User talk:Nrco0e

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

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

Group 4 element has been nominated for a community 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. Bli231957 (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Don't want to do anything without your permission so I hope it's okay to post here. The link to Eris on User:Nrco0e/Userboxes/Eris leads to the disambiguation page and not to Eris (dwarf planet). I don't know about userbox etiquette so I thought I would let you know rather than do it myself. I love your userboxes by the way. Stylish. Bobo. 01:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobo192: Fixed. Thanks for letting me know. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 03:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated 90377 Sedna 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Renerpho (talk) 05:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 4337 Arecibo you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CactiStaccingCrane -- CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article 4337 Arecibo you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:4337 Arecibo for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CactiStaccingCrane -- CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Your signature is rather long in wikitext. Could you simplify it please? I'm actually rather confused as there's supposed to be a software-imposed limit on signature length of 255 characters, but it doesn't seem to apply. Ovinus (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ovinus: Sure thing. Thanks for letting me know about the 255-character limit for signatures, I'll make sure to fix it soon. (FYI the character limit doesn't work for template substitutions.) Nrco0e (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciate it! :) It looks really cool, just takes up a few too many lines on my screen.... Ovinus (talk) 07:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HD1 has been spectroscopically confirmed with a 4sigma detection of [OIII]88micron. This detection is consistent with the photometric redshift, which is, in the high-redshift domain, sufficient to claim a detection. Many objects in the list of the most distant objects have been confirmed with 4-5 sigma detections (that's the detection limit for such distant objects). HD1 is clearly considered by researchers in this field as the most distant galaxy currently known. Stardust63 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Stardust63: Nowhere in Harikane et al. do they call HD1 "confirmed"; they explicitly call it a "candidate" with a tentative emission line awaiting spectroscopic confirmation. Other peer-reviewed papers that cite Harikane et al. follow their words and also call HD1 a candidate: Atek et al (2022), Castellano et al (2022), Naidu et al (2022), Pacucci et al. 2022. Per verifiability guidelines on Wikipedia, it's best to follow these conclusions. If you have any sources that do consider objects with <5 sigma single-emission line detections as "confirmed" like you mentioned, please do share them with me. Nrco0e (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The SNR of JADES-GS-z13-0 is 4.0 (look at the Extended figure 5 : the flux at the position of the break is 0.008 with an error bar going down to 0.006, which leads to a SNR of 4). Then if I understand your definition, this should be considered as a candidate, right ? Stardust63 (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Stardust63: What should matter more is whether researchers definitively call the galaxy spectroscopically confirmed or not. Robertson and Curtis-Lake et al. both state JADES-GS-z13-0 is spectroscopically confirmed, whereas HD1 is still called a candidate by its discoverers and other citers. I rescind my arguments regarding sigma—I do admit setting the 5-sigma threshold was arbitrary on my part, as I haven't found a source to justify that sort of qualification (yet). For now, let's drop that 5-sigma qualification mentioned in the candidates list. Apologies for the confusion! Nrco0e (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me jump in here as I made edits on HD1. I think we are facing a problem of "semantic". It is quite common that scientists prefer to not be too definitive, they bring evidence but it might be hard to be 100% sure of the results, therefore they might prefer to use the term candidate instead of confirmed. It can be subjective: some will accept that 3 sigmas is good while others will prefer 5 sigmas.

Regarding whether or not HD1 "confirmed", the Guinness World Record considered that HD1 is "Most distant confirmed galaxy" https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/115865-most-distant-confirmed-galaxy.

I therefore suggest either to reverse the initial change and put back HD1 in the confirmed list or to write to the Guinness World Record.

Finally, it is relatively frustrating to see that the top 3 of most distant spectroscopically-confirmed objects is still not peer-reviewed. You never know what can happen to these papers. Brolink (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Brolink: Well I suppose if you all prefer HD1 as confirmed, then I won't argue against your consensus.

By the way thanks for the GLASS-z12 update to the list, galaxy astrophysics isn't my field of focus so I tend to overlook these. Nrco0e (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you review the img I uploaded for the infobox? On WP-ru it's listed as a fair-use file from Icarus, but I can't verify it there. — kwami (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: I'd assume the copyright goes to the authors and the Keck Observatory just like the image mentions in its description, so it should follow its Media Use guidelines. There's another image use policy on the Keck Observatory's public data archive regarding its raw images, but this one seems to imply they're freely available in this statement: "images and video on Infrared Processing and Analysis Center (IPAC) public web sites may be used for any purpose without prior permission" (it also mentions special cases, but none of them are relevant). After all, that Actaea image shown in Stansberry's paper is still a raw image you can easily download from the Keck data archive, so maybe it could be okay to upload freely, but again I'm not sure if I'm interpreting this correctly. Nrco0e (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, that's how I read it too. I have no idea how to download the files (I select files but get an error because 'no files are selected'), so I can't ID the image. But I think the (c) notice should be enough.

