

message: Triton has a orbital period of _minus_ five days? What does that mean? Jeronimo
it means its retrograde. (goes backwards) - fonzy
: OK, but it's a lousy notation in that case. This seems to suggest the moon goes back in time... Jeronimo
Minus sign is often used for pointing out that the orbit is retrograde. BTW, data for the new giant planet satellites seems to be outdated. I'll update them soon. - jyril
Orbit periods should always be positive.   A negative period implies that Triton's energy is an imaginary number.  Retrograde orbits are denoted with inclinations greater than 90 degrees. -njs
jyril's right; a minus sign is used to indicate retrograde movement. I never liked it, but it is the way it's used. Perhaps, though, since a lot of people are unfamilar with it and it is contrary to other uses, a short note explaining it would be helpful? (Or just eliminating the minus sign and replacing it with 'r' for 'retrograde'?) CFLeon 00:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Triton's Retrograde Period 

message: I'm awfully confused.. we've known about these moons for a couple years, now. Why is it important that they were just now announced in Nature? I'm most confused about why it's listed as in the news... --Patteroast 23:35, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Five New Moons 

message: I've just tried to improve the material on the internal structure and atmosphere.  A lot of my information I got from _Neptune and Triton_, ed. D.P. Cruikshank, 1995, although initially I may have made it worse based on misinterpreting what I read (and being misled by the Britannica).  I think I have it right now, but there's much room for greater detail and so forth.Mark Foskey 00:46, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating Structure & Atmosphere 

message: The "moon navigator" has no purpose anymore as all the links are include in the footer, and are in sequence. It provides nothing but duplicate links. ed g2s • talk 03:54, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moon navigator 

message: A recent article in Scientific American  makes a strong case that Le Verrier deserves sole credit for discovering Neptune, and that the story of Adam's independent  calculation may have been exaggerated.  
This article seems to emphasize Adams' role over that of Le Verrier, which is not fair.  Even if you don't believe the evidence presented by Scientic American, it's still clear that Le Verrier published first!  He should get sole credit for the discovery!
:Scientific historians are re-evaluating the priority of Le Verrier and Adams in light of the discovery of the "Neptune file", and the article on Neptune should probably mention this.  I first became aware of the "Neptune file" issue when researching the article on Olin Eggen, and gave it a passing mention there, though I didn't mention its possible consequences for Adams' credit for discovery, since in the source I read at the time it was just speculation.  The Scientific American article seems to go further. -- Curps 20:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adams vs. Le Verrier 

message: What year did  Galileo observe Neptune?
The entry for Neptune (planet) says:
"Galileo's astronomical drawings show that he had first observed Neptune on December 28, 1612, and again on January 27, 1613; on both occasions Galileo mistook Neptune for a fixed star when it appeared very close (in conjunction) to Jupiter in the night sky"
but the entry for Galileo Galilei says: "Galileo observed the planet Neptune in 1611, but took no particular notice of it; it appears in his notebooks as one of many unremarkable dim stars." -- Mark Mathu July 30, 2005
:Neptune (planet) is also internally inconsistent: it claims both Dec 27 and 28 within a few lines. -- ColinBell 13 Mar 2006
::It's probably referring to "the night of Dec 27/28" and not knowing if the sighting was before or after midnight. However, the article should be consistant with itself. CFLeon 21:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Galileo is known to have observated Neptune on 2 occasions: Dec, 1612 and Jan, 1613. Neptune was at the slowest point of its orbit and had just turned retrograde, although i don't have the actual date it did so. See list below. CFLeon 22:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galileo Galilei and Neptune 

message: *Support strongly. Neptune the planet is by far the most important of the Neptune articles.--Jyril 12:52, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
*Support Dragons flight 18:33, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
*Support Septentrionalis 19:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My thinking is that people looking up the mythological character won't mind being redirected to 'Poseidon' (or 'Ares' or 'Zeus', etc). Very few people would be looking up the ROMAN version specifically. CFLeon 21:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested Move 

