User Talk: Nrco0e

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{DISPLAYTITLE:User talk:<span style="font-weight:bold; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 1px; -webkit-text-stroke-color: #93ab71; background: -webkit-linear-gradient(#cbd9b8, #a0a698, #586154); -webkit-background-clip: text; -webkit-text-fill-color: transparent">N<span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:serif; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 1px; -webkit-text-stroke-color: #6da349; background: -webkit-linear-gradient(-120deg, #9bb872, #355e2a); -webkit-background-clip: text; -webkit-text-fill-color: transparent;">rco0e}}
{{bots|deny=DPL bot}}
Category:Wikipedians who opt out of ACE messages ↗
{{noindex}}
{{Archives|archivelist=User talk:Nrco0e/archivelist}}
'''Note:''' Please don't refer to me by any personal identity. I value my privacy. Thank you. 

<div style="-moz-transform:rotate(-420deg);-webkit-transform:rotate(-420deg); transform:rotate(-420deg);">{{nowrap|Silence... --> {{small|'''→ → → → → →''' (what's this? ↗) '''← ← ← ← ← ←''' }}}}</div>

{{clear}}

Your nomination of 208996 Achlys ↗ is under review

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article 208996 Achlys ↗ is 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''under review'''. See '''Talk:208996 Achlys/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sashimi-b -- Sashimi-b (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

About the Makemake thing

Yeah, blunder on my part :P
The file description had said it was from 2016, and nothing about it said that it was false color, I had just assumed that it was a filter on the camera.
It did not help that Eris and Dysnomia had similar images for a while.
My bad man Informing And Uniting (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

:No worries. Oftentimes people who upload files on Wikimedia Commons forget to add detailed descriptions and clarifications. If astronomical images aren't your expertise, I recommend asking about them on the talk page of whatever article you plan on changing the image. '''Nrco0e''' (talk • contribs ↗) 07:05, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of 208996 Achlys ↗ has passed

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article 208996 Achlys ↗ has 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''passed'''; congratulations! See '''Talk:208996 Achlys/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. 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 Sashimi-b -- Sashimi-b (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Pallas size comparison

I think we should have something to compare Pallas to more familiar objects. The Earth or a terrestrial continent would work too. I imagine that most people have no intuitive idea of how big Pallas is. — kwami (talk) 09:47, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Prison Mathematics Project ↗

Now that we're within the 6 week SOHA period, are there any remaining issues to address? Apocheir (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Exemplary

FYI, I cited your recent DYK for 54598 Bienor ↗ at the ITN discussion of LHS 1903 ↗. Please feel free to comment if you have something add.

Note also that I wanted to consult your talk page archives to check the DYK details. But the "pew pew" graphic and rickroll seems to interfere with access to those archives – I couldn't seem to click on them. A fix might be needed...

