User talk:Renerpho

		The Space Barnstar
		For being an early contributor to the 2I/Borisov article. ↠Pine (✉) 06:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pine: Thank you! Renerpho (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Renerpho, there is a tool that might assist you finding a specific name among the many Minor Planet Circulars (website). For example, MPC's object page for (4388) Jurgenstock displays the Reference page number (36126). The tool maps this number to the corresponding publishing date (28 September 1999), and from there on it's easy to find the corresponding M.P.C. For 4388 Jürgenstock, page 362 (M.P.C. 36126), the name has been published with an umlaut. Hope that was informative. Rfassbind – talk 03:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, we both registered on Wikipedia just 12 days apart. What a coincidence! Rfassbind – talk 03:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Rfassbind! I have since contacted the MPC, to ask why there are two conflicting names on the website.[1] JPL finds the object when looking for Jurgenstock, but not Jürgenstock. I was informed that the page titles on both the MPC and JPL do not display umlauts by default. P.S. Nice coincidence about our Wikipedia age (even though I wasn't very active for the first few years). Renerpho (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very useful image of the TNOs known today. Well done!

KBOs and resonances

Thanks for contributing it to the emergent encyclopedia of human knowledge! N2e (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@N2e: Thank you! I plan to update it regularly as more objects/classifications become available. Renerpho (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a second, related image. While the first one makes the resonances more apparent, the classifications (cubewano, scattered, etc) are more transparent in this one (IMO):

KBOs and resonances

Renerpho (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's a helpful view. Thanks for sharing it. It's always amazing to me how good graphical presentation can make difficult-to-grok data on the real (and complex) world more clear. N2e (talk) 04:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Renerpho, could you upload a processed Hubble image of the 47171 Lempo system with all three components resolved? The artice's infobox image is quite old and the third component of the Lempo system hasn't been discovered at the time, and I figured that you can help replace the old image with a better one since you've uploaded a processed image of Huya and its satellite. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 00:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can try, but the third component is difficult to resolve. Renerpho (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] Hubble images of the Lempo/Hiisi system, with the two components marked "1" and "2"

Done. Renerpho (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC) An image with all three components resolved doesn't work well. I decided against it, instead adding an image to the section about the individual components.12:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		Humor Barnstar!
		Congrats for winning the contest. Here's your reward. Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2020 OcelotCreeper (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for helping with some distraction. Times aren't easy. We can all need a good laugh! Renerpho (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	A WikiYanny, First Class with Invisible Oak Clusters for you!
	Awarded for your incredible work documenting the unfolding Great Edit War of 2020. Your speed and thoroughness were nothing short of awe-inspiring. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Spirit of Eagle. I'm a bit sad I missed the finale, but you handled it well without me. 😉 I'm not looking forward to do this ever again, but only because I hope I'm never again stuck at home like this! It was all good fun though, thanks again! Renerpho (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renerpho, thanks for the marvelous job you've done updating the consolidated plot of Tabby's Star dimmings! And thanks to Bruce Gary for the data!

@Synchronist: You're welcome! Renerpho (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde (Talk) 00:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Renerpho , I saw that you have removed my contributed info on the page Apophis for the name Apophis, Would you please explain the reason more here. --Aaqibacs1 (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaqibacs1: In fact, I did not remove everything; I kept your citation, moving it into the infobox. The first sentence of an article's lead section is not the place to give background information about the etymology of the name. That is secondary information that either can be handled in a subsection, or further down in the lead if it is absolutely necessary information. See the Manual of Style for details. The article you edited is about an asteroid, and the lead should begin with the one thing that 99942 Apophis is most notable for. That is the initial impact risk. Your addition would have been more suitable for the subsection about the name, further down the article. Renerpho (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Renerpho: Alright, Thanks for the help, So, It could be added in the section "Discovery and naming", Right? Aaqibacs1 (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Aaqibacs1: That could work, yes. Renerpho (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Renerpho: Thanks. Happy Editing. --Aaqibacs1 (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you added an entry to List of fugitives from justice who disappeared, good job! Do you think that you could help add some entries to lists like this? I would be very thankful for any help that I can get. Davidgoodheart (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart: Thanks! I don't think I can do much to help you, unfortunately. My edit was specific to the Marsalek case, and I won't have time to work on lists like this more frequently. Renerpho (talk) 08:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... on the Sedna page. I wasn't sure how long the body spent in proximity to the sun, so your revert was in order and well explained in the edit. Thanks for the change, and the explanation. 92.12.199.159 (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for your thorough contributions to astronomy articles on Wikipedia! Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 23:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Renerpho,