message: Added mention of the trojans - then saw there is no explicit mention of Jupiter's on the Jupiter page. Please feel free to remove this here if it is not considered appropriate.
On the trojan link, it says, "The Trojan asteroids are a large group of objects that share the orbit of the planet Jupiter around the Sun."  I'm confused as to which would be considered correct.  Also, with asteroids sharing orbits with neptune and jupiter, I think rationale as to how they have "cleared their neighborhood" to be considered a planet now should be included perhaps.  72.241.7.173 05:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the point of the 'dominating the neighbourhood' is that if Neptune and Pluto did come very close together, it's Pluto that would be thrown off course or even crash into Neptune, with Neptune continuing on pretty much as before. Therefore Neptune is the planet, and Pluto is the dwarf. The same can be said for those asteroids I think. Does that make sense? Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs)  11:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trojans 

message: Wouldn't this make more sense on the Triton page? The Singing Badger 02:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people wanted a summary of the major moons on the Jupiter and Saturn pages, because the full tables are rather overwhelming. The Galileians and the 7 main Saturnian moons are all that many readers would be interested in. I added a Luna comparison to give a familiar connection. Anyway, I thought if I did it for two planets I should do it for all of them so the articles are kept parallel. Triton's just the only major Neptunian moon. kwami 07:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Triton compared to Luna 

message: Dear NASA,
Why not send weather satellites to Neptune?  Then we could put them on TV, for a Neptune Weather Channel akin to the current (Earth) Weather Channel.  I'm sure lots of people would be interested to see up-to-the-minute pictures and video of Neptune.  oneismany 11:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Better direct all the NASA money to private space ventures prize money... would bring us there _much_ faster...
Could they land something on Neptune and then make it move around on the surface, or would it be to cold/too low of a density/too much gravity to operate directly on the surface?  Obviously on Jupiter and Saturn, anything
entering the atmosphere would be vaporized, but is it the same for Neptune?  I've always thought it would be interesting to see from another planet's point of view, when you're actually inside the planet.  There's a picture on the site of what sunset looks like from Mars.  I think that's pretty cool
74.99.65.143 14:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Gravity wouldn't be a problem, nor entering the atmosphere would vaporize the spacecraft... The reason why no one can operate on the surface of Neptune is that it has no surface. But above the atmosphere, that would be quite a sight... However, there is no point sending a spacecraft to take only pretty images. Not to mention about the considerable technical problems. A plummeting atmospheric probe is relatively easy to do, and has been done, but an aircraft operating in a gas giant atmosphere is completely different matter.--JyriL talk 16:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dear NASA 

message: Is there an interest in the listing of the sightings before 1846? I've made a list and can put it up if people want it. CFLeon 21:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be interested in such things. Also, I'd be interested in a clarification of how the planet was named. The article says, "Neptune is named after the Roman god of the sea because of its blue methane clouds." If Neptune was discovered in 1846, how were the astronomers who discovered it aware of the presence of methane, much less the color of the planet? Using an 1846-era telescope, is Neptune visibly blue (as implied in the article)? More information on the discovery (and prediscovery) of the planet would be an excellent addition. 66.17.118.207 18:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's my list. Someone will have to tabulize it for the article. CFLeon 22:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prediscovery Observations? 

message: Three different estimates (are they really estimates?) are given concerning the speed of winds on Neptune.
Says the introduction: "Neptune also has 2,500 km/h winds of ...". The section on Physical characteristics: "Neptune's atmosphere has the highest wind speeds in the solar system, up to 2000 km/h,...". And later the section on weather: "[Neptune] has extremely violent hurricanes whose winds reach 1,000 mph."
Which is the correct one or more accurate or closer to the observations? The discrepancy between the three figures is a major one. I won't edit the page. Can an expert clarify it? cubic[*]star 20:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made an attempt at fixing this, but it still needs a lot of work. I've brought the various mentions into line, at least. Remember that the speed of sound isn't a constant, and its value differs between various altitudes of Neptune, and at standard temperature and pressure. Spiral Wave 20:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed of Winds 

message: was created by User:202.173.128.90. Don't know if you would like to merge or redirect. Rings of Neptune contains mostly info already in main article. Cheers,  :) Dlohcierekim 12:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Rings of Neptune]]

message: Please convert the surface area of Neptune into the same format as the other planets. (Comparaison to Earth)
:done Deuar 12:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surface Area 

message: "There is no solid surface and the atmosphere, extending perhaps 10 to 20 percent of the way towards the center, is mostly hydrogen and helium at high altitudes (80% and 19%, respectively)."
How do we know this? Has anyone ever been beneath Neptune's clouds?--24.59.186.128 01:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I have, it's wicked physodelic man..you should go there sometime.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Something14 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neptune's Surface