Andrew ↗🐉(talk ↗) 11:47, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|Andrew Davidson}} Whoops, didn't realize the tilted text blocks stuff on the right. Fixed, thanks for letting me know! '''Nrco0e''' (talk • contribs ↗) 22:51, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
:About your ITN issue, I'm not really familiar with the ITN process. Maybe I'll post a brief comment about my opinion on the subject's notability if I can find a way to articulate it. '''Nrco0e''' (talk • contribs ↗) 22:51, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks for commenting at ITN. It's a shame that you didn't want this to appear there. There may well be lots of other worthy discoveries too but ITN reports just about none of them and so it just lists a dull diet of deaths, elections and sport.
::Anyway, ITN's loss is DYK's gain – I'll make sure it gets nominated there.
::Andrew ↗🐉(talk ↗) 10:31, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
:::I appreciate Chaotic Enby's astronomy joke in the closing note at Wikipedia:ITN/Candidates#LHS 1903 ↗. Good luck with it at DYK, I'm sure it will do well. Renerpho (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
::::I liked it too – see Strange New Worlds ↗! Andrew ↗🐉(talk ↗) 12:26, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
:::For the record, I just checked for previous exoplanet stories at ITN and found quite a few. One even references the nebular hypothesis too:
{{cot|Exoplanets found at ITN}}
:::# Astronomers ↗ have directly '''confirmed ↗''' the existence of an extrasolar planet ↗ orbiting the brown dwarf ↗ numbered 2M1207a ↗. The team says that this is the first-ever infrared view of an exoplanet ↗. (2005)
:::# Astronomer ↗s announce the discovery of the Earth-like ↗ exoplanet ↗ '''Gliese 581 c ↗'''. The planet has 1.5 times the radius of Earth ↗, and orbits Gliese 581 ↗. It is the first Earth-like extrasolar planet found in a star's habitable zone ↗. (2007)
:::# Astronomers announce the discovery of the exoplanet ↗ '''Gliese 581 e ↗''' ''(artist's impression pictured)'', the closest in mass ↗ to Earth ↗ ever found, in the constellation ↗ of Libra ↗. (2009)
:::# French astronomers discover '''COROT-Exo-7b ↗''', the smallest exoplanet ↗ to have its diameter measured. (2009)
:::# Scientists announce the discovery of exoplanet ↗ '''WASP-17b ↗''', the first known planet to have a retrograde orbit ↗. (2009)
:::# A team of astronomer ↗s confirm the orbital motion ↗ of the first directly imaged ↗ exoplanet ↗ near a '''sun-like star ↗'''. (2010)
:::# The discovery of '''Kepler-37 ↗b''', the smallest exoplanet ↗ discovered to date, is announced. (2013)
:::# An exoplanet ↗, '''HD 106906 b ↗''', is discovered with the most distant orbit around a single star ↗, farther than thought possible ↗. (2013)
:::# NASA ↗ announces the discovery of '''Kepler-186f ↗''', the first Earth-sized exoplanet ↗ orbiting in its star's habitable zone ↗. (2014)
:::# The ''Kepler ↗'' space telescope discovers '''Kepler-452b ↗''', the smallest planet yet found in a habitable zone ↗. (2015)
:::# The exoplanet ↗ '''Proxima Centauri b ↗''' is discovered in the habitable zone ↗ around Proxima Centauri ↗, the star closest to the Sun. (2016)
:::# Astronomers announce that the star '''TRAPPIST-1 ↗''' hosts seven exoplanet ↗s, some orbiting in its habitable zone ↗. (2017)
:::# Astronomers announce the detection of water in the atmosphere of exoplanet '''K2-18b ↗''', the first such discovery for a planet in the habitable zone ↗ around a star. (2019)
{{cob}}
:::{{quote|"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun."|{{Bibleverse|Ecclesiastes|1:9|KJV}}}}
:::Andrew ↗🐉(talk ↗) 12:22, 15 February 2026 (UTC) {{ec}}
::::{{ping|Andrew_Davidson}} I appreciate your persistence, well fought. Thanks for digging into the history of exoplanet ITNs! I recall some recent astronomy ITNs, like the discovery of Uranus's moon S/2025 U 1 ↗, which took a while to get approved because people kept squabbling over notability ↗. Same happened with the 2018 announcement of 12 moons of Jupitter which didn't get approved ↗, and the 2023 announcement of 128 new moons of Saturn ↗. I don't get ITN honestly. <s>As someone extremely deep into astronomy, it's too human-centric for my liking.</s> '''Nrco0e''' (talk • contribs ↗) 19:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of 2001 QW322 ↗ is under review

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article 2001 QW322 ↗ is 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''under review'''. See '''Talk:2001 QW322/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of A.Cython -- A.Cython (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
:Note: I originally promoted this hook with the image, which looked fine on desktop. However, several hours later, I was away from home when I noticed it (and all the other potential images we could use in its place) looked terrible on mobile. This kind of thing does happen, but not often. I think it was compounded by the blackness of the image and the points of light. On desktop, it was easy to view, but on mobile at the DYK image size, it was just a black blob with pin pricks. I apologize, but the image was removed and the hook is running without it. Viriditas (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
::No worries! Dots aren't the most exciting kind of image, haha. '''Nrco0e''' (talk • contribs ↗) 19:44, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Thanks for understanding. What surprised me was the measurable difference between desktop and mobile. Viriditas (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of 2001 QW322 ↗ is on hold

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article 2001 QW322 ↗ has been placed 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''on hold''', as the article needs some changes. See '''Talk:2001 QW322/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of A.Cython -- A.Cython (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of 2001 QW322 ↗ has passed

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article 2001 QW322 ↗ has 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''passed'''; congratulations! See '''Talk:2001 QW322/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. 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 A.Cython -- A.Cython (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

DYK for 2001 QW322

{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|image class=skin-invert
|text = On 19 February 2026 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''2001 QW322 ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that astronomers discovered the wide binary system '''2001 QW322 ↗''' while searching for new moons of Uranus?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2001 QW322 ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 2001 QW322 ↗), and the hook may be added to the statistics page ↗ after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it ↗.
}} '''Hurricane''''''Zeta'''C ↗ 01:30, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

:Nice one, Nrco0e! Renerpho (talk) 08:03, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Nice work on 2001 QW322 ↗!

