Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Solar System/Archive 1

I've been thinking about how the Mars and Moon wikiprojects will fit into the Solar System project and have come up with the following suggestions;

1. All discussions on these two talk pages should be redirected to the Solar System talk page in order to help achieve a critical mass.
2. The main Mars and Moon project pages should remain as is. These contain useful information related to these specialized subtopics.
3. The article assessments and project banners should remain as is for the Moon and Mars subprojects. These are useful for those who are interested in tracking health of these respective subdisiplines.
4. If the time comes that the talk page of Solar System becomes overloaded, we can spin off these topics back to the old Mars and Moon talk pages.

Let me know what you think. In about a week I'll make the necessary changes to the Moon talk page. (I am currently alerting the members of Martian Geography to the possibility of renaming this project to just Mars to increase its scope.) Lunokhod 22:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

:Please refer tp the discussion on reorganising Space-related projects. Best to keep all discussion in one place. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 20:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The Mars page has been put in as a featured article candidate - the comments so far here are of general interest to the current space reorganisation and solar system wide FA status :) - also any help giving Mars a push towards FAC velocity much appreciated, kind regards, sbandrews 18:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Found these, some of them have been prodded. 70.51.8.30 06:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Aspects of Mars
• Aspects of 1 Ceres
• Aspects of 2 Pallas
• Aspects of 3 Juno
• Aspects of 4 Vesta
• Aspects of Jupiter
• Aspects of Saturn
• Aspects of Uranus
• Aspects of Neptune
• Aspects of Pluto

Exploded Planet Hypothesis has been AfD'd. 70.55.84.23 06:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello! This is to announce that several templates for automatic convertion between metric and imperial units and for displaying consistently formatted output have been created: {{tl|km to mi}}, {{tl|mi to km}}, {{tl|m to ft}}, {{tl|ft to m}}, {{tl|km2 to mi2}}, {{tl|mi2 to km2}}, {{tl|m2 to ft2}}, and {{tl|ft2 to m2}}. Hopefully, they will be useful to the participants of this WikiProject. The templates are all documented, provide parameters to fine-tune the output, and can be substituted if necessary.

Any suggestions, requests for improvement/features, or bug reports are welcome.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

How shall we maintain the Solar System portal? Atomic1609 19:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• I put my thoughts here. — Pious7_Talk^Contribs 03:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Pluto is close to achieving GA status, but there are a few unreferenced sections. Atomic1609 12:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

A whole lot of asteroids appear to have these ephemerides sections attached to them. See asteroids starting at #10, and continuing on and on and on. 132.205.44.134 21:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings → Apollo missions tracked by independent parties- proposed by user:ScienceApologist. 132.205.44.134 23:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Pluto spacecraft has been proposed for deletion at WP:TFD by user:Cop 633. 132.205.44.134 23:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I nominated Uranus for WP:AID because it needs work (the other planets and dwarf planets are good or featured articles). Please support it there. — Pious7_Talk^Contribs 00:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Planetary formation→ Nebular hypothesis Solar nebula → Nebular hypothesis - Serendipodous 20:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

: See WP:RM for the suggestion.

70.51.11.38 03:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I made the :Category:Solar System dynamic theories, containing post-Newton astronomical ({{User:Rursus/Scream|not}} that astrological stuff) theories about explosive solar system events, like Late Heavy Bombardment, Planet V etc..

1. Either: kill me violently, screaming: why did you create that stupid category? (you moron!!),
2. Or: hint me about pages that may belong to that category.
3. ...no third option...

Said: Rursus 10:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Are there any really major Solar System articles that should go in the portal that I left out? Keep in mind that sub-articles of planets have to be added evenly. For example, we can't just have Geography of Mars if we want it, we have to have a Geography article for every planet that has it. Also remember that not every Solar System-related article can fit without cluttering the portal - I'm asking if I left out any obvious major articles. — Pious7_Talk^Contribs 15:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

:I've added Halley's Comet to the list of comets in the topics section. Watch37264 19:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Because Neptune is an A-class article, I started a peer review for it. Feel free to review it or address some of the criticism so it can become a featured article candidate. The Solar System featured topic is almost all featured articles and this makes it one step closer. — Pious7_Talk^Contribs 19:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Portal: Solar System is a featured portal candidate at Wikipedia:Featured_portal_candidates/Portal:Solar_System. So far, there hasn't been much of a discussion. — Pious7_Talk^Contribs 20:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should have importance ratings on articles. Some articles obviously deserve more attention than others (e.g. Solar System would be top-importance, the planets and dwarf planets would be high-importance, etc.). Especially if the Space reorganization is ever complete, we need to be more active. — Pious7_Talk^Contribs 21:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey fellow members. Doesn't everyone agree with me that we should make a userbox for our WikiProject. What does everyone else think? Leave your comments here. Thanks, Meldshal42.

• I made one at Template:User Solar System... — Pious7_Talk^Contribs 00:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I'm trying to sort out the mess at the end of the Oort Cloud article, and have put a potential rewrite on the article's talk page. Any feedback would be most welcome - I've read the literature in an attempt to sort this out, but the outer solar system isn't my usual territory. Chrislintott 18:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've added it to the To Do list of WikiProject Solar System under "cleanup." — Pious7 02:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I nominated article about Amalthea for good article status. Please, review it. Ruslik 12:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The article about Amalthea (moon) has been listed as a good article now. Ruslik 13:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I requested scienific peer review of the article about Rings of Jupiter. Any comments are welcome.Ruslik 11:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Uranus has survived WP:ACID and is this week's collaboration. Please help improve this neglected article if you can. — Pious7 02:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Found an unusual article, Planetary-size comparison, which in a previous incarnation was redirected as a fork. Looks like it might be cleaned up into a reasonable article for the Simple English Wikipedia? 70.55.86.19 05:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I nominated the article for FA status. Please, participate. Ruslik 13:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Per the new resolution at Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria, the Solar System featured topic will be eligible for removal after 1 January 2008 if Uranus is not improved to GA or FA level. Thanks.--Pharos 03:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I have submitted Io (moon) for a Scientific Peer Review. Any comments on further improve the article, particularly along the lines of the points mentioned on the peer review discussion page, would be much appreciated. Let's try to get another moon to featured article status (or in this case, back to featured article status). --Volcanopele 20:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Tiamat (hypothetical planet) has been requested for deletion at WP:AFD by User:JoshuaZ. 132.205.44.134 02:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree, because it's not a scientific theory. Its proper place should be in the modern mythology category if it existed (not in Hypothetical bodies of the Solar System). Ruslik 07:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on about the Solar System featured topic on its talk page. Feel free to contribute to the discussion and help improve that featured topic's articles.— Pious7 15:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You can help select pictures for Portal:Solar System! Simply go to the nomination page and nominate or vote on a featured picture that meets its requirements. — Pious7 18:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Every now and again I come down with serious Sitchin. And now it's at hypothetical planet again. I deleted it and it came right back. I don't really know what to do with him; he just keeps popping up. It's the new religion I think. Serendipodous 22:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is resolvable, but heliosphere, interplanetary medium, and solar wind all deal with different aspects of the same thing. I was wondering if there was some possibility for mergence. Serendipodous 22:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

