:(BTW, I think that logically the consensus dwarf planets should have a different infobox colour from other TNOs.) [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 14:34, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
:(BTW, I think that logically the consensus dwarf planets should have a different infobox colour from other TNOs.) [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 14:34, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
:What if we use these color schemes:
:What if we use these color schemes:
:1) the ‘Big Six/Seven’: ffc0c0 (the former Phobos and Deimos one, because it looks cool) ”’or”’ F5DEB3 (the former Ganymede one, as the largest representative of its class with its own color scheme)
:1) the ‘Big Six/Seven’: ffc0c0 (the former Phobos and Deimos one, because it looks cool) ”’or”’ F5DEB3 (the former Ganymede one, as the largest representative of its class with its own color scheme)
:2) the other 12/13 round moons: DCDCDC (the former Charon color scheme, same reasoning as with Ganymede)
:2) the other 12/13 round moons: DCDCDC (the former Charon color scheme, same reasoning as with Ganymede)
:3) the dwarf planets: FFEFD5 (the former Pluto color scheme, same reasoning as with Ganymede) [[User:IvarTheBoneless123|IvarTheBoneless123]] ([[User talk:IvarTheBoneless123|talk]]) 16:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
:3) the dwarf planets: FFEFD5 (the former Pluto color scheme, same reasoning as with Ganymede) [[User:IvarTheBoneless123|IvarTheBoneless123]] ([[User talk:IvarTheBoneless123|talk]]) 16:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
 |
|
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Cetus#Requested move 24 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 05:46, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
April 2014 lunar eclipse has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
IAU definition of planet has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
I have nominated Moons of Jupiter for featured list removal. 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. 🇪ðŸ‡ðŸ‡µðŸ‡¸ðŸ‡¸ðŸ‡© Easternsahara 🇪ðŸ‡ðŸ‡µðŸ‡¸ðŸ‡¸ðŸ‡© 03:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
In grism the section ‘Theory of theory’ was written by someone with insufficient knowledge of English, but it is not completely wrong. I am not an expert, so can someone have a look? Thanks. Hobbema (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry I disagree: the section was wrong. One source was incomprehensible and one did not verify. I deleted the section. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Ok. I did not really try to read it… But maybe a picture with results of grism observations such as c:File:First VIMOS spectra of faint galaxies (eso0209b).jpg would be useful? Hobbema (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- We need a source that directly connects an image to the article topic and a sourced explanation for the relationship between the unusual image and the topic. The image seems to be just an array of bands of colors. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- With a grim one gets instead of an image with stars (or galaxies) an image with a little spectrum of every star or galaxy in the field of view. So such an image would illustrate the use of grisms. Hobbema (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Sure you and I understand this, but additions to the encyclopedia should be verifiable. In this case a good source would aid in a description that is accurate and can be improved upon by future editors. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- With a grim one gets instead of an image with stars (or galaxies) an image with a little spectrum of every star or galaxy in the field of view. So such an image would illustrate the use of grisms. Hobbema (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- We need a source that directly connects an image to the article topic and a sourced explanation for the relationship between the unusual image and the topic. The image seems to be just an array of bands of colors. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Ok. I did not really try to read it… But maybe a picture with results of grism observations such as c:File:First VIMOS spectra of faint galaxies (eso0209b).jpg would be useful? Hobbema (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Q Velorum#Requested move 21 September 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 10:33, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
I am currently working on the article black hole, trying to get it back to featured article status. I have added some cleanup tags to the article itself and put some more detailed notes here. Feel free to join in if you’d like to help 🙂 Shocksingularity (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
So far, all the natural satellites follow the same infobox color scheme (as of recently) – however, I’d argue that the satellites can and should be differentiated into at least 2 infobox color schemes: there are 1) the 19 round, planetary-mass satellites (‘planemos’), and then 2) there’s everything else.
However, more than that, I would divide the ‘moons’ infobox color scheme into 3 parts:
1) the ‘Big Six’ (or seven, depending on Triton) – Ganymede, Titan, Callisto, Io, Moon, Europa: the satellites that are so large that, if they orbited the Sun independently, they’d probably be considered planets.
- Triton is somewhat unique in that it might belong in either 1) (since it is rather large), or 2) (since it is a former dwarf planet) – I rather lean towards 2).
2) the ‘dwarf planet-satellites’ (the other 6 Saturnian moons: Mimas, Enceladus, Tethys, Dione, Rhea, Iapetus; the 5 Uranian moons: Miranda, Ariel, Umbriel, Titania, Oberon; 1 Plutonian moon: Charon) – these would be dwarf planets if they orbited the Sun independently.
3) every other satellite.
The 3) would retain the current ‘moon’ infobox color scheme.
The 1) and 2) would need something else. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think this is a good idea, to distinguish the round moons by colour from the other ones. And I do think there’s a case to put Triton with (2), because it’s similar in size to Pluto and Eris (as Titania, Rhea, Oberon, and Iapetus are close to Haumea and Makemake), but I wouldn’t be opposed to (1) either.
- @Kwamikagami, Nrco0e, and Renerpho: might be interested (just going by memory, sorry if I forgot anyone relevant). Double sharp (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- (BTW, I think that logically the consensus dwarf planets should have a different infobox colour from other TNOs.) Double sharp (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- What if we use these color schemes:
- 1) the ‘Big Six/Seven’ (Ganymede, Titan, Callisto, Io, Moon, Europa/Triton?): ffc0c0 (the former Phobos and Deimos one, because it looks cool) or F5DEB3 (the former Ganymede one, as the largest representative of its class with its own color scheme)
- 2) the other 12/13 round moons: DCDCDC (the former Charon color scheme, same reasoning as with Ganymede)
- 3) the dwarf planets: FFEFD5 (the former Pluto color scheme, same reasoning as with Ganymede) IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