I have absolutely no knowledge of astronomy, but I harbour that deeply human feeling of wonder whenever I look up at the stars, which leads me to read articles about astronomy from time to time. I found the article 2001 QW322 ↗ (to which you contributed more than 90%) very well written! For me as a laywoman, it was a joy to understand a subject far removed from my area of expertise.

I ''almost ''decided against it after being rickrolled, but here's a barnstar! <3

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | 100px ↗
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Special Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For watching out for the lay readers, resulting in clearly written articles on what could be very convoluted topics.
|} '''Barbalalaika''' 🐌 07:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

:Thank you very much, I really appreciate those kind words! :D '''Nrco0e''' (talk • contribs ↗) 04:32, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

new Saturn moons

I updated Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons ↗ with the Jupiter moons, but how do I get the dates for the Saturn moon discoveries? Double sharp (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

:{{re|Double sharp}} If I may: You can find the date of the first image in the MPEC ↗, as well as the dates of the discovery observation (marked with an asterisk):

{| class=wikitable
! Designation
! Date of first image
! Time of discovery observation
! Date of announcement
|-
| S/2020 S 45 || 2020 Jun. 24 || 2020 06 24.46348 || 2026 Mar. 16
|-
| S/2020 S 46 || 2020 Jun. 27 || 2020 06 27.45932 || 2026 Mar. 16
|-
| S/2020 S 47 || 2020 Jun. 28 || 2020 06 28.46874 || 2026 Mar. 16
|-
| S/2020 S 48 || 2020 Jun. 24 || 2020 06 24.46348 || 2026 Mar. 16
|-
| S/2023 S 51 || 2020 Jun. 24 || 2023 08 16.44190 || 2026 Mar. 16
|-
| S/2023 S 52 || 2020 Jun. 24 || 2023 09 15.25398 || 2026 Mar. 16
|-
| S/2023 S 53 || 2019 Jul. 1 || 2023 09 15.25398 || 2026 Mar. 16
|-
| S/2023 S 54 || 2019 Jul. 3 || 2023 08 16.44190 || 2026 Mar. 16
|-
| S/2023 S 55 || 2019 Jul. 3 || 2023 08 16.44190 || 2026 Mar. 16
|-
| S/2023 S 56 || 2019 Jul. 3 || 2023 08 15.44853 || 2026 Mar. 16
|-
| S/2023 S 57 || 2019 Jul. 2 || 2023 08 15.44853 || 2026 Mar. 16
|}
{{clear}}
:I'm not sure which parts of that you need. I guess the first image and the announcement. Renerpho (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::{{ping|Renerpho}} Thank you! I was meaning to use the time of discovery observation (to avoid precovery-related problems and explain why the years in the provisional designation are as they are). Not sure how I overlooked them indeed; thank you for your help! Double sharp (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
:::{{re|Double sharp}} As far as I can tell, the list you're editing marks the date of the first observation ("i"), and the date of publication ("p"). It does not provide the date of the discovery observation. The designation is chosen by the first year that has more than a single night of data at the time of the announcement. Renerpho (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Renerpho}} Well, that's bad news to discover...
::::Probably a bunch of discovery-observation dates then need to change from "i" to "o" over the last decade or so. :( Double sharp (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Well, I did not really want to go through hundreds of MPEC's to fix this, so I changed the key. Double sharp (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Original Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | I too am a big exoplanet nerd and I have seen your name so much today that I recognized it, which means you are doing phenomenal work. Keep it up Gogodjames (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
|}

:{{ping|Gogodjames}} Thank you, I appreciate your kind words. I see that you've updated the Super-Neptune ↗ article recently, nice work! '''Nrco0e''' (talk • contribs ↗) 07:29, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks! Gogodjames (talk) 07:33, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Nrco0e. Thank you for your work on TOI-1853 b ↗. Another editor, Aszx5000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol ↗ and left the following comment:

{{Bq|1=I think you should be autopatrolled ↗. thanks.}}

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{code|<nowiki>{{Re|</nowiki>Aszx5000<nowiki>}}</nowiki>}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation ↗ tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Aszx5000 (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Moons of Jupiter ↗

An overhaul of the Featured Lists delisting prose-heavy ones took that article's star. I started a GAN, they decided to fail because I had only two edits. Can you please start a nomination, if only to keep the Featured Topic reassessment ↗ on hold? igordebraga ≠ ↗ 01:39, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

:Sorry, the Moons of Jupiter article is missing far too much information and I don't have the time and motivation to fix all those issues that I'm seeing. Namely, it's missing a summary of the Galilean moons with a "Main article:" header, has too much focus on irregular moons (IMO they should be split into a separate article titled Irregular moons of Jupiter ↗), and the exploration section needs reorganizing and updating (missing discussion of Juice's upcoming flyby of Kallichore and goals for observing other Jovian moons). '''Nrco0e''' (talk • contribs ↗) 01:46, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
::Speaking of which, seeing as back in 2014 I got the Moons of Neptune ↗ article featured; is that one any easier to get sorted out? Double sharp (talk) 07:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
:::I think so, yeah. The Moons of Neptune article is already in pretty good shape, so why not give that one a shot? '''Nrco0e''' (talk • contribs ↗) 16:10, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
::::Great to hear! Do you think it's FAC-ready, or just GAN-ready? Double sharp (talk) 07:58, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::I think it's safer to go GAN first before FAC. '''Nrco0e''' (talk • contribs ↗) 15:19, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::OK, I nominated the Neptune list for GAN. Double sharp (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Mega-Earth plot

Is the mega-Earth plot you copied from the arxiv paper a copyright violation? Fdfexoex (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|Fdfexoex}} The arXiv link ↗ says the paper and its contents are licensed under CC-BY-4.0 (it's under the "TeX Source" link). So all's good. '''Nrco0e''' (talk • contribs ↗) 02:38, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

::ok thanks Fdfexoex (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of TOI-1853 b ↗ is under review

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article TOI-1853 b ↗ is 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''under review'''. See '''Talk:TOI-1853 b/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Abdullah1099 -- Abdullah1099 (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

right|80px ↗
Hi Nrco0e, I just wanted to let you know that I have added ↗ the autopatrolled user right ↗ to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed ↗. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested ↗ on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers ↗.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject ↗ templates, stub tags ↗, categories ↗, and incoming links ↗ to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies ↗, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller ↗ yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Arctic'''ocean''' ■ 20:02, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Neptunian desert

When you wrote "A 2025 census of measured masses and densities of known planets in the Neptunian ridge" did you mean to write in the Neptunian desert? Fdfexoex (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

:Yes; my bad. I've been hastily expanding the article and trying to get the basic info in, so I may have missed some small mistakes here and there. Thanks for catching these! '''Nrco0e''' (talk • contribs ↗) 23:36, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Moons of Jupiter

Seeing 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)

How to determine number of oppositions

Hi,

At (455502) 2003 UZ413 ↗, we give the number of oppositions it's been observed over, but no as-of date (until I just added it). The number has been updated over the years on WP, but where do we get that info from? Also, the number of observations seems to have been grossly undercounted, so I wonder if I got it wrong. (I just used the number at JPL.) — kwami (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

:{{re|Kwamikagami}} The MPC provides number of observations, used observations and oppositions -- in this case, https://minorplanetcenter.net/db_search/show_object?object_id=455502 gives 523 observations, 513 used, across 29 oppositions, as of 2025-12-26. Where JPL gets the rest of their 558 observations, I don't know. Renerpho (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
::{{re|Exoplanetaryscience}} As the last person before this to update those numbers, in 2015 (15 ↗, 13 ↗, eleven ↗ oppositions), maybe you have something to add? Renerpho (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

left|150px ↗
MIAU MIAU MIAU MIAU MIAU

RipeJuicyMangoes (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of :2021 DR15 ↗ for deletion

<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0;">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :2021 DR15 ↗ is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗ or whether it should be deleted ↗.