Is the black dot at the center of Salacia intended to block some of the light? — kwami (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: The Keck archive works for me, or at least for downloading individual images since it's more practical. All you have to do is click the [Calibrated] option under the Previews column and then you'll get the FITS file. The highest-quality Salacia images (target 120347_B) are the ones with 100.0 sec exposure times. For your convenience, here's one good-quality exposure clearly showing both Salacia and Actaea.

Also, those black/white dots on Salacia and Actaea are just indicators of their point spread function centers. Nrco0e (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so the white dot isn't Actaea itself? Okay, need a different image.

Yes, I was able to download individual images, but there's a limit of 14, and I couldn't ID the one we have in that sample. But if I choose a new one that won't matter. Thanks. — kwami (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: Oh, no, I think you've misunderstood my explanation. Apologies if it's unclear, so let me rephrase: in the image from Stansberry's paper, the white dot overlaid on the fainter object to the left of the image is Actaea, and the black dot overlaid on top of the bright central object is Salacia. These dots were manually added by the authors to indicate their precise positions.

In the sample calibrated Keck image I linked earlier, Salacia is the very bright object at the upper left (10-11 o'clock position from the image center). Actaea appears as a separate fainter object positioned to the left of Salacia (it's in the same orientation as Stansberry's version). Nrco0e (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand now. I hadn't realized that Stansberry modified the image, and having a white dot obscuring Actaea would be misleading. I wondered how their image could be so much sharper than the others, which is why I wanted to preview them all at Keck. I've picked a couple other images, one like the one you selected (perhaps it is the one you selected) for the system, and one with a brighter exposure to bring out Actaea. — kwami (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: If you don't mind, I'll be replacing these files with better-resolution ones straight from the FITS files. The preview cutouts are pretty badly JPEG'd. Nrco0e (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks. Yes, they aren't much to look at this way. I cropped them to the same size, and in multiples of 8 px in the hopes of not further degrading them.

(BTW, there's a remnant file here on WP-en. I've transfered it to Commons, but until the local file is deleted, an update won't display here unless you upload to both places.) — kwami (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the above. Would you mind also taking a look at the infobox at S/2018 (532037) 1? For the magnitudes, I just added the difference between primary and secondary to the values for the primary, but I don't know that they can be added linearly like that. Also, the article on WP-de has an orbital period of 15.0 days, but I'm not seeing that in the ref. They might've calculated it themselves, but the implied 2-hr precision seems unlikely. — kwami (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: I've fixed a few errors in the infobox parameters and added additional references. I do have to mention that the Hubble image animation is wrong (the orientations of some frames aren't consistent), but I haven't gotten around to fixing it yet.

By the way, have you seen Nelsen et al.'s recent work on FY27's satellite orbit from 2022's DPS meeting? Not sure why it took this long for someone to finally work on determining its orbit, but knowing Sheppard, it shouldn't be surprising that he wouldn't publish his discoveries often. Plus, it's not as bad of a situation as Makemake's moon, for which I have no idea why Parker has seemed to have completely abandoned it. :P Nrco0e (talk) 07:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, i hadn't. Thanks for that.

Yeah, I suspect lots of people are frustrated by that, but sometimes life intrudes. I was even asked my opinion on appropriate names for MK2 (there's an obvious choice, but lots of other possibilities) and haven't heard anything in a couple years. But at least we have preliminary results, so we have some idea how MK2 compares to other systems. — kwami (talk) 07:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: Also I have one more dilemma I want to bring up... there is no official provisional designation for 2013 FY27's moon. Although "S/2018 (532037) 1" is correct in accordance with satellite provisional designations, there's no official journal article or web source that uses it. JPL's Small-Body Database explicitly says it is undesignated. This issue also applies to Xiangliu where it never had an official provisional designation in the first place (the discoverers never used it, see Schwamb's tweet), but some Wiki editor apparently made it up and called it "S/2010 (225088) 1", which stuck for quite a long time. Nrco0e (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to remove the designation, I don't have a problem with that. I suppose we could just call it "FY27's satellite". — kwami (talk) 08:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a clarification: the designation S/2010 (225088) 1 for Xiangliu is at JPL's Small-Body Database. So it's not made up. Not aware of anything official for FY27's moon, so I'd agree with just calling it that (or "FY27's satellite"). Double sharp (talk) 12:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I must have misremembered, thanks for correcting that. But anyways, this undesignated satellite issue pervades most of the entire minor-planet moon list. Nrco0e (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why we don't have a glut of small moons known around Uranus yet, actually. It's only about twice as far away as Saturn (for which we've seen moons down to 3km), and yet we haven't seen anything smaller than 20km diameter around Uranus. Is it just that no one has looked – or maybe someone has and the results haven't been publicly released yet?