List of asteroids was nominated for deletion at WP:AFD by user:Cerejota as listcruft: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of asteroids. 132.205.44.5 21:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I requested peer review of Callisto (moon of Jupiter). Any comments are appreciated. Ruslik 16:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Comets in popular culture has been nominated for deletion by user:Eyrian at 19:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC). The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comets in popular culture. 132.205.44.5 22:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated the article Saturn, on which I have been working for a couple of weeks now, for FAC. Please come and support it here. Thank you. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 16:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Serendipodous suggests that Solar nebula be renamed Nebular hypothesis. 70.51.8.214 07:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! I have gotten the article Saturn to Featured Status, as seen here. A great boost to this project. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 09:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

i created this page on 4th August 2007, and now i have nominated the page for FAC. please leave your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Geology of solar terrestrial planets. If any thing needs to be worked out then do tell me before hand. thanks, Sushant gupta 12:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Speculation that Iapetus is artificial has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speculation that Iapetus is artificial by User:Radiant!. 132.205.44.5 22:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

User:RobertG has nominated :Category:People with craters of the Moon named after them for conversion into the list List of people with craters of the Moon named after them. 132.205.44.5 23:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is currently a FA candidate. Please, participate. Comments can be left here.Ruslik 13:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Nergaal has nominated Ceres (dwarf planet) for featured status. Please comment here.Serendi^podous 14:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

2006 definition of planet has an ongoing renaming debate on the talk page, and several non-consensus renames over the weekend. 132.205.44.5 00:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

On the oft-chance that someone actually reads this (this is the page we're supposed to discuss these things after all), we need to come to some kind of agreement about the definition of Kuiper belt vs. Scattered disc. If we assume that the scattered disc is separate from the kuiper belt, then scattered disc should keep its own article. If we decide to refer to Eris as the largest object in the Kuiper belt, then Scattered disc article should be merged with the Kuiper belt article. Since there is no agreed scientific definition of this, we need to find some way to clear up the confusion. Serendi^podous 09:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I nominated Callisto to FAC. You can leave your comments here. Ruslik 12:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Eagle 101 and I and created a bot that would create articles on every asteroid we don't have articles on. Please provide your support or objection to the proposal [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects here]. Daniel Bush 17:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've created footers for all of the planets (and one of the dwarf planets). Feel free to revise or suggest any changes. Remember 22:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

{{Pluto}}

{{Neptune}}

{{Uranus}}

{{Saturn}}

{{Jupiter}}

{{Mars}}

{{Venus}}

{{Mercury (planet)}}

:Nice job, though (and I'm sure you already realise this) the footers are going to have to have Eris and Ceres versions as well. Serendi^podous 06:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

::Yeah I was planning on adding those too. Remember 16:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

:::And Done (thought they could probably still use a little work). Remember 17:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

{{Eris}}

{{Ceres}}

:Shouldn't Eris and Ceres have distinct colours? 132.205.44.5 01:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

::I've adjusted Eris' colour. 132.205.44.5 03:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

:::Eris and Ceres now no longer look like the Sun and the Moon in colour of their templates. 132.205.44.5 04:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

:How about an {{tl|Earth Footer}}? and perhaps a redirect from {{tl|The Moon}} to template:The Moon, and {{tl|Sun Footer}} to template:The Sun? (one more planet, and two former planets) 132.205.44.5 01:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

{{The Moon}}

{{The Sun}}

When I was your age, Pluto was a Planet has been sent for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/When I was your age, Pluto was a Planet. 132.205.99.122 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

MESUR (Mars Environmental Survey) program seems to be missing. 132.205.99.122 22:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The article has been nominated for Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive.Nergaal (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

categories of Surface features of celestial bodies has been nominated to rename from cat:X on Y to cat:X of Y. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 9#Surface features of celestial bodies 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Venus has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/{{#if:{{{2.

Serendi^podous 15:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

List of asteroids/1–100 has been nominated for deletion .132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

List of asteroids/7201–7300 is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of asteroids/7201–7300 because it is a directory (see WP:NOT). 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

A peer review has been requested for this article. If you wish to contribute, please do. Serendi^podous 21:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The article has been nominated for peer review. Please, participate. Ruslik (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Since this article falls under this project, for those interested you can leave some comments about the FAC here. Nergaal (talk) 08:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

These excellent podcasts have conducted an in-depth survey of the Solar System. They are informative and also link to a number of authoritative sites. They might make good external links:

:[http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/episode-30-the-sun-spots-and-all/ The Sun]

:[http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/episode-49-mercury/ Mercury]

:[http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/episode-50-venus/ Venus]

:[http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/episode-51-earth/ Earth]

:[http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/episode-29-asteroids-make-bad-neighbors/ Near Earth asteroids]

:[http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/meteor-showers-yes-the-sky-is-falling/ Meteorites]

:[http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/episode-17-where-does-the-moon-come-from/ The Moon]

:[http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/episode-52-mars/ Mars]

:[http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/episode-55-the-asteroid-belt/ Asteroid belt]

:[http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/episode-56-jupiter/ Jupiter]

:[http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/episode-57-jupiters-moons/ Jupiter's moons]

:[http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/episode-59-saturn/ Saturn]

:[http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/episode-61-saturns-moons/ Saturn's moons]

:[http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/episode-62-uranus/ Uranus]

:[http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/episode-63-neptune/ Neptune]

:[http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/episode-64-pluto-and-the-icy-outer-solar-system/ Pluto, the Kuiper belt and the Oort cloud]

:[http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/episode-19-comets-our-icy-friends-from-the-outer-solar-system/ Comets]

:[http://www.astronomycast.com/astronomy/episode-65-the-end-of-our-tour-through-the-solar-system/ Heliopause]

Serendi^podous 11:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

:Category:Binary asteroids is up for renaming at WP:CFD. Note that there also exists :Category:Asteroid satellites 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is now FA candidate. Please, participate. Ruslik (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Moons of Neptune has been nominated for deletion, because of redundancy with Template:Neptune. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Naerii has asked for the red links on the following pages to be filled in with relevant information. I have created several of these stubs, but recently someone has asked me about the notability of these rocks. And, before continuing creating these stubs, I would like know whether or not these are notable and whether or not they should have articles. The lists of pages is as follows:

• List of named asteroids (A-C)
• List of named asteroids (D-E)
• List of named asteroids (F-H)
• List of named asteroids (I-K)
• List of named asteroids (L-N)
• List of named asteroids (O-R)
• List of named asteroids (S-V)
• List of named asteroids (W-Z)

Thanks for your time. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 07:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

:Considering that plenty of those articles which already exist are of equal notabilty (some examples) it seems to me that either all should exist, or a selected few of high 'notability'. It seems odd to apply the concept of notability to asteroids, btw. Anyway, I found the list on User:Messedrocker/goldmine originally and never questioned whether or not they should be created - my bad? I was just doing as I was told :( But imo there's no reason for these articles not to exist, one asteroid is usually as notable as another and I don't see how minor planets etc can not be notable. It's not like they're garage bands or something. Idk. Input would be interesting though. You might want to post this on Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects as they appear to have more members. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