The article is being discussed at '''Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 DR15 ↗''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.</div> 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 ↗ 18:30, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Destubathon of the Americas ↗

You are invited to participate in the '''Destubathon of the Americas ↗''', a contest/editathon which will run from May 1 to May 31. The goal is to destub as many of our 475,000+ stubs for the Americas (from Alaska down to Chile) as possible. A good chance to have fun in expanding many of our old stale stubs and win up to £2000 ($2680) in Amazon vouchers for expanding stub articles. Sign up in the Contestants/participants section on the contest page if interested. Even if not interested in prizes you are still warmly welcome to participate in it as an editathon! Hopefully we can achieve something significant in the month of May together! ♦ ''Dr. Blofeld'' 17:23, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

DYK for TOI-1853 b

{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|image class=skin-invert
|text = On 16 April 2026 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''TOI-1853 b ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that '''{{nowrap|TOI-1853 b}} ↗''' is a Neptune-sized exoplanet ↗ that is denser than steel?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/TOI-1853 b ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, TOI-1853 b ↗), and the hook may be added to the statistics page ↗ after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it ↗.
}}  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Original Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | i liked your scatter plot of the position of the irregular moons of Jupiter & saturn. can you show us the source code for it? RealMachoAqx (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
|}

:Yeah, I'm planning on adding a link to the GitHub soon! I've been busy with other stuff, so I've forgotten. Thanks for reminding me! '''Nrco0e''' (talk • contribs ↗) 02:59, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
::{{ping|RealMachoAqx}} Hello. I have uploaded my source code on GitHub. I've updated the descriptions for the Jupiter and Saturn diagrams to include the link: https://github.com/chirochrone/irregular-moons-aei-polar-diagrams/tree/main. Enjoy! '''Nrco0e''' (talk • contribs ↗) 04:05, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
:::thanks! RealMachoAqx (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of TOI-1853 b ↗ is on hold

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article TOI-1853 b ↗ has been placed 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''on hold''', as the article needs some changes. See '''Talk:TOI-1853 b/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of OzmoOzmo -- OzmoOzmo (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of TOI-1853 b ↗ has passed

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article TOI-1853 b ↗ has 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''passed'''; congratulations! See '''Talk:TOI-1853 b/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. 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. Please also consider reviewing ↗ somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of OzmoOzmo -- OzmoOzmo (talk) 07:05, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Makemake ↗

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article ↗ for 15 June 2026. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 2026 ↗, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/June 2026 ↗. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors ↗ from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work! Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of :2003 LA7 ↗ for deletion

<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0;">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :2003 LA7 ↗ is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗ or whether it should be deleted ↗.

The article is being discussed at '''Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2003 LA7 ↗''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.</div> '''Homlos''' '''''(Message me bro)''''' 08:50, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

DYK for ZTF J1239+8347

{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|image class=skin-invert
|text = On 5 May 2026 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''ZTF J1239+8347 ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that '''ZTF J1239+8347 ↗''' ''(pictured)'' contains two brown dwarf ↗s orbiting so closely that material flows between them?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/ZTF J1239+8347 ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, ZTF J1239+8347 ↗), and the hook may be added to the statistics page ↗ after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it ↗.
}} ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
{{DYK views|28,178|1,174.1|May 2026|ZTF J1239+8347}} GalliumBot (talk • contribs ↗) (he/it ↗) 03:29, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion

Hi there! I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting ↗ to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted ↗ my fix to :(612533) 2002 XV93 ↗.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <code><nowiki><ref name="foo">...</ref></nowiki></code> and one or more <code><nowiki><ref name="foo"/></nowiki></code> referring to it. Someone then removed the <code><nowiki><ref name="foo">...</ref></nowiki></code> but left the <code><nowiki><ref name="foo"/></nowiki></code>, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <code><nowiki><ref name="foo"/></nowiki></code> with a copy of the <code><nowiki><ref name="foo">...</ref></nowiki></code>; I ''did not'' re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the ''remaining'' instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove '''all''' instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 5 May 2026 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{tlx|bots|2=optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.

:You are a terrible bot for making me lose my progress. Get out clanker. '''Nrco0e''' (talk • contribs ↗) 07:54, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Makemake

I registered my complaint after making the changes I felt were merited. Beyond that, I have no issues. ~2026-25855-98 ↗ (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2026 (UTC) P.S. I got no ping...

:Fantastic, thank you! (Thanks for letting me know that pinging doesn't work for anon users. Will keep that in mind) '''Nrco0e''' (talk • contribs ↗) 20:02, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive

{| style="border: 5px solid #ABCDEF ; background-color: #FFF; padding:10px 15px 0; color: black"
|style="padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em; font-size:130%" |'''Good article nominations ↗ |''' June 2026 Backlog Drive
|rowspan=3|right|75px ↗
|-
|'''June 2026 Backlog Drive:'''
Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process?