I thought I'd ask you this since you helped with the Haumea-Neptune resonance imgs.

Is this image accurate?

From what I understand, the L4 and L5 points are indeed local maxima, and it's Coriolis effects that cause the orbital stability. But shouldn't the potential otherwise go up with further distance from the Sun? The way I'm reading this, it looks like the Sun exerts a gravitational repulsion once you get past the Lagrange points.

Also, our article states that L4 and L5 are gravitational wells -- but doesn't that imply local minima in the potential, not just stability? — kwami (talk) 08:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: This looks accurate. (Do we need a 3D version of that diagram though?) It shows the effective potential, which includes the centrifugal force. It is only the gravitational potential that increases with distance. We already have an image on Wiki Commons that explains the difference.

The stability (and "attracting" effect) of the L4/L5 points is due to the Coriolis effect, which can not be shown on a contour plot. So whether the effective potential has maxima or minima there doesn't necessarily tell you about the nature of those points. Note that this is explained in the section "Stability". Perhaps describing them as a simple gravity well is confusing, because neither the gravitational nor the effective potential are enough to explain their stability. Renerpho (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That makes sense. The img itself claimed it was gravitational potential, so I changed that. Also removed 'gravitational well' from the article. — kwami (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply] @Kwamikagami: If the article said "gravitational well" then that's definitely wrong. It should be "gravity well". Renerpho (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply] My bad. It was 'gravity'. — kwami (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply] All good then. :) Renerpho (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another question, if you don't mind. At Recombination (cosmology), we give Z and the age of the Universe at the time of the CMB. But we don't give the density or the size of the Universe at that time. Do we have any idea what those values might be? — kwami (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: We do. Size is easy, see Observable universe#Size. The observable universe had a radius of about 42 million light-years at the time of the CMB, as the scale factor is given by α ( t ) = 1 1 + z {\displaystyle \alpha (t)={\frac {1}{1+z}}} . Feel free to add that information to the recombination article. Density is more complicated, as you need to specify what kind of density you're talking about. The energy density of matter scales as ρ M ∼ 1 a 3 {\displaystyle \rho _{M}\sim {\frac {1}{{a}^{3}}}} , just as volume scales as V ( t ) ∼ a 3 {\displaystyle V(t)\sim {{a}^{3}}} .[2] Another good source may be [3], if you're looking for something to add to this article. Renerpho (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my joining your conversation. Re "(Do we need a 3D version of that diagram though?)", I'm tempted to recreate my diagram as an STL. However, the equation I have gives the potential in x, y, z while I think it's better for vertices to be on equipotential lines so that the deep funnels' shape are better captured. Would you have an equation that gives x and y values for a given z? Thanks, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 12:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please include @Cmglee: in your reply so I'm aware of it. Thanks!

I thought I'd already added the symbol!

If it doesn't display correctly, it's because you don't have a supporting font installed. There's nothing wrong with the encoding. — kwami (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: I tried on my phone and laptop; neither display it correctly. So I assume I am not the only one. Do we absolutely need the symbol? Alternatively, I suggest to replace the error-prone unicode symbol with an image. Would that work? Renerpho (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should have both. An image is already there. But some will want to be able to copy the character. And for those who do have supporting fonts installed, I don't see why we shouldn't include it.