message: Does the phrase
:its stronger gravitational field has compressed it to a higher density
actually make sense? If I remember my physics correctly, its stronger gravitational field is a result, not a cause, of its higher density. David 10:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A "stronger gravitational field" is simply a function of greater mass but does not in-itself determine density as I understand it (else Saturn ought to be more dense than both, which it's not). I presume Neptune has a slightly larger rock core than Uranus. Perhaps the sentence is meant to suggest that this would cause the over-laying gas to compress to a greater degree? I'll remove it until we have a source better explaining it. Marskell 16:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: :One difference between Neptune and Uranus is the level of meteorological activity. Uranus is visually quite bland, while Neptune's high winds come with notable weather phenomena.
Actually, Uranus was apparently quite bland in 1986 when Voyager went near, and when one of Uranus' poles was pointing almost sunward.  Since then Space Satellite images have indicated that Uranus has more wind patterns, as the sun is now almost equatorial for the planet.
Also, it is said in a lot of sources that Uranus, unlike the other 3 giants, does not appear to radiate energy in excess of what it gets from the sun.  I would like to know if this is still the case, now that Uranus is almost equatorial toward the sun.  In otherwords could all of this be seasonal?  I don't know exactly how I would find out this, or is it known?Roo60 21:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Difference between Neptune and Unanus  

message: I have moved the following question from the main article. RupertMillard (Talk) 19:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titan's orbit: Retrograde & synchronous? 

message: In his Naming and Necessity, Saul Kripke uses Neptune as an example and claims that it was actually named prior to being directly observed .  However, the article claims that Neptune wasn't named until "Shortly after its discovery"' — which is correct?  Now, Kripke was making a philosophical point with his example, and not a scientific one, so it's quite possible he stretched the truth a bit for illustrative purposes (or was simply wrong), but since it's a well-known example it should probably be clarified.  I'm trying to find better sources now, but if anyone else has some information to share it would be appreciated.  --Wclark 02:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: I know Pluto has recently been relegated from Planet status, but as a mark of respect let's wait a month before we change it. Pluto R.I.P. ;-( 86.143.234.154 19:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pluto 

message: Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 00:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

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

message: There was, reportedly, a book published a week before Neptune was discovered "proving" there could be only seven planets. Is this correct? Could the entry in Failed history be amended accordingly. Jackiespeel 17:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Planets and predictions

message: Given the high level of vandalism by anonymous editors, I suggest that this article (along with other planet articles) is protected from unregistered users.--JyriL talk 14:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protecting planet articles

message: The introduction says "Neptune's temperature at its cloud tops is usually close to −210℃ (−346°F), one of the coldest in the solar system, due to its long distance from the sun". I'm not sure what the 'one of' is referring to (cloud tops, planet, bodies?). Also, in a solar system of 8 planets, all (if planets is what we're talking about) could be considered  'one of' the coldest (they all make the top ten after all). Could we point out exactly where it fits? Dgen
:There's no "surface" on Neptune. JustN5:12 02:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on temperature 

message: The article within Neptune, describes the spot as a storm (like Jupiter's red).  While the Great Dark Spot Article describes it not as a storm, but as a hole in the atmosphere.  Wikihonduras 21:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Great Dark Spot 

message: The bit about Varuna being the Indian name, that's been removed and replaced... Varuna's page suggests that he is associated with Venus. The connection with Neptune seems only to go as far as the God-of-the-sea bit, and nothing to do with the planet.
There's also a Kuiper Belt Object called Varuna. David 12:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem that I have with these Indian planet names is, which language? Hindi? Urdu? Punjabi? Tamil? India has 32 official languages; which ones are "valid"? Serendipodous 22:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I think we need an expert on the subject. While clearly "Varuna" is a cultural equivalent of "Neptune", the name for the planet (according to the Wikipedia articles in other languages on the left) is a transliteration of "Neptune" in all of the Indian languages represented: Tamil நெப்டியூன், Kannada ನೆಪ್ಚೂನ್, Gujarati નૅપ્ચ્યુન, Marathi नेपच्यून, Bengali নেপচুন, Nepali नेप्च्युन, Urdu نیپچون. This is a representative if not exhaustive list. Only the Hindi Wikipedia article (not linked at left; I had to look it up) is titled वरुण Varuṇa, but I don't know whether this reflects common usage; thus, we need an expert. However, probably "Indian" in this article means only "Hindi". It might be worth changing. (BTW the Hindi Wikipedia article links to Uranus as अरुण Aruṇa.) Illexsquid (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Indian name

message: May be of interest in this article:
*
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warm south pole 

message: Neptune is a gas giant.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.123.238 (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neptune 

message: That little bit with the IPA is completely wrong.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.97.28 (talk) 01:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA is wrong. 