:Also, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_asteroids/1%E2%80%93100 where people unanimously agreed that named asteroids were inherently notable (just three months ago). -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey everybody, serenptious and I are about to start a FA push in Oort Cloud. any help is truly appreciated. Samuel Sol (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to notify you all that Serendipodous has nominated this article for FA (see nomination.). Good luck to all who contributed. Meldshal42_{Comments and Suggestions}^{My Contributions} 19:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

=== Change of heart- New FA Push will begin on scattered disc ===

Thanks, Meldshal42_{Comments and Suggestions}^{My Contributions} 19:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations to all who contributed to this new FA! The hard work shows all over this article. Great job, and hopefully Oort Cloud will be our next FA! Congrats! Meldshal42_{Comments and Suggestions}^{My Contributions} 19:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm slowly bringing List of moons up to Featured List quality. Any help, and/or suggestions, would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just wondering, should we add the Big Bang to our perspective? It is already an FA, so there wouldn't be that much worth in it. However, having yet another FA could be beneficial. Meldshal42_{Comments and Suggestions}^{My Contributions} 21:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

:We're just the Solar System here. That's not really our address. Serendi^podous 22:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

: Alright. I wasn't planning on adding it. Meldshal42_{Comments and Suggestions}^{My Contributions} 23:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The article has been nominated for peer review. Please, participate. Ruslik (talk) 09:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Mercury (planet) has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/{{#if:. Kaldari (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

:Mercury is now a Featured Article Removal Candidate and looks destined to lose it's featured article status unless significant work is done on it. Kaldari (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated this article to featured article. Ruslik (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Mercury-crossing asteroids was prodded by user:Jeepday after an exact-phrase search did not turn up "Mercury-crossing asteroid". Cited WP:OR, WP:N, and WP:V. It was then deprodded by user:Phil Bridger because an exact-phrase search was unreasonable way to search for the topic. 70.55.88.176 (talk) 09:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

2009 has been proclaimed as the International Year of Astronomy. It would be great to tie in with this, both to help with the aims of the international year and to spur extra improvements to Wikipedia's coverage of astronomy. I've started a thread about this over at WikiProject Astronomy; please have a look and join in with the conversation. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Electrical Experiment is proposing to rename the former planet, Pluto to Pluto (dwarf planet). 70.51.9.216 (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I submitted this article for a peer review. You can comment here. Ruslik (talk) 08:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Please create an article called Regions of Titan TO PUT Xanadu Shangri-La Adiri etc. It is just an Idea —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.82.137.6 (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There are over 10,000 {{cl|asteroid stubs}} kicking around now (and more in its largest subcategory), thanks to the "work" of the bot mentioned on this page a couple of months ago. The majority of these articles seem to contain extremely minimal information, making my wonder as to their actual utility, or indeed improvability. Certainly, there seems to be too little information to usefully split them up into further stub types, to try to make this more manageable, and to helpfully stop the more salvageable articles from being swamped by this stuff. Anyone have any ideas? Alai (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects#Asteroid_articles -- Kheider (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks. I'd tried to start discussion there earlier, without detectable success, so I'd begun to suspect it wasn't the right venue, and had missed this later one. Alai (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The IAU has decided on the name for this category of objects. Here's the [http://www.iau.org/public_press/news/release/iau0804/ press release]. -- Cyrius|✎ 15:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a source for a definition of Impact basin, specifically how a basin's size is measured? I recently changed Hellas Planitia in an attempt to reconcile the difference between the cite from Brittanica (7000 km) and the cite from NASA (2100 km). Quite a difference but they appear to be talking of different things.

Among planetary scientists does basin include the rim, the ejecta blanket and concentric topographic rings further out? What do they mean by "floor" and "rim"?

After my edits the Hellas Planitia article has "extends about 2300 km east to west" to which I added an inline ref of "The part below zero datum". That's my original research by looking a NASA profile. [http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect19/Sect19_12.html This NASA source] has "about 2100". 2300 is from a 1990 book.

I also added "and its debris field could be interpereted as extending about 7000 km across" to try to reconcile it with the earlier 7000 km Brittanica cite. Again I looked at the NASA profile and guessed the outer extent of the debris (a very wild guess).

Here are quotes from some craters listed in Impact basin#Largest named craters in the Solar System (the number is the given rank):

• 1. South Pole-Aitken basin "2500 kilometers in diameter and 13 kilometers deep"
• 2. Hellas Planitia "2100", "2300", "7000"
• 3. Skinakas Basin "2300 km", "double-ringed structure, with the inner ring having a diameter of around 1600 km"
• 8. Argyre Planitia "approximately 1120 miles (1800 kilometers) wide, believed to be the second-largest impact basin on Mars after Hellas Planitia"
• 12. Valhalla (crater) "central region 600 km across, an inner ridge and through zone and striking concentric rings extending to a diameter of approximately 3,800 km"

Missing from that list is:

• Chryse Planitia "1600 km in diameter and with a floor 2.5 km below the average planetary surface altitude"

Advice requested, (maybe cleanup of my edits!) -84user (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

After havng both formation and evolution of the solar system and oort cloud pass FAC, i am proud to announce the newest "project" for WP:SS.Note:Not everyone has to do this.The newest project will be scattered disc ( as said in the title). Thanks, and let's get to work! ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that after that scattered disc passes FAC, i would like to work towards Charon achieveing GA. Just an idea. ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Should star be added to the list of FAs in our solar system topic? --Meldshal42 (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

:No, because our Solar System only has one star in it. Star is more general, like Planet. I could see it become the main article of its own featured topic, with all the other star-related articles listed below it. Serendi^podous 13:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/{{#if:. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 06:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of the planets have different formats for the sidereal rotation periods. E.g. Earth has "23^h 56^m 04.09054^s", Mercury has "58 d 15.5 h", and Mars simply has "24.62296 h", should these not all be formatted the same for consistency?