A lot of things on WP don't display well for ppl who don't have a lot of fonts installed, which is why we use e.g. } to format IPA transcriptions and have warnings that the page includes IPA and may not display properly for some people. Maybe I could try } here. — kwami (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Nah, } doesn't seem to make any difference. BTW, it doesn't display properly for me either. But it will for some people, and font support will improve over time.)

@Kwamikagami: I appreciate the idea, but the display error is confusing. How about turning it into a note instead? Those that want the unicode will find it there, everyone else will not be confused by the weird symbols in the main article body. Renerpho (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How's that? I moved the img into the text, with the character in parentheses after it. — kwami (talk) 06:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: I think that works, too. Renerpho (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Renerpho, I should have looked more carefully before I reverted your edit to Varda. The underlying problem is that Varda (disambiguation) is malplaced. I have listed it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages, so it should be fixed soon. Thanks for fixing my mistake. Leschnei (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks! Renerpho (talk) 02:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] @Leschnei: Just to clarify, it wasn't my edit that you had reverted, but someone else's. I am tagging @Onel5969:, in case they have input. Renerpho (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] @Leschnei: That was my doing. Another like that is Manwë (disambiguation). The problem with these is that the plain title was a section rd, which made it difficult to place a hat note for the dab page. — kwami (talk) 05:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] @Kwamikagami: Thanks for the explanation. I'm trying to remember if I've ever seen a DAP hatnote under a section heading - probably. Leschnei (talk) 11:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] @Leschnei: If it were under a section heading, I'd've left it alone. But it was a rd to an item in a table. It would be messy to put a hat note inside a table, if it's even possible. I didn't try experimenting. Perhaps there could be a table-spanning row above the entry for the hat note, and the anchor for the rd could be there. If you think that would be best in the case of Manwë to avoid TWODAB, that would be okay w me. A dab page was just the most straightforward option. — kwami (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] @Kwamikagami: I agree that a hat note inside of a table sounds extremely cumbersome! A DAB page is just fine - it just needs to be swapped so that Varda is the DAB page and Varda (disambiguation) redirects to it. I have made the request and it should be taken care of soon. Leschnei (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I recognize that your recent addition at Talk:Recursion was well intended, it's very bad form to link accounts to individuals when they haven't done so themselves (see WP:OUTING). In this case, the edit request had already been dealt with on non-COI grounds, so it really wasn't necessary. The OP was removing the whole section, but I have opted instead to just remove your post; I hope that's all right with you, and I wouldn't object if you reinstated a version of your post that warned about COI without explicitly making the off-wiki connection. --JBL (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JBL. Thanks, that's alright with me! In hindsight, I recognize that my post was poorly done. Renerpho (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please add labels to the axes on this graph, particularly on the y-axis?

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hubbleconstants_color.png Fauxpearls (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I ever re-do this plot, I'll make sure to add labels. Renerpho (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for your consistent updating at 2023 Canadian wildfires! Wracking talk! 02:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Renerpho (talk) 05:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Renerpho,

Just wanted to say that I'm trying to contact anyone that I may of offended with my post. The reason I said 'fool', was because it was a foolish statement. I'm not going to explain my reasoning. It was actually a wonderful word, compared to what I wanted to use at the time. Nonetheless, just wanted to end on a somewhat better note. Sorry for the offense.

