Sbznpoe
Welcome!
editHello, Sbznpoe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Longhair\talk 06:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
List of brightest natural objects in the sky moved to draftspace
editAn article you recently created, List of brightest natural objects in the sky, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Boleyn (talk) 08:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Sbznpoe, this ahs now been moved back to mainspace without addressing the issues - are you currently adding refs? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
A page you started (List of brightest natural objects in the sky) has been reviewed!
editThanks for creating List of brightest natural objects in the sky.
I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process.
Please do not edit war; please add your references in draftspace, then submit to WP:AFC.
To reply, leave a comment here and ping me.
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Your submission at Articles for creation: List of brightest natural objects in the sky has been accepted
edit
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
~Kvng (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
edit
- Hi Sbznpoe! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 02:37, Wednesday, May 15, 2019 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
edit- Hi Sbznpoe! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 04:29, Wednesday, May 15, 2019 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
edit | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
editHello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
How do I become the caretaker for jesse island
editKeeganbyerswheeler@gmail.com 2001:569:BCEC:EC00:D06D:70D0:FCDF:5C6C (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- idk sorry Sbznpoe (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
editHello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
CS1 error on Ymir (moon)
edit
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Ymir (moon), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
- A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
CS1 error on Miranda (moon)
edit Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Miranda (moon), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
- A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
a/b axis ratios
editHi,
I saw you adding flattening values to some irregular moon articles. I don't think this is correct, because a/b refers to the equatorial axes of an ellipsoid, not the equator and polar axes. Flattening would be calculated from a/c; a/b only refers to elongation along its equator. Nrco0e (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- if that is the case then i will get to work on removing them. thanks for letting me know Sbznpoe (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
editHello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for maintaining the irregular moon articles
edit |
The Space Barnstar | |
| As the title says, thanks for maintaining the irregular moon articles and keeping them in shape. The lists look really nice too! As for the individual irregular moon articles, there's way too many out there and it looks like a lot of them were hastily made by some users who do not understand notability and consensus, and have since been banned for sockpuppetry. As a heads up, I'm intending to |
- Thanks for the barnstar! I've recently tried to make the irregular moon group articles less stubby, and generally some work to keep the main list articles updated. I do find that generally the literature on the groups themselves is rather sparse so I only end up adding roughly a paragraph's worth of text, ha. I did do an overhaul of the list on Norse group (did not really touch the others); this was mostly because I wondered if the splitting of the Norse group was too hasty. I was the one who originally put through the subgroupings in the Moons of Saturn article and template (though there were so many moons, they just had to be split), so I began to have some second thoughts as the subgroups were only based on a single source (well there are two, but basically only one), so I added some history of how papers have tried to split the Norse moons. I do wonder if Ashton et al.'s analysis will be one of many different ideas or it will end up becoming the/a consensus on how to divide the Norse group.
- But anyway, back on topic: what would you say counts as kind of a minimum standard for notability? Would a single sentence/thing that sets it apart qualify? (e.g. "This moon is affected by the Kozai effect" or "This moon could be a fragment of Phoebe"?) Some of the moons with names would fail to qualify tbh, but it seems to be precedent to keep those anyway just based on the fact that they were announced earlier/named/etc. alone essentially
- Sbznpoe (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
I began to have some second thoughts as the subgroups were only based on a single source, so I added some history of how papers have tried to split the Norse moons.
- You definitely made the right call here, neutrality and all that. Putting in my personal thoughts here—I'm not that surprised that the different Norse subgroup classification schemes don't really line up with each other, cause the whole Norse group is an absolute mess. Personally, I'm not wholly convinced by Ashton et al.'s way of subgrouping the Norse group based on inclination variation in the group's size frequency distribution (I mean, I don't see any obvious clusters in the Norse group's a vs. i plot), but alas, I can't think of any better way, so I'll stick with it.
- ----
- Back to the moon notability topic... I have a lot of things to say.
what would you say counts as kind of a minimum standard for notability? Would a single sentence/thing that sets it apart qualify?
- Loosely, I'm thinking any moon article should be kept if it is named or mentioned in a news article or study that manages to reveal something about it (e.g. its rotation, color, orbit behavior, etc.). Your examples would satisfy my idea of "notability", which is why I kept S/2006 S 20 and S/2020 S 4. As you said, some named moons like Mneme or Pasithee that don't seem to have anything going for them (unless there's some interesting obscure history that hasn't been added to their articles yet?), but almost all of these named moons were discovered during the 1999-2005 "Irregular Moons Revolution" era where irregular moons were first being discovered, which I consider kind of notable.
- If there should be a minimum date where creation of moon articles should be scrutinized, I'd personally say that all Jovian moons announced after 2021 (after S/2003 J 24) should be regarded as non-notable (I don't see any major news coverage of Jovian irregular moon discoveries since that time!) unless there is a study finding something new about the post-2021 Jovian moons, like the Kozai resonance of the Carpo group moon S/2018 J 4 (which itself is already notable being the second Carpo group member). For Saturn, all moons announced after Sheppard's 20 from 2019 should be regarded non-notable unless there are exceptions like what I mentioned before.