– Kelmar (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at :Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Previously the {{tl|WPSpace}} banner, which could be used to mark an article as being within scope for multiple space-related wikiprojects, would automatically include WikiProject Solar System if either WikiProject Moon or WikiProject Mars was included. But a string of edits was made indicating various Mars- and Moon-related articles were not within scope fir WikiProject Solar System. FYI the bahavior of {{tl|WPSpace}} in this regard has now been changed, and is now not to do any autoinclusion of WikiProject Solar System. Of course the features of the WPSpace banner can still be explicitly used to add WikiProject Solar System to the list of space-related wikiprojects. It just isn't automatically done for Mars and Moon articles. (sdsds - talk) 01:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I was planning to put the article up for nomination on the Today's Featured Article on August 15 - in relation with the 2006 definition. Yet I just noticed that there is at least 1 more accepted member. Can someone help me fill in the gaps of the article? Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

...Scattered disc requires the input of a domain expert. Thanks Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 05:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I want to added importance rating to {{tl|WPSS}} (and {{tl|WPSpace}}) template. I propose to use Top, High and Low ratings. If you disagree, please, post your comments here. Ruslik (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

: I will implement the change. Ruslik (talk) 09:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ruslik, I have noticed that you are the one making most of these changes to the minor planets. I say you have been doing very well. I trust your judgment. Go for it. :-) -- Kheider (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The FA-Team wants to help Scattered disc reach FA status, but needs input from subject experts (as Ling.Nut indicated above). Any editors here who would like to help, please sign up on the mission page. For something a little different, but loosely related, help with Solar energy would also be appreciated. Geometry guy 15:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

As part of the Good Article sweeps conducted by Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, I have completed a reassessment of 2 Pallas and placed the reassessment on hold for one week to allow some minor things to be fixed. I would appreciate it if editors from this project could visit the reassessment, which can be found here. Please contact me with any concerns or questions. Thank you, GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

:The only remaining issue is finding a citation for Pallas' axial tilt. If anyone knows where to find a source for this, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Following a (years old) suggestion in here, I began to draft a sortable table of solar system's objects. I personally think it would be nice and useful, and it could perhaps avoid the current multiple lists of objects with different order criteria. As you can see now it is just a primordial sketch: I present it here so that we can discuss about 1)if it is worthy and if yes 2)what parameters, units of measure etc. would be best to include 3)everything else related. Let me know! --Cyclopia (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Also I noticed the following pages that could be interesting to unify in a single, sortable table:

List of planetary bodies

Table of the largest objects in the Solar System

Any idea on if and how to unify them? --Cyclopia (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:I agree. Those two should be merged. But it will take a long time. I'm still working on a previous merge for Table of the largest objects in the Solar System. The main difference is pictures. If we can put pictures into the largest objects table, there wouldn't be much need for the planetary bodies article. Serendi^podous 18:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::That's why sortable is the key word here, in my opinion. Having a sortable table featuring most Solar System objects would not need to have a separate table for the largest (largest with which cutoff, by the way? by which measure?) -you can just sort by mass, or diameter, and look at them. You automatically have also tables for the most dense, most eccentric, most inclinated etc. objects, automagically. I'd like to know what do you think of the sketch I've linked above. If you think it's worth, I can continue to do it, including at least all planets, dwarf planets and relevant minor planets, and when it begins to be next to readiness put it on WP namespace. However I'd like people to comment it before (using Earth's area/mass/gravity is ok? temperature is best in °C or K?). As for the images, it would be a cool, but subsequent addition, I think. --Cyclopia (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Looks pretty good, and looks like it would mesh pretty well with the table I'm working on. BTW, the cutoff for the largest satellites/SSSBs in the largest objects table is simply the top ten. What it is in the planetary objects table I have no idea. Serendi^podous 20:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::::Thanks, I'll go ahead as to including at least planets now. Can you provide a link on your work-in-progress table, so that I can understand better how is it done and if they can be merged in a single thing on which to work together? --Cyclopia (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::All I'm really doing is using the "Planets" section of the Largest objects table as a template for the SSSBs. Still, here's a link (keep in mind; half of it is still planets- I haven't finished overwriting the numbers yet). Serendi^podous 20:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::Looks very similar. In my case, I need to have switched axes (don't think sortable works on rows) and I don't like to divide them by category, I'd prefer to keep them all together and having the denomination planet/dwarf planet/minor planet as an additional column (also because it's not necessarily the biggest the most important: I found myself sketching that table because I wanted an answer to the question: what's the known natural object with the farthest aphelion? And the smallest perihelion? Etc.). I'll go ahead with my little table anyway, and in the meantime I hope to gather more opinions. --Cyclopia (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an [http://toolserver.org/~cbm/release-data/2008-9-13/HTML/ automated selection of articles for Version 0.7].

We would like to ask you to review the [http://toolserver.org/~cbm/release-data/2008-9-13/HTML/Solar_System.s0.html articles selected from this project]. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A [http://toolserver.org/~cbm/cgi-bin/problems.cgi list of selected articles with cleanup tags], sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Greetings! After a small bit of cleanup, I've requested a peer review of Volcanism on Io. If anyone wants to pitch in, please leave a review, or go ahead and make some improvements. Cheers! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 08:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

:Volcanism on Io, has been submitted to Featured Article Candidacy. Please look over the article, and submit a comment or vote. Thank you, Volcanopele (talk) 05:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

{{tl|MinorPlanets Navigator}} is up for deletion at WP:TFD 70.51.8.158 (talk) 08:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

2006 definition of planet has been nominated for renaming 70.55.203.112 (talk) 04:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I appointed myself a project coordinator sometime ago. Does anybody have any objections? Ruslik (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

: I object. You didn't bribe anyone. More specifically, you didn't bribe me. I take checks. ;-) Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 14:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The following two moves have been requested at WP:RM ; See Talk:List_of_asteroids#Requested_move

• List of asteroids → List of minor planets
• Meanings of asteroid names → Meanings of minor-planet names

70.51.10.188 (talk) 04:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

A mesoplanet is an object in our Solar System that is larger than Ceres, but smaller than the planet Mercury. The largest mesoplanets are Triton, Pluto, Eris, and most of the remaining dwarf planets, along with smaller bodies such as Sedna, Quaoar, Orcus, and many other objects. ````Joetough```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joetough (talk • contribs) 21:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

:There's an article Mesoplanet... 70.51.10.188 (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Comet Hale-Bopp has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/{{#if:. Marskell (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Kreutz Sungrazers has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/{{#if:. —Ceran^(Sing) 23:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a current event that will be active for the next couple of weeks and, therefore, should be a pretty decently viewed article. [http://www.yahoo.com/s/976623 Yahoo] even had a front page link to the event, so you know it should be a pretty popular article for a little while. Looks like it could use some clean-up and it could probably start with an infobox if there's one for it. Don't have enough knowledge on the subject, but I figure I'd bring it to this WP's attention if it's not in your crosshairs already. Have fun! roguegeek (talk·cont) 04:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

:If someone can just point me to the infobox that should be used for this article, I could start the cleanup. roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

::I don't think there is an infobox for it. Serendi^podous 19:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I submitted this article for a peer review. You can comment here. Ruslik (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, I have conducted a Good Article reassessment of 3 Juno. I have a few concerns that should be addressed if the article is to remain listed as a GA. If anyone is able to help out, the reassessment can be found here. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is a featured article candidate now. You can comment here. Ruslik (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, I have conducted a Good Article reassessment of 4 Vesta. I have a few concerns that should be addressed if the article is to remain listed as a GA. If anyone is able to help out, the reassessment can be found here. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder that this article is undergoing a GA reassessment as part of the GA sweeps. It has been on hold for over two weeks, but several concerns remain. If they are not addressed soon, I will have to delist the article. Because it is part of the Main asteroid belt Featured Topic, this would also mean that the Featured Topic would be delisted. There's not much left to do, so any help you can provide would be great. The reassessment page is here. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