And incidentally, do you think we should start applying the new line on notability to Uranus' and Neptune's irregulars too, or wait since it's not really a problem yet? (I suppose also since the known Uranians and Neptunians are quite large compared with the Jovians being put up for redirection.)

Changing the topic, thanks for beating me to updating List of natural satellites. Should we get rid of the column "Angular size from the parent", incidentally? Except in the cases of Luna, Phobos, and Deimos it seems to be of purely academic interest (as we don't have any human installations on the other parents), and for anyone who really wants this information it's an easy calculation by a well-known formula. Double sharp (talk) 08:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: Believe it or not, Scott Sheppard has already found at least 5 new Uranian moon candidates plus one (or more) new Neptunian moon with Subaru back in September 2021. These 5 new Uranian moon candidates, which have apparent magnitudes 25-27 (H=12-14, diameters 10-25 km),^{[original research]} were followed up with Gemini North on 7 October 2021. Further follow-up might have been done by Subaru from October to December 2021 according to its 2021B schedule,^{[original research]} but other than that, that's about all we know about the current status of these new moons. I'm not aware of any additional observations past 2021. Previous Uranian and Neptunian irregular moon discoveries took more than 2 years to confirm, so I'd expect these new moons to be announced in the next year or so.

Uranus and Neptune's irregulars shall be free of article restrictions for the time being—most of them have known color indices, albedos and diameters, and interesting orbital dynamics and origins. That's why I mentioned only restricting Jupiter and Saturn. Also, the angular diameter column is pointless IMO. It's completely trivial for the majority of moons which are either very distant or small. We should stick with the columns used for the individual planetary moon lists and replace angular diameter with something more useful like inclination. Nrco0e (talk) 08:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for the fast response! And good to know that my suspicion was apparently well-founded. :)

Looking forward to seeing these announced; in the meantime, I've removed the angular diameter column. Double sharp (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nrco0e. Thank you for your work on S/2018 J 4. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for writing this article! Hopefully you will write more articles!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you happen to know when the IAU adopted them? Naming of moons isn't very clear. Double sharp (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: Well, it's in the IAUC 7132 reference already given in the Naming of moons list. I've done a bit of searching and couldn't find any other officially-published source prior to this one. Nrco0e (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nrco0e. Thank you for your work on S/2016 J 4. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article! Hopefully you can write more. Good day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 10:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Can you confirm that the source compares the ring to Saturn's F Ring? Some of the wording seems like it might be unsupported, but I don't have access to Nature to check. Thanks. — kwami (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: FYI, you can access the paper for free through The Wikipedia Library.

"Contrary to Chariklo’s ring, Quaoar’s ring is strongly irregular in azimuth. As such, it is reminiscent of Saturn’s F ring that contains azimuthal features (clumps) or even local opaque structures interpreted as kilometre-sized moonlets. This clumpy nature is thought to be caused by the presence of thousands of small parent bodies (1.0 to 0.1 km in size) that collide and produce dense strands of micrometre- to centimetre-sized particles that re-accrete over a few months onto the parent bodies in a steady-state regime."

Nrco0e (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I tried the library, but couldn't find it. I thought maybe Nature only became available after a certain time, since I got a hit for the Chariklo-ring article.

How could they possibly determine it's lumpy like that from just a few occultation cords, esp. given that it's rotated between events?