- I've seen people argue for keeping articles for moons with record/extreme properties like "highest eccentricity", but the problem with that is that oftentimes there are no reliable sources that highlight or support this particular point. JPL says S/2023 S 38 has the highest average eccentricity of 0.909 (osculating eccentricity also on the order of 0.9), but this is incorrect. According to Sheppard, S/2023 S 38 was not observed at two epochs (years), so its orbit is uncertain. For the record, the MPC says S/2023 S 38 was observed for only two months—that is less than 10% of a Norse moon's typical orbital period of ~2 years. Both Sheppard and the MPC say S/2023 S 38 has an (osculating) eccentricity of 0.317 instead; and no, S/2023 S 38's eccentricity does not actually vary from 0.317 to 0.9, that's just due to different calculations of its orbit from the sparse number of observations.
- My point is, a layman or anyone unfamiliar with the inner workings of how irregular moons are handled by JPL vs. the MPC would not recognize this nuance about S/2023 S 38 having an uncertain orbit with an allegedly ridiculous eccentricity. For this reason, I argue against keeping moon articles with superficial "records" that haven't been documented by reliable sources. That potentially means eliminating the distant Gallic S/2006 S 12 and the 100th Saturnian irregular S/2005 S 5. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 07:49, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- I think that makes sense. Hundredth moon definitely don't count nor do the extreme values. I've thought about it a little more. I am mainly concerned in that I hope a moon does not get to be notable just cause it has a name or something, cause one day the IAU could randomly decide to give all 250 of them names. In addition, moons don't get to be notable just cause there weren't too many announced at once. All of the Jupiter satellites have articles because they only announced them 10-20 at a time but if say, 40 at once were announced some would not have articles right now. To some extent, it's arbitrary whether a moon gets announced with however many others or not, so I think a time cutoff even if arbitrary would be needed. I'm not too familiar with the timeline of moon discoveries though but your suggestions for that seem reasonable to me.
- I don't think any moons involved in those public naming contests should have that count (also they're kind of...weird), especially considering there could be a whole slew of current/future moons getting names through contests. Ditto for any minor renamings. I'm unsure about previously lost moons, and at any given moment it seems a bunch of moons are or have the potential to be lost. A few were independently rediscovered (notable, probably) but I don't know if some object being lost then recovered should auto-qualify as notable. What about those which are mentioned in a study only with reference to their position? Drawing mainly from Ashton et al. for examples: a moon could be discussed in context of possibly being assigned to a wrong group (Saturn LVIII), or maybe they in passing speculate on connections with other moons (S/2019 S 11), or something. I guess there are some probably clear-cut notable cases (S/2004 S 24) but idk where the line should be drawn, if it should be.
- The idea that a moon's membership of a small enough group like the Carpo group seems reasonable. Do the groups need to be well-established for that, and do subgroups count? Would moons like S/2004 S 46 count? (part of the 4-moon cluster on the edge of the Phoebe subgroup) Somewhat related to this I noticed the Moons of Saturn template got half-nuked. I suppose it was pretty large and bulky, obvious main culprit being the Mundilfari subgroup. My motivation to split up the Norse group in the template was mainly due to its size, since I thought every moon was to be included. Now that it seems more manageable in size (still 49 items left), maybe it could possibly be recombined into a single Norse category? Assuming that it's generally agreed that the current state gives too much emphasis to one source. Or if we keep the subgroups, could every moon that's not in the Mundilfari subgroup be restored? The subgroups only have a max of ~30 members, which seems reasonable visibility-wise...though they are useless for navigation I guess, maybe it's not worth keeping unlinked moons? I may work on it later to make it more clear there's many moons missing from it
- The Norse "group" in general seems like a tough nut to crack. I do find it funny that two papers come to opposite conclusions on whether Phoebe should have a collisional family or not with the same argument. On Ashton et al.'s analysis, the Phoebe subgroup seems just like the group to the side of the Mundilfari one, there could be some cluster there but I'm skeptical it's related to Phoebe at all. The low-inclination moons technically aren't even a group. The Kari subgroup though, that one could be real. Out of the moons in its "inclination range" there's a somewhat visible cluster in a, and most are relatively high in e. (But it's all my speculation.)
- Also I always wondered about S/2023 S 38. I don't think the value can be touched tho since that would open a can of worms of when exactly a value from JPL is extreme enough to say "nah we don't like it". I wonder how long would it be till that's fixed?
- Sbznpoe (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Moons of Jupiter
editSeeing that you are one of the most active editors of the moons of Jupiter article, you might work on improving it if you have the time. Векочел (talk) 01:39, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for expanding and cleaning up the Himalia group article!
edit |
The Space Barnstar | |
| Thank you so much for expanding and cleaning up the Himalia group article! I'm glad that their articles are getting more attention and care. Hopefully I'll find the time to touch up the irregular moon articles too... Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 20:49, 2 May 2026 (UTC) |
Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 20:49, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for the barnstar! I like the diagrams you added to the articles, they are well made and look nice.
- Sbznpoe (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2026 (UTC)