May I make a redirect page of the article Planetary Database System? The reason is here: Talk:Planetary Database System. Said: Rursus (☻) 16:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how topics, let alone Featured Topics, really work, but is there a reason that 3 Juno, a GA, is not included in the FT Main Asteroid Belt? SkarmCA (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi all,

I have done an extensive rewrite of this article and have requested a peer review here. Some input and suggestions would be very welcome because I don't think it's terribly far from GA status, but I've hit the limit of what I can do on my own. Thanks, Reyk _YO! 21:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• After an excellent peer review by User:Ruhrfisch, i have nominated this article for GA. Reyk _YO! 01:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note my proposal for making a table-row template for lists of solar eclipses, so that they emit hCard microformats. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding those articles on the project page listed under 'Articles in need of attention', I'm working on their reference repair. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

A number of articles have a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/1_Ceres redirect] because Ceres is listed as 1 Ceres rather than as Ceres (dwarf planet). As the list and the minor planets navigator runs into potential technical issues, I don't know it it can or should be fixed. I didn't activate it here, but the text to test it in the sandbox is {{MinorPlanets Navigator|1 Ceres||PageName=2 Pallas}}. Novangelis (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Macula (planetary geology) has been nominated for deletion at WP:AFD 76.66.196.229 (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• I found some sources that should be enough to save the article, but I don't have time to write it at the moment. If anyone else wants to jump in, feel free. Reyk _YO! 21:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

See WT:AST, someone has mentioned possibly deleting most of the stub articles. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

:See WT:ASTRO for additional discussions. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is a featured article candidate now. You can comment here. Ruslik (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a suggestion - that {{cl|comets}} be subcategorized with the creation of {{cl|periodic comets}} ... so that the main category can contain infomation on comets in general, while the subcategory can contain articles on individual comets. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

: I do not object. Ruslik (talk) 13:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Everyone loves this so far, so I don't see why you guys wouldn't love it as well.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• I certainly do not object to it. Reyk _YO! 06:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing, the article Mars is in need of cleanup. Hopefully, editors will get on it right away, or the article should be submitted to WP:FAR for review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

At WP:CFD a rename has been requested for :Category:Eponyms of Trans-Neptunian objects to :Category:Eponyms of trans-Neptunian objects

76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

:Category:Eponyms of Trans-Neptunian objects has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI, FWIW, here's Wikipedia:WikiProject Solar System/Popular pages 76.66.193.90 (talk) 07:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

{{cl|Transiting planets}} → {{cl|Transiting exoplanets}} has been proposed at WP:CFD, to exclude Mercury and Venus. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:41, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

C/1978 A1 and Great Comet of 1771 have been nominated for deletion. They are redirects, and their target doesn't say anything about these comets. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 04:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

{{#if:|User:{{{2}}} has|I have}} nominated Comet for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Cirt (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Solar system basic has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar system basic. Note that the creator of this article has recently created a sandbox article User:HarryAlffa/Solar System synopsis that he categorized into article categories, so I expect the article to be recreated if deleted... 76.66.196.218 (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

There is an active discussion on rewriting the lead section of Solar System, as Solar System is a featured article, more participants might be a good idea. See Talk:Solar System and Wikipedia:Featured article review/Solar System/archive1 76.66.196.218 (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I created this infobox for the articles about planetary magnetospheres (currently used in two articles). Comments and suggestions are appreciated. Ruslik (talk) 12:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I nominated this article for peer review. You can leave your comments here. Ruslik (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello my name is Chuck Ard(Triton66) and I had some ideas about the origins of Saturn's outermost moons. Clearly the entry of Phoebe into the Saturn system had a destabilizing effect on the outermost moons, much how like Triton's retrograde orbit prevented large moons from forming around Neptune. In Phoebe's case, this happened much farther away from Saturn. As Phoebe entered the outer Saturn system, it may have passed by several small moons and caused their breakups. It's possible that both the prograde and retrograde moons between Kiviuq and Tarvos resulted from the Phoebe entry. Here is my list for Saturn's outermost moons' origins (up to Tarvos that is).

Kiviuq

Ijiraq

Phoebe

3,000,000km gap

Paaliaq

Skathi

Albiorix/S2007S2

593,000km gap

Bebhiom/Erriapus

Skoll

303,000km gap

Siarnaq

Tarqeq/S2004S13/Greip/Hyrrokkin

388,000km gap

Tarvos/Jarnsaxa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triton66 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

:Phoebe (moon) is only 230km in diameter. It is not a captured dwarf planet. It is likely a run-of-the-mill captured centaur (minor planet). Outer moons are [http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?glossary&term=lp not stable] in the first place. Saturn already has 7 spherical moons. Triton mostly likely disrupted existing moons by crashing them into one another... -- Kheider (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)'

Thank you for responding Kheider, it's nice to meet you. I think what I meant to say was in the really small chance that Phoebe came close enough to a small, Helene-sized original prograde outer moon, it would have to be extremely close for Phoebe's mass to have had any disruptive effect as well. It is possible that none of the moons were effected by Phoebe, I will concede. Anyway, wouldn't you like to know what Tarvos looks like up close! Would it be unreasonable to consider Tarvos to be Saturn's outermost natural satellite, or a captured object? Does having a prograde orbit necessarily mean originating from the Saturn system? It would be so cool if JPL were able to send Cassini to the outer Saturn system at least 1 more time before they do the suicide mission in 2017. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triton66 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Solar System/Article alerts. enjoy! Nergaal (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

133552 Itting-Enke has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

:File:I screenimage 30579.jpg has been nominated for deletion, as an ESA copyrighted image being replaceable. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

:File:X3solarflare.gif has been nominated for deletion, as an ESA copyrighted image being replaceable. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

:File:Solarflareanimation.gif has been nominated for deletion, as an ESA copyrighted image being replaceable. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

See WT:AST, apparently permission is granted for use of these astrophotos from [http://www.castfvg.it/fotoccd.htm Fotographie - Immagini CCD] 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

A bunch of categories have been proposed to be renamed:

• :Category:Mars' moons to :Category:Moons of Mars
• :Category:Jupiter's moons to :Category:Moons of Jupiter
• :Category:Saturn's moons to :Category:Moons of Saturn
• :Category:Neptune's moons to :Category:Moons of Neptune
• :Category:Uranus' moons to :Category:Moons of Uranus

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_20#Planetary_moons

76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

See WT:AST, apparently permission is granted for use of these astrophotos from [http://archive.stsci.edu/cgi-bin/dss_form STScI Digitized Sky Survey]

76.66.196.85 (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

:Category:Images of moons and :Category:Lunar images (images of The Moon) have been nominated for deletion at WP:CFD on May 23. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 04:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed Geology of solar terrestrial planets for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

{{#if:|User:{{{2}}} has|I have}} nominated Sun for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SkyBon^{Talk\Contributions} 11:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

::With no progress it will end up without the star in a few days.--Stone (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

3621 Curtis has been prodded for deletion. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have done a GA Reassessment of the article, Asteroid as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found that the article does not meet the current GA Criteria. As such I have held the article for a week pending fixes. My review can be found here. I am notifying all interested projects about this. If you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

{{tl|Infobox Planet}} has been updated to include a "pronounce" field. This allows the pronunciation of the names of planets to be moved out of the lead sentence of articles, and placed into the article's infobox instead. The lead sentence of an article should flow smoothly, giving the most important fact(s) about the subject of the article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; the subject of an article is the thing itself, not the word that describes it (e.g. the planet Earth, not the word Earth). Pronunciation is therefore not of primary importance and does not belong in the first sentence of the lead. The infobox is a better place for it—it is the right place to collect facts that may be needed for quick reference, but fall outside the "flow" of the article text.