message: Which of the definitions of orbital period is applied in the infobox? NASA's page says 60,190 Earth days, not 60,327. This is important because, in 2011, Neptune will have traveled once around its orbit since being discovered... sort of a "birthday", and Wikipedians will want to celebrate. LightSpeed 09:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orbital Period 

message: There is the sentence:
"As with Uranus, the source of this heating is unknown, but the discrepancy is larger". But in the article of Uranus is said, (almost) no heating were measured or discovered. Is that more right, to compare the heating with that of Jupiter or Saturn? regards, --FrancescoA 09:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, --FrancescoA 22:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence with internal heating 

message: In the nasa fact sheet and in the infobox, there is written a Neptune year to last 
164.79 years. (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/neptunefact.html)
Then in the observation chapter, there is:
With an orbital period (sidereal period) of 164.88 Julian years, 
So there is an discrepancy (?) Thank you in advance.--FrancescoA 15:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Afraid I can't provide much background on that paragraph I added. I imported it verbatim from the article April 11, 2009, which was subsequently deleted (in fact, it was one of my own extremely rare VfD nominations). In hindsight this deletion is actually a GFDL violation, though an extremely minor one since the only contributor was the anonymous editor 200.94.232.121. Not sure if it's worth restoring it since as of now with this talk page edit the full authorship of that information is now attributed. As for the Aspects of Neptune article, it appears that the German Wikipedia has more inclusive content policies than the English one for a change; you can find what looks like the same table of information at :de:Neptunpositionen. The deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspects of Pluto. I note that the discussion actually didn't reach a very clear consensus, so undeleting these articles isn't entirely out of the question, but I think some good points were raised in the AfD discussion about how Wikisource might be a better place for this information to live. Perhaps I'm going off on a tangent here, but would anyone more familiar with the topic than me check out Wikisource to see if there's a good page to put them on? Astrology is completely out of my field and this appears to be primarily for that purpose. Bryan Derksen 06:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different neptune years 

message: Shouldn't there be something in this article regarding the Planetary migration of Neptune outwards over long time periods?
It has not always been at its present location, indeed, it formed much further in towards the Sun.58.175.240.247 09:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planetary Migration of Neptune 

message: Does anyone know what color Neptune's sky is? i have to do a report on it, and i need to know. If there is no color, then tell me that. PLEASE!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.187.14 (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See: skies of other planets 23:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sky Color 

message: who knows this? please tell. report comming up. And also, distance from sun.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.223.111.118 (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are both in the infobox. I have no intention of doing other people's homework, so please read the article before ddemanding information, It's called research.Serendipodous 10:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The infobox is that big grey thing under the picture. The technical name for "year" is "orbital period". The technical term for "day" is "sidereal rotation period." Serendipodous 19:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  length of day and year 

message: Is That True diamond raining is neptune Planet  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.225.43.222 (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  about diamond rain 

message: This article was inconsistent in its treatment of commas in numbers between one thousand (1,000 or 1000) and ten thousand. Most of the numbers did have commas, but a few did not, so I added them. According to the talk page, this article is written in British English, and I am an American, so I hope my changes are acceptable. Bunkyray5 (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The place to look for this sort of thing is the Manual of Style. The relevant section here is MOS:DIGITS, and it looks like your edits brought this page into line with it. Thanks! A2soup (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commas within numbers 

message: I suspect that microbars should be bars. pietro  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:760:2C00:8001:445F:2A1A:C13:F8FE (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup! Changed now. RhinoMind (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  thermosphere 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Neptune. 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/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/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080303045911/http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Neptune&Display=OverviewLong to http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Neptune&Display=OverviewLong
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718120920/https://www.gsi.de/informationen/wti/library/plasma2006/PAPERS/TT-11.pdf to https://www.gsi.de/informationen/wti/library/plasma2006/PAPERS/TT-11.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130502171825/http://home.surewest.net/kheider/astro/nept2011.txt to http://home.surewest.net/kheider/astro/nept2011.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) 13:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 88.88.166.202 (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2017