Best. Bringingthewood (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bringingthewood: Apology accepted. Please try to avoid personal attacks in the future, no matter how nicely worded they are. Renerpho (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I had noticed this happen when it did, but wasn't able to comment on it at the time, but please in the future do not relist your own RfD discussions. WP:RELIST is a helpful tool which outlines the relisting guidelines. In general, relists should only happen after a minimum of 7 days have elapsed, and when the discussion needs an extra push to solidify consensus. These should only be done by uninvolved parties, but in this edit, [4], it seems that you relisted after only 3 on the discussion you started. Thank you for understanding! Utopes (talk / cont) 15:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Utopes! Thanks for letting me know! Next time you see me do this, please hit me with a stick. I don't like fish. Renerpho (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply] No worries! It's quite strange how I'm even typing as I've been stranded out at sea for months, floating merely on a raft (the raft is made of fish). Unfortunately I do not have any sticks on hand but if I see any floating along this blue horizon I shall think of you next time. :) Utopes (talk / cont) 15:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply] I'm sorry to hear that, but I'm glad I could offer you some company. Have a good day. Renerpho (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Since you made the rotating frame animation of 2002 MS4's orbital resonance in action, I'd like to ask about the accuracy of 2002 MS4's supposed resonance. My issue is that every paper I could find about 2002 MS4 classifies the object as a hot classical KBO, and makes no remark on the intermittent 18:11 resonance claimed by Lykawka 2007. The Lykawka 2007 paper is the only paper that claims and discusses this resonance, and it hasn't been formally disputed as far as I'm aware, so I'm not sure if this resonance is still true or not. What do you think? How should we handle this single claim of a resonance in the 2002 MS4 article, which is currently undergoing GA review?

P.S. The GA review needs a second opinion/additional review of how accurately the sources were used in the article. By any chance, would you mind helping out? Nrco0e (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nrco0e: I'm sorry I didn't reply earlier (see the WP:WB on my user page). The resonance is intermittent, so I'm not surprised that nobody claims there's a resonance (because there isn't; that's what intermittent means). I also see no indication that anything has changed about that since 2007 (or since I reproduced it; which, if I remember correctly, included more recent orbital information than Lykawka could have had, while leading to the same result). This has been only 17 years ago, which really isn't a lot for such a distant orbit. As far as the GA review is concerned, I'm currently not able to look at that (too much RL stuff, as I said). I'm sorry I can't help. Renerpho (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:WPFLINKSNO. Transfermarkt's stats database is user-edited. This makes it a self-published source. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Sputnik: That's a pity, I really liked the page. I'm sure I've used it before on other articles. I can try to find out which, if you think that's necessary? Renerpho (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] Well, I checked, and it seems none of the live instances of it are in articles edited by me.[5] I'll look for a better alternative then... Renerpho (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, if you need to blank a page with copyvios, please follow the instructions at WP:CP. I don't recall any special instructions for cases involving entries at WP:CCI, however. Jalen Barks (Woof) 03:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JalenBarks, I don't think there are specific instructions for how to deal with this in the context of WP:CCI. I agree that the warnings you've added to the pages (two of which have since been reinstated in some form) are better than a completely blank article. There are problems with this though, mainly that Template:Copyvio requires the article to be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, which then results in the article's deletion after a short time unless the problem is resolved. Note that the warning at Diaphanidae does not follow this requirement, and is technically incorrect. You're free to still list the article at WP:CP, although I'd prefer to have more than a week to rewrite it (and may actually not be able to do so, due to a complete lack of knowledge about the subject matter). Renerpho (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you so much for carrying the J1407b DYK discussion while I was away! This was frankly the rockiest DYK I've ever dealt with, and I don't think it would have made it if you weren't there to help. I would say that I wish I could have done more, but hey, life gets in the way and there's not much that can be done about that. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 17:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Good to see that it made it through. Renerpho (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 September 26#Template:Harper sidebar Moxy🍁 01:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting indeed -- thanks for letting me know! Renerpho (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be so kind to look at a discussion at Talk:Moon#External links? The suggestion goes over my head as far as expertise. Thank you very much, in advance, if you feel like taking a gander. -- Otr500 (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500: Thanks for the ping. I have replied there, but I didn't have time (or energy) to form a firm opinion about all the links. I guess it's a start... Renerpho (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of links. I certainly know how you feel on energy. 62 years of never missing a day of work to have five years of constant medical issues. I will go look at the site and thanks, -- Otr500 (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there's got to be a better way to find the record, because I found another one in just two minutes (yes it's another town in Guinea). At the risk of seeming like spam, I'm probably going to refrain from changing that one again until I find one that's much older, or at least wait a lot longer before updating. Procyon117 (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Procyon117: At least your latest find was genuinely older, by about half a year. But I agree, this may have been funny exactly once. Renerpho (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 12:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this interesting article! Tenpop421 (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you liked it :) Renerpho (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Also came here to say I enjoyed it. Great work. Yakikaki (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Tenpop421 and Yakikaki: Thanks! Renerpho (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 21:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Renerpho (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have been playing with Find_Orb, trying to replicate Bill Gray's lunar impact map, and also to see if the probability of a lunar impact has increased based on new data but the software interface is very confusing. So far I managed to get a decent orbit which matches the data on the article, do you have experience with this software? Thanks. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough to recreate that lunar impact map (replied on Talk:2024_YR4#A_couple_things already in relation to this). Renerpho (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting his last edit date. I was just looking at the history of his user page, saw "16 January 2001" and thought "Oh! That must be the last edit" (by the way I'm 188.163.120.175) 80.91.179.212 (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, no problem! Renerpho (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You added links to Query 913449 at Special:Diff/1269728079, but quarry queries are only 5 digits. 13449, 93449, 91449, 91349, and 91344 don't seem to be right. What Query did you mean to link to? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahecht: I have no idea. I just created a new query (92188) for the job, but you beat me to it. That said, please note that putting "name=" before the query link breaks the reference. Renerpho (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Renerpho Thanks, I figured that out at about the same time I realized I was editing the wrong version of the page. 🤦‍♂️ --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Clover award
	Thank you for improving chloroform and mentioning Joseph Thomas Clover. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