See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#Pronunciation.--Srleffler (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

7528 Huskvarna was tagged for WP:CSD, but declined. 76.66.193.20 (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

:7528 Huskvarna has now been nominated for deletion at AfD. 76.66.193.20 (talk) 04:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Volcanically active worlds has been prodded for deletion. 70.29.208.69 (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

A WP:RM requested move has been filed to rename Geomagnetic storm → Geomagnetic solar storm

70.29.208.69 (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:

• The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
• The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
• I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - tools:~alexz/pop/.
• This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
• This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
• There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
• The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
• The data is now retained indefinitely.
• The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
• Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" - [https://jira.toolserver.org/browse/alexz]

-- Mr.Z-man 00:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

:Category:Lunar images has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 04:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I went to the discussion page for the Minor planet article, and saw this:

"This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Solar System on Wikipedia."

Improve coverage of Solar System? Shouldn't it say, "improve coverage of the Solar System?" MathEconMajor (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

:Fixed, thanks for pointing this out. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

{{tld|Moon}} and {{tld|Coor Mars}} have been nominated for deletion at WP:TFD. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 16

76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(Copied from Talk:Orthosie (moon).)

Since final -ia, -ie, and -ee in Greek loans are all traditionally pronounced [ee-uh] in English, this moon should probably be pronounced the same as Orthosia, [or-THO-see-uh]. However, I received the following email from someone at JPL who signed only as "Ellis":

"Pronunciation of the moon names is an iffy thing at best. We still don't have universal agreement on the pronunciation of the Galilean satellite names. I can make an educated guess, but that is all it is:

Euporie (you-POOR-ee)

Orthosie (ore-THO-see)

Pasithee (PASS-i-thee)"

: Seeing as "pronunciation of the moon names is an iffy thing at best", why aren't the moon names using broad transcription like the rest of WP? We can't expect laymen to understand the distinction between [i] and [ɨ] which is phonetic, not phonemic for many speakers of English and should not be used inside of slashes. The same goes for [ɵ] and possibly others used in other moon names. -Craig Pemberton (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking for a rectangular image of Venus' surface, like the lower one on :File:Venus 1 to 10m quadrangle layout.png, but without the lettering, for use on the mapping template. Can anyone tell me where I can find one, please? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

:I don't know if anything there will be what you are needing, but the USGS has quite a bit of public domain maps and related data for Venus: http://astrogeology.usgs.gov/SolarSystem/Venus/ — Huntster (t @ c) 05:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is a featured article candidate now. You can comment here. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think someone made a hash of these lists back in June... some were renamed, some weren't, and the redirects from old to new names were deleted in some cases... 76.66.197.30 (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Diacria Quadrangle.

This article needs expanding, as probably do the other Mars Quadrangle articles. (Diacria is the only one I looked at in detail.)

Some of the features mentioned (e.g. Tartarus colles) are not in the Diacria Quad. Also, only one (not two) of the new craters shown by MRO to contain ice are in the Diacria Quad. (I think.)

The article needs a brief discussion of the projection, scale, origin of the quadrangle maps. More importantly many significant geologic and topography features of the region, such as the Acheron Fossae region, Scandia Colles, Alba Patera’s western flank, Erebus Montes, Lycus Sulci (Olypmus Mons aureole) are not discussed.

I’m willing to work on expanding these. Any objections?

65.27.157.229 (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

:That is what Wikipedia is all about. If you want to expand Diacria quadrangle, I say go for it. :-) -- Kheider (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2009

I've updated the quadrangles and will continue. Thanks for checking the site for errors. I'll double check and make changes. I'm not sure how to discuss the scale, origin, and projection of the maps. Should such a discussion be on every page?Jim S````(UTC)

Recent IBEX data makes much of the Heliosphere page outdated. However, new theory is not yet available. I added IBEX and Cassini observation info to section on Detection by spacecraft. I'm a Wikipedia newbie. Should anything be added to the head of the page to alert the reader to the presence of conflicting information caused by brand new observations?Canuck100 (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

:Hi! Nice to see a newbie. I should say though, that this should be on the article's talk page, not here. And any alternative hypotheses should be referenced to specific astronomers. Serendi^podous 21:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Mars has been listed at Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing for a very long time; if not cleaned up soon, to current standards, it should go to WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If anybody wants to use this for the WP page. Nergaal (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

{{col-begin}}

{{col-break|width=25%}}

• {{Icon|FA}} :Asteroid belt
• {{Icon|FA}} :Atmosphere of Jupiter
• {{Icon|FA}} :Comet Hyakutake
• {{Icon|FA}} :Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9
• {{Icon|FA}} :Dwarf planet
• {{Icon|FA}} :Enceladus (moon)

{{col-break|width=25%}}

• {{Icon|FA}} :Europa (moon)
• {{Icon|FA}} :Haumea (dwarf planet)
• {{Icon|FA}} :243 Ida
• {{Icon|FA}} :Io (moon)
• {{Icon|FA}} :Jupiter Trojan
• {{Icon|FA}} :Kreutz Sungrazers

{{col-break|width=25%}}

• {{Icon|FA}} :Magnetosphere of Jupiter
• {{Icon|FA}} :Makemake (dwarf planet)
• {{Icon|FA}} :Nebular hypothesis
• {{Icon|FA}} :Oberon (moon)
• {{Icon|FA}} :Planets beyond Neptune
• {{Icon|FA}} :Rings of Uranus

{{col-break|width=25%}}

• {{Icon|FA}} :Rings of Neptune
• {{Icon|FA}} :Scattered disc
• {{Icon|FA}} :Titania (moon)
• {{Icon|FA}} :Volcanism on Io

{{col-end}}

{{col-begin}}

{{col-break|width=25%}}

• {{Icon|FL}} :List of solar eclipses in the 21st century
• {{Icon|FL}} :List of Solar System objects in hydrostatic equilibrium

{{col-break|width=25%}}

• {{Icon|FL}} :Moons of Jupiter
• {{Icon|FL}} :Moons of Uranus

{{col-break|width=25%}}

• {{Icon|FL}} :Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons

{{col-end}}

{{col-begin}}

{{col-break|width=25%}}

• {{Icon|GA}} :Adrastea (moon)
• {{Icon|GA}} :Amalthea (moon)
• {{Icon|GA}} :Caloris Basin
• {{Icon|GA}} :Exploration of Jupiter

