User talk:Nrco0e

Archives

2019 · 2020 · 2021 · 2022 · 2023 · 2024 · 2025 · 2026 · 2027 · 2028

Note: Please don't refer to me by any personal identity. I value my privacy. Thank you.

Silence... (what's this?) pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew

Your GA nomination of J1407b

The article J1407b you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:J1407b for comments about the article, and Talk:J1407b/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of EF5 -- EF5 (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A special barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		For first noticing the problem with spectral lines,[1] leading to this. It is always good to second guess things you don't understand. Keep doing that! Renerpho (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, thanks. I didn't expect this to turn out so catastrophic. I hope this gets corrected soon! Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 02:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You never know how deep a problem goes before you look into it.

We're aware of the issue now, which is a big step. Renerpho (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(55637) 2002 UX25

I did the same with (208996) 2003 AZ84, calculated to have about the same density. I removed both from the DP template. — kwami (talk) 04:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think Varuna should also be removed? Density <1 g/cm³, but higher than Tethys. Double sharp (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't actually know the density, do we? — kwami (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami and Double sharp: Correct, Varuna's density has not been directly measured. The 1 g/cm³ estimate comes from assuming hydrostatic equilibrium and then seeing what density works for its known shape and rotation period. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 07:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware of, I have not seen any astronomers calling Varuna a dwarf planet in recent scientific literature (2023, 2019, 2014). I think it's safe to remove the DP template and category from it.

(By the way, that 2023 abstract I linked above mentions JWST observations for confirming a possible satellite of Varuna spotted in Hubble images from 2005... it already took images of Varuna in November 2024, so we'll have to wait and see if it did find a satellite! Hopefully we can get a density from that, if it ever happens.) Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 07:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What seems to be happening is that anything with a well-determined oblong shape, or a satellite with a well determined orbit, is excluded as a possibility. The ones that remain may be darker and therefore larger than expected, but if so are probably at best solid objects, not DPs. Our list of DPs seems unlikely to grow from known bodies. — kwami (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anyone's ever called Varuna a DP. But that's true for most of our candidate objects -- that's in not our definition of what a 'possible DP' is. But the density calculation is based on the assumption that it is a DP, whether the researchers used that term or not. It seems our logic here is: 'if it's a DP [in HE], then its density is too low for it to be a DP. QED.' — kwami (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it from the cat and template, but I'm not sure about this. An active thermal history might result in an icy body with a low density but still close to a HE shape, like Saturn's moons. They would be considered DPs even if they don't meet a literal reading of the IAU definition, which no-one actually seems to follow. So if Tethys with a density of 0.98 would count as a DP, why not Varuna? We don't expect TNOs to have been that thermally active, but Haumea and Pluto show that it's possible. Can we really justify removing any of the three low-density objects? — kwami (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, really. Tethys is generally thought of as a "satellite planet" / "major moon" AFAICS, but its density is so low that there's some talk about it potentially being quite porous (I discussed it with you back in 2022 at User talk:Kwamikagami/Archive 32#Is Tethys solid?). Of course TNOs would probably have a rather different thermal history in general, but we know too little about specific cases. Double sharp (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're thinking Tethys might be like Hygiea? If Varuna were similar, then indeed it would no more be a DP than Hygiea would, even if both were 'worlds' by Stern's definition. Too bad we haven't had a flyby of Hygiea to help inform us. — kwami (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, in the sense that Hygiea seems to be a gravitational aggregate of the pieces that used to make it up – such a thing might not necessarily be solid throughout, no? Double sharp (talk) 09:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2001 KY76

Hello, Nrco0e,

I was just wondering why you tagged this article for a PROD, proposed deletion, and then, for some reason a few days later sent it to AFD but you never removed the PROD tag. Articles don't need more than one form of deletion. If you had just left the PROD, it would have been deleted today but now that it's at AFD, the PROD tag has been removed and it needs more time for an AFD discussion which could last a week or longer. Please just select one form of article deletion and don't put competing tags on any one article.

And you did the same with 1999 OD4, 1999 OZ3 along with 2001 XB255. Please do not do this in the future. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I now realize that I asked you to tag all of these articles that were part of the AFD but it looks like you PROD'd the articles and set up the AFD on the same day which was unnecessary. And when you added the AFD tag, you should remove the PROD tag since, in Wikipedia world, the AFD takes priority over the Proposed deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I see. I wasn't sure about the difference between AfD and PROD when I was setting up the grouped AfD for the other articles, but thanks for letting me know. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 06:00, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saturn moon updates

Thank you! :D

Would you be able to help with Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons and List of natural satellites too? 128 is rather a lot. (╯︵╰,) Double sharp (talk) 09:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: If you could tag me once List of natural satellites has been updated (whoever does it), I can then update the chart used in that article (File:Moons_vs_time.SVG). Thanks! Renerpho (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: I'm considering it, but I have to study for final exams so I won't be available to update these lists until the 18th. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 17:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, take your time! It's a massive update and I guess our readers will forgive us. :D Double sharp (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp and Renerpho: Updated List of natural satellites, that one was easy to fill out since I only had to make a few minor tweaks to my code for Moons of Saturn. The satellites aren't ordered by designation and are instead ordered verbatim from the MPC announcements, since I'm lazy and don't have time for that. I see a lot of the satellites on that list have outdated radii and orbital parameters, which sounds like a far bigger hassle which I absolutely don't feel like dealing with right now.

The Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons is a lot more complicated to fill out, considering the rowspans and keeping track of the individual satellites' discovery dates. I'll save that for later after I finish my exams. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 01:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great to hear! I've ordered the satellites by designation and created the redirects (except for the S/2023 batch, since there's fifty of them; maybe I'll get to that later). Double sharp (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! File:Moons vs time.SVG has been updated. Renerpho (talk) 10:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Renerpho: Nice, but wouldn't it be better to use announcement rather than discovery dates? Double sharp (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: Why? Renerpho (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Renerpho: Mostly because in 2004, there weren't actually that many Saturnian moons known to the scientific community yet? Double sharp (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: The original plot was created in 2008 (not by me), and is used on many different projects. What you suggest would have to be a second plot, for the announcement dates. That's certainly doable. Renerpho (talk) 12:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Renerpho: Sure, that works for me. I'd definitely like to see that second plot too; I think it might be more useful to our readers. :D Double sharp (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: Here it is: File:Moons vs time announcement.svg -- If you see a place where it might be useful, go ahead and add it! Renerpho (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Renerpho: Thanks! :D Double sharp (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also created the redirects for the S/2023 moons. :) Double sharp (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]