I'll see if I can find the paper this time. — kwami (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, still no hits at WP library. — kwami (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link: https://www-nature-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/articles/s41586-022-05629-6 Nrco0e (talk) 04:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

BTW, any news on 31 Euphrosyne? Mass only to within 20% as of 2020 despite the satellite. — kwami (talk) 05:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, nothing on Euphrosyne and its moon since 2020. Nrco0e (talk) 06:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	S/2022 J 2 is a lovely page. Well done! BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	S/2022 J 1 is also a great page. Well done! BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Swift J1818.0–1607 is a very good page. Well done! BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 06:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. D < 100km and > 40km already was diameter. — kwami (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I submitted the edit too soon before I had the chance to fix the edit summary. Nrco0e (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Weywot you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Praseodymium-141 -- Praseodymium-141 (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Weywot you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Weywot for comments about the article, and Talk:Weywot/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Praseodymium-141 -- Praseodymium-141 (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:TNO_imagemap Is it possible to add Ring of Quaoar on the image 文爻林夕 (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC) You added the rings to Haumea last time, and I think only you can do this job.± — Preceding unsigned comment added by 文爻林夕 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The rings of Quaoar are quite wide and I don't think it will fit in the image. But I'll try adding them when I have time. Nrco0e (talk) Nrco0e (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Such a designation for a new satellite was just announced; but were there ever "S/2005 S 2" or "S/2005 S 3"? I only know of S/2005 S 1 = Saturn XXXV Daphnis. Or are those to be announced later? Double sharp (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: Nope, it seems like the designations S/2005 S 2 and 3 haven't been used. I'll have to report this to the MPC. Nrco0e (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Same issue with "S/2005 S 5", of course. :) Double sharp (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: Just heard back from the MPC--they knew beforehand that the S/2005 S 2 and 3 designations don't appear to be used, but they nevertheless proceeded with skipping ahead to S/2005 S 4 just in case. Rewinding the designations would prove too risky for avoiding accidentally reusing designations like what happened with S/2007 S 4/5. Nrco0e (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's weird. So will the gap just stick around forever then? Double sharp (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I guess. Nrco0e (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, about how many more can we expect in the coming days? :D Double sharp (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: I emailed Ashton for his 2019 discovery observations two days ago and I counted at least 10 more moons waiting to be announced, plus several dozens of "unprocessed" observations that may or may not turn out to be satellites. Some of the 2020 satellites aren't included in these observations, so I expect plenty more than just 10 from 2019. Nrco0e (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Astonishing to think that it was just the classic nine within living memory. :)

Then, what is the true number of unconfirmed Saturnian moons? I was happily decrementing that at List of natural satellites#Moons by primary, thinking that the unconfirmed set was getting confirmed. But from what you just said, perhaps some of the newly announced ones are actually new, not previously known and just unconfirmed. Or should we even be counting those at all? Double sharp (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea really. The unconfirmed Saturnian satellites from Sheppard's 2004-2007 survey and Ashton's 2020 survey are proprietary and are currently stuck in the MPC's private backlog. Nrco0e (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I think we should remove the numbers of unconfirmed outer-planet moons, as the true number is not publicly available. Double sharp (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on board with that. It would pretty much be original research if we were to identify which unconfirmed satellites correspond to confirmed satellites, and counting up unconfirmed satellites would make for a very cumbersome task... Nrco0e (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done :D Double sharp (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoidh (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nrco0e changed the Chaldene and Erinome value many times because it was 112.156.173.117's fault. 112.156.173.117: I’m so sorry Nrco0e. 112.156.173.117 (talk) 10:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Polydeuces (moon) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Etriusus -- Etriusus (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Polydeuces (moon) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Polydeuces (moon) and Talk:Polydeuces (moon)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Etriusus -- Etriusus (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Polydeuces (moon) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Polydeuces (moon) for comments about the article, and Talk:Polydeuces (moon)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Etriusus -- Etriusus (talk) 06:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Space Barnstar
		Thank you for your continued dedication to Astronomy-related pages. You definitely deserve this barnstar, happy editing and cheers! Jerium (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article (307261) 2002 MS4 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of CactiStaccingCrane -- CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article (307261) 2002 MS4 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:(307261) 2002 MS4 for comments about the article, and Talk:(307261) 2002 MS4/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of CactiStaccingCrane -- CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vanth (moon) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished the review and pass the article to you :) It was nice to learn about trans-Neptunian moons. —Kusma (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Space Barnstar
		For your work on Solar System-related pages! :) Double sharp (talk) 08:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Nrco0e (talk) 08:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Vanth (moon) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Vanth (moon) for comments about the article, and Talk:Vanth (moon)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	big star!
	thank u for all the good articles on space rocks, i went down a rabbit hole, always a pleasure to see wikipedians who specialize in one field and contribute high quality stuff fbrh - cw 𓆈 (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Nrco0e (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey There! It's me (Grinch) from the SpaceEngine discord, and I just wanted to say that J1407b came along really well! Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 02:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 03:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of J1407b at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Z1720 (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

—Kusma (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]