{{col-break|width=25%}}

• {{Icon|GA}} :Galilean moons
• {{Icon|GA}} :10 Hygiea
• {{Icon|GA}} :3 Juno
• {{Icon|GA}} :Metis (moon)

{{col-break|width=25%}}

• {{Icon|GA}} :Moons of Haumea
• {{Icon|GA}} :Plutoid
• {{Icon|GA}} :Puck (moon)
• {{Icon|GA}} :Thebe (moon)

{{col-break|width=25%}}

• {{Icon|GA}} :Vulcanoid asteroid

{{col-end}}

{{col-begin}}

{{col-break|width=25%}}

• {{Icon|DFA}} :Comet

{{col-end}}

{{col-begin}}

{{col-break|width=25%}}

• {{Icon|DGA}} :Asteroid

{{col-break|width=25%}}

• {{Icon|DGA}} :Geology of solar terrestrial planets

{{col-end}}

File:Iosurface gal.jpg|File:Iosurface gal.jpg

File:Mars Valles Marineris.jpeg|File:Mars Valles Marineris.jpeg

File:Pale Blue Dot.png|File:Pale Blue Dot.png

File:Sunspot TRACE.jpeg|File:Sunspot TRACE.jpeg

File:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg|File:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg

{{col-begin}}

{{col-break|width=25%}}

• {{Icon|DYK}} :(136617) 1994 CC
• {{Icon|DYK}} :Atmosphere of Mercury
• {{Icon|DYK}} :Bach quadrangle
• {{Icon|DYK}} :Beethoven quadrangle
• {{Icon|DYK}} :BepiColombo
• {{Icon|DYK}} :Borealis quadrangle
• {{Icon|DYK}} :Discovery quadrangle

{{col-break|width=25%}}

• {{Icon|DYK}} :Extinct comet
• {{Icon|DYK}} :Great Comet of 1577
• {{Icon|DYK}} :Great Comet of 1744
• {{Icon|DYK}} :243 Ida
• {{Icon|DYK}} :7796 Járacimrman
• {{Icon|DYK}} :Kordylewski cloud
• {{Icon|DYK}} :Kuiper quadrangle

{{col-break|width=25%}}

• {{Icon|DYK}} :Lilith (hypothetical moon)
• {{Icon|DYK}} :Michelangelo quadrangle
• {{Icon|DYK}} :Minimum orbit intersection distance
• {{Icon|DYK}} :Pillan Patera
• {{Icon|DYK}} :Rembrandt (crater)
• {{Icon|DYK}} :Scalloped margin dome
• {{Icon|DYK}} :Scattered disc

{{col-break|width=25%}}

• {{Icon|DYK}} :Shakespeare quadrangle
• {{Icon|DYK}} :Stability of the Solar System
• {{Icon|DYK}} :Standard Solar Model
• {{Icon|DYK}} :Tolstoj (crater)
• {{Icon|DYK}} :Valhalla (crater)
• {{Icon|DYK}} :Victoria quadrangle
• {{Icon|DYK}} :Zunil (crater)

{{col-end}}

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

{{noredirect|The Sun}} redirect is up for discussion on its target, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 26

70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

:Template:Infobox minor planet has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

{{talkback|User_talk:Victor_falk#197856 Tafelmusik}}

Exploration of Io, is currently undergoing a peer review. Please take this opportunity to give the article a once over, submit a review, or Be Bold and help to improve the article. I hope to nominate the article for a Featured Article Candidacy in the next few days if all goes well. Thanks you, --Volcanopele (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

:Exploration of Io has now been nominated for featured article candidacy. Please go to the nominating page to provide support, opposition, or your constructive comments. Thank you! --Volcanopele (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI, :Image:MercuryOrbitResonance.gif has been nominated for deletion at FfD. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

:This was transferred to commons as: :File:Orbital resonance of Mercury.gif

:There also exists still images: :Image:Mercury's orbital resonance.svg and :Image:Mercury's orbital resonance.png

:70.29.210.242 (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

::Thanks 70.* for mentioning this. I forgot to when I moved it. Whoops :) By the way, your project updates are certainly appreciated. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Moon science has been nominated for deletion via AfD.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

{{#if:|User:{{{2}}} has|I have}} nominated Moon for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

:The FARC has closed with Moon being Kept as a featured article. Iridia (talk) 02:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In response to a request at Template talk:Infobox Mercury crater, I'd like to change Template:Infobox crater data to display the globe parameter (if supplied). This should help make clear which planet, dwarf planet, or natural satellite the crater is located on, in case it's not clear from the context. --Stepheng3 (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

Please excuse my bad English, I'm not a native speaker.

I think there is a mistake in the "List of Trojan asteroids (Trojan camp)". One of the listed Asteroids, (31416) 1999 PI1, seems not to be a Jupiter Trojan, respectively it seems not to exist. There is an Asteroid with this number, but it's called [http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=31416 1999 AX24] and it isn't a [http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/lists/JupiterTrojans.html Jupiter Trojan.] I think the Asteroid should be removed from the list. Best regards, Daniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.217.109.245 (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

:Thank you Daniel, I have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Trojan_asteroids_%28Trojan_camp%29&diff=prev&oldid=353403662 removed it.] -- Kheider (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There are currently five figures in the "Orbital characteristics" part of Earth's infobox that are uncited. This shouldn't be the case on a Featured Article. If anyone could provide citations, that would very helpful. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I nominated this article for Featured List status. The review page is here. Ruslik_Zero 12:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

File:SDO first light.png I would like a second opinion on whether we are using this fantastic image appropriately at solar prominence and solar flare. Please reply at Talk:Solar flare/Archive 1#SDO image?, or be bold. --InfantGorilla (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Mars has been nominated for a featured portal review. Portals are typically reviewed for one week. During this review, editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the portal from featured status. Please leave your comments and help us to return the portal to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, portals may lose its status as featured portals. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are Wikipedia:Featured_portal_review/{{#if:. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

{{Main|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Books on the planets}}

There's an ongoing discussion about creating books for solar system bodies at WT:WikiProject Astronomy. If figured you might want to take a look at it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

In the Wikidepia article on Trans-Neptunian Objects the following statement is made:

"After Pluto's discovery, no one searched for further TNOs for a long time."

This is factually incorrect in that it neglects to mention that Clyde Tombaugh himself continued to search, *after* Pluto's discovery, for quite some time for any further objects (as is correctly mentioned in the Wikipedia aricle on Tombaugh: "Tombaugh continued searching for some years after the discovery of Pluto").

I suggest the article be amended to say that, after further searching by Tombaugh for any more TNO's was unsuccessful, a long time passed before anyone else resumed a serious attempt.

As it stands, it ignores the substantial effort Tombaugh engaged in to find further objects.

-Gene —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.9.55.83 (talk) 04:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

:Hiya.

:Thanks for your suggestion concerning TNOs and Clyde_Tombaugh.

:I've copied your suggestion into [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trans-Neptunian_object#Clyde_Tombaugh here], which is the wp:talk page for TNOs. When somebody has time to confirm your premise (maybe you have a source?), then they will hopefully edit the article as you suggest. Mind you, as what you suggest is non-contentious, I suggest you wp:be bold and edit the article as you see fit.

:If you'd rather not, or would like any help or advice in doing the edit, please free to ask me on my talk page. I'll get back to you quickly.

:(I've also welcomed you on your own talk page, and repeated these comments there.) Trafford09 (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI {{tl|Trans-Neptunian objects}} has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 05:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This is related somewhat to Global Warming, so I present you the "wikipolitics" disclaimer.

Recently on the biography of Robert Watson (scientist), a minor edit war broke out over Watson's use of Mars to illustrate what the lack of global warming might look like. He said "We only need to look at 3 planets: Mars, Venus and Earth and you can explain why there is such a difference, a frigid Mars planet, no greenhouse gases, Venus is absolutely boiling lots of greenhouse gases and earth is by luck somewhere in the middle." The editors seeking to include this quote also noted that Mars' atmoshpere is 95% CO2, and that Watson's statement is "in conflict with our basic understanding of Mars."

Other editors responded that Mars' CO2 might be high in %age, but the relevence to global warming was not in %, but in Mars' near vaccum atmosphere, and that Watson's statement is not in conflict with our basic understanding of mars. It appears that there is a dispute over this.

It would be useful if editors educated on Astronomical objects could comment on a straw poll at Talk:Robert_Watson_(scientist). Thanks so much for your time. Hipocrite (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Venus In-Situ Explorer was prodded for deletion. I deprodded it. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI, :File:Pluto.jpg has been nominated for deletion at WP:FFD. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 05:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

:Well technically Charon is also along for the ride. -- Kheider (talk) 06:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Now :File:Pluto-map-hs-2010-06-c180.jpg may blow up after all. Mike Brown would be happy. Yikes... -- Kheider (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it might be a good idea to take another look at the minor planets naming conventions (which judging by the reference on the naming conventions page to Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming were last hashed out in 2006, when the Pluto issue was a lot more current), I'm not particularly sure some of them are a good idea or not (particularly since if, say, 90482 Orcus gets promoted to a dwarf planet it will necessitate an article move, despite the 90482 Orcus name remaining perfectly valid and unambiguous). But then again if the reaction here to that suggestion is along the lines of "oh gods not again" I won't bother... Icalanise (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering about the policy on using ESA science images. There are hardly any posted (I did find a special publicity image on the Venus Express page), but I haven't found a single ordinary science image. I posted an HRSC image of the glacier recently discovered east of Hellas in the glaciers section of the Geology of Mars page, but I was warned I might be violating copyright. I downloaded the image from the ESA ftp site and ran it through ArcGIS to stretch it and make a PNG (Wikipedia doesn't like IMGs, of course). All the science images are released freely to the public with the sole caveat that ESA must be cited (and consulted if the image is being used in an advertisement). I'm pretty certain that ESA would like its images to be used on Wikipedia. Just to be clear, I'm not talking about ESA's publicity images, but the raw mission data ESA makes available for scientists worldwide to use.

Does anyone know what the policy is on using these images? And if so, could someone help me design an appropriate tag?Rppeabody (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

:ESA as a rule does not release images into the public domain, and retains full copyright on their images. They may say that it's fine for educational and informational use, but that's no where near the same as being released into public domain or anything else. Read [http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmgdownload.pl this terms and conditions] page for an explanation of what can and can't be done. The best we could hope for is using an ESA image under fair use, which is not possible if a free version of a subject could be obtained somehow. Thus, neither of the two images you mentioned have correct licenses. I'm going to nominate the one on Commons for deletion, but I'll leave the local file to the folks here, whether they think it useful enough to try for fair use, or if it should be deleted. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

::Thanks for your help. I'm aware that the publicity images in the ESA Portal Multimedia Gallery have various restrictions on their use (which you linked to). These are special images and animations created and edited by ESA's promotional staff. But (and I probably should've been clearer about this) I was referring to the raw data released to the scientific community through the [http://www.rssd.esa.int/index.php?project=PSA PSA site]. On that site, the only information I could find about copyright restrictions was: "All data from ESA's planetary missions have a proprietary period, usually between 6 and 12 months. During this time, the data are only available to instrument team members. At the close of the proprietary period, the data are released and made available to any user via the PSA." They also ask that the instrument team be acknowledged in any scientific publication. It seems to me that, although the publicity images cannot be posted, the raw data can be. I've written to the PSA team to ask their permission, and I will post a response if I receive one.Rppeabody (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

:As an addendum, Commons editors have appealed to ESA several times in the past to release images under a free license, or to specially release this or that image under such a license, and ESA has always denied such requests. That should make it even more clear that ESA does not release media under Commons-compatible licenses. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Saturn from Cassini Orbiter (2004-10-06).jpg

It will get delisted (i.e. lose its FP status) if it's not used in any articles. Thanks. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

{{-}}

I removed a section from the top of the article Cardinal direction which implied that the north pole of an astronomical body was defined by the sense of rotation (right-hand rule). As far as I am aware this is not the usual case, I found references to the IAU defining the north pole as the pole that lies above the invariable plane in 1970. Would appreciate some input on this from those more knowledgeable in matters of solar system cartography. Discussion at Talk:Cardinal direction/Archive 1#The IAU does not define north by the rotation sense. Icalanise (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the italicized text on some lists that reads "This page is not meant to be viewed directly" and why are there duplicate lists without that heading both within the article namespace? It kind of seems redundant and I don't quite get the point. Someone on WP:VPP recommended I bring the question up here. An example article being Meanings of minor planet names: 100001–101000.--173.58.234.86 (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

:As the responder at the VPP, I am reading this as placing a single-use template in mainspace, and unnecessarily so. I'm struggling to understand why some of these meanings of minor planet names articles were set up in this fashion, and why they can't be merged. Resolute 02:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the [http://toolserver.org/~enwp10/bin/list2.fcgi?run=yes&namespace=0&pagename=&quality=&importance=&score=&limit=100&offset=1&sorta=Importance&sortb=Quality&filterRelease=on&reviewFilter=0&releaseFilter=1&projecta=Solar%20System Solar System articles and revisionIDs we have chosen]. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's [http://toolserver.org/~cbm/cgi-bin/problems.cgi articles with cleanup tags] and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and [http://schools-wikipedia.org/ Wikipedia for Schools] to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I nominated this article for Featured List status. The review page is here. Ruslik_Zero 19:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If anyone feels like taking a look at this new little article, please see if you think it's OK. I hope it can be a DYK without being embarrassing. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a discussion going on over at WikiProject Space after concerns have been raised over a number of organisation issues, many of which have been laid out over at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Human_spaceflight#Project_banners WikiProject Human spaceflight]. Feel free to provide any input as this concerns all projects currently within the scope of WP:Space. ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space/2010 Reorganisation regarding the future of WikiProject Space and its child projects. The discussion is aimed at defining the roles of projects, and improving the activity and coordination of the projects. The input of members of this project is requested as it is one which may be affected by the issue. --GW… 22:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)