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.

Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed.

Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points!

Interested in taking part? You can '''sign up here ↗'''.
|-
|colspan=2|'''Other ways to participate:'''

Join the conversations on our talk page ↗.

|-
|colspan=2 style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;"|You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.
|}

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of (84522) 2002 TC302 ↗ is under review

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article (84522) 2002 TC302 ↗ is 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''under review'''. See '''Talk:(84522) 2002 TC302/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ToadalChaos -- ToadalChaos (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Core pressurs

Hi,

At angrite ↗ I updated the theorized size of the parent body per a 2026 paper, based on the pressures and depths required to form the minerals. Since the number won't mean anything to most people, I added a comparison to the core pressures of Vesta, Ceres and Pluto -- the angrite article had previously stated that parent body was thought to be the size of Vesta. Those numbers are not particularly accessible. Do you think it would be worth adding core pressure and temp to the infobox planet template? — kwami (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

:Hm.... I don't know? I'm afraid I'm not knowledgeable enough in planetary interiors to give a proper opinion. If core pressure/temperature is a commonly stated fact in papers and articles, then I guess it might be worth adding as an infobox parameter. Maybe you should ask {{ping|Scourgezoned|AstroChara}} or someone who does more geophysics stuff. '''Nrco0e''' (talk • contribs ↗) 21:25, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
:I personally don't think those would be good additions. I admit I have not read that many planetary science papers, but from what I've seen, I haven't seen core pressure and temperature values being mentioned and used in papers that often. Temperature, especially, can be very uncertain and model-dependent for planets like Uranus and Neptune. Personally I think it's fine if the article just mentions the pressure and what object size it corresponds to. AstroChara (talk) 08:19, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

the other moons of X articles

Alright, Neptune's a GA now. :)

Which of the others do you think are closest to ready? Double sharp (talk) 06:42, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|Double sharp}} Hmmm... imma be real here, none of them. I'm honestly a tad too tired and lazy to properly look at and critique the remaining planet moon articles, but I'll just skim over em and point out the most obvious issues.
:* Moons of Uranus ↗ is missing a section explaining the moons' formation/origin, and needs updating regarding the dynamics/stability of inner moons.
:* For Moons of Saturn ↗, the formation needs to be updated (e.g. there's several recent papers on that, especially those authored by Matija Cuk) and the "ring moonlets" section needs some cleaning up and reorganizing. (list the moonlets and make a separate article for those. Kids have been begging for that for years.) The stuff about Saturnian irregular moons likely needs to be split into a separate article titled "Irregular moons of Saturn ↗" which goes more in depth into the methodology and history of their discovery, as well as formation and population properties.
:* For Moons of Jupiter ↗, the origin/formation section also needs updating (there was a recent paper that proposed that the Galilean moons' water evaporated due to Jupiter's intense heat, and also a Batygin paper describing how Jupiter's inner moons formed). It also needs to address Io's torus and Galilean magnetosphere interactions, exploration section needs to talk about JUICE and Europa Clipper and how they'll also observe the minor moons, and the "Digital telescopic observations" section is way too long. TBH, I think a lot of the stuff about Jupiter's irregular moons (population count, history, etc.) can be split into a separate article titled "Irregular moons of Jupiter ↗".
:'''Nrco0e''' (talk • contribs ↗) 07:07, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
::I see. Thanks for the comments anyway. :) Seems like Uranus needs less work than Jupiter or Saturn, but still quite a bit of work. Double sharp (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation ↗: Ko Arimatsu ↗ has been accepted

<div style="border:solid 1px #57DB1E; background:var(--background-color-success-subtle, #dff2eb); padding: 0.5em 1em; color: inherit; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;">50px|left ↗ '''Ko Arimatsu ↗, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been accepted!''' 

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. 

The article has been assessed as '''Start-Class''', which is recorded on its talk page ↗. Most new articles start out as Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time ↗. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme ↗ to see how you can improve the article.

See the quality assessment scheme ↗ to find out how to improve the article.

'''Future articles'''
<div class="autoconfirmed-show">

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself ↗ without submitting a draft for review. However, you may continue submitting drafts to Articles for creation ↗ if you prefer.</div>

Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself ↗ without posting a request to Articles for creation ↗.</div>

'''Next steps'''

Find other Wikipedia articles related to your topic and add links pointing to the new article ↗. This helps readers find it.