🍀 You're welcome! Renerpho (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was gonna make the 3I/Atlas page Shaneapickle (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaneapickle: You can have 4I! Renerpho (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] that wont probably be for like the next 10 years Shaneapickle (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Shaneapickle: Vera Rubin Observatory is about to start their survey operation. They expect to find about 10-15 interstellar objects during the next decade. Renerpho (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing my typo on the Logan Paul article. I didn't realise i had missed the e in engagement lol. Thanks again. ItsShandog (talk) 06:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

... for adding to Herwig Schopper's early life, - I meant to do it but didn't get to it. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Renerpho (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] On top of my talk: birthday of a great violinist and Requiem for a great friend. We sang Paradisi gloria from the Stabat Mater in the end. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hi,

just wanted to check, but i assume this is enough to verify that '(55637) Uni I' is correct for newly named Tinia. — kwami (talk) 05:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: Yes, it is. There was no provisional designation before this, as far as I can tell. Renerpho (talk) 06:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please note the overlinking on one of your articles, here. Tony (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Makemake for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 00:54, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally undid your edit by starting editing before you published your edit (this has happened to my once before, which I thought was similar to getting "ninja'd", a term used on some web forums). Xeroctic (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xeroctic: No harm done. I haven't heard that term before (not in this context). :) Renerpho (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Renerpho, you may be interested in this discussion at TfD. Dgp4004 (talk) 09:57, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dgp4004: Thanks, I'll check it out. (I think I've got an idea what this is about...) Renerpho (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Another one which may be of interest to you, although it looks like petty nationalism may be on the cusp of victory with this one: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 December 19#Template:Scottish English. Dgp4004 (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For helping remove transclusions of }! HurricaneZetaC 22:20, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HurricaneZeta: Thanks! I'm not sure if I'm happy with the result of that deletion discussion, but I certainly was happy to help get things in order. Renerpho (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Renerpho! I don't normally contact editors after I close AfDs nominated by them, however in this case, I felt it necessary due to the length and specifics of the subject. After reading everything, there is a