Group the article with similar subjects by adding relevant categories ↗.

You may consider nominating a fact from the article ↗ within the next 7 days to appear on the Main Page's Did you know section ↗.

Wikipedia is a work in progress. You can continue to expand and improve the new article.

The new article will become eligible to be indexed on search engines ↗ once patrolled or after 90 days; search engines may take time to reflect this.

For friendly peer support regarding editing, sourcing, or policies, visit the Teahouse ↗, a question and answer hub for new editors.

Thanks again, and happy editing!
Abdullah1099 (talk) 08:13, 19 June 2026 (UTC)</div>

Your nomination of Margaret (moon) ↗ is under review

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Margaret (moon) ↗ is 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''under review'''. See '''Talk:Margaret (moon)/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of NovaHyperion -- NovaHyperion (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Margaret (moon) ↗ has passed

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Margaret (moon) ↗ has 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''passed'''; congratulations! See '''Talk:Margaret (moon)/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. 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. Please also consider reviewing ↗ somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of NovaHyperion -- NovaHyperion (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Ferdinand (moon) ↗ is under review

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Ferdinand (moon) ↗ is 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''under review'''. See '''Talk:Ferdinand (moon)/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Alexeyevitch -- Alexeyevitch (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Ferdinand (moon) ↗ has passed

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Ferdinand (moon) ↗ has 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''passed'''; congratulations! See '''Talk:Ferdinand (moon)/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. 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. Please also consider reviewing ↗ somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Alexeyevitch -- Alexeyevitch (talk) 07:22, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of (84522) 2002 TC302 ↗ has passed

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article (84522) 2002 TC302 ↗ has 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''passed'''; congratulations! See '''Talk:(84522) 2002 TC302/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. 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. Please also consider reviewing ↗ somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ToadalChaos -- ToadalChaos (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Rings of Quaoar

Hi Nrco0e, I'm wondering can you make your rings of Quaoar sandbox into a draft space? I might expand a little if I have time, I wanna help '''Homlos''' '''''(Message me bro)''''' 09:07, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|My planet is Homlos}} You can try, but I doubt you would understand much of the sources or make it into a nice article. I saw that you tried expanding the 174567 Varda ↗ article, but you made so many mistakes and gross errors that I had to ask a friend to clean it up and correct stuff for you. '''Nrco0e''' (talk • contribs ↗) 09:09, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
::Im sorry Nrco0e, Im still figuring out how to not excessive detailing, btw why did Scourgezoned removed the Occultation table? I think that table was a good idea because the Máni article has it too '''Homlos''' '''''(Message me bro)''''' 09:15, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
:::Your table takes up way too much space and it's distracting. Secondly, LuckyStar and RECON's occultation prediction pages don't say whether an occultation was observed or not. LuckyStar predicts ''hundreds'' of possible occultations for each TNO, centaur, or Jupiter trojan. It's only the observed occultations (published in papers) that are important enough to mention. So your table ends up listing a bunch of predicted occultations that probably nobody bothered to observe (just because nobody attempted to observe it doesn't mean it's unsuccessful or negative), but we have no way of knowing because no other source said so. Mani's table of occultations, on the other hand, lists all the observed occultations that have been mentioned in papers. '''Nrco0e''' (talk • contribs ↗) 09:20, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
::::Oh... I see, I'm sorry for all of this '''Homlos''' '''''(Message me bro)''''' 09:39, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

DYK for Margaret (moon)

{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|image class=skin-invert
|text = On 10 July 2026 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''Margaret (moon) ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that Uranus's moon '''Margaret ↗''' ''(pictured)'' is named after a Shakespearean character, an astronomer's daughter, and its discoverer's mother?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Margaret (moon) ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (Margaret (moon) ↗), and the hook may be added to the statistics page ↗ after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it ↗.
}} ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Reaching out

Good day! I've been a fan of your work on Wiki for some time now, and I wanted to connect to discuss potential avenues for collaborative editing, if you happen to have a discord I'd love to discuss it with you further! Ornithoptera (talk) 08:45, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|Ornithoptera}} Oh hi! I'm on the Official Wikipedia Discord ↗ if you want to contact me there. '''Nrco0e''' (talk • contribs ↗) 09:10, 10 July 2026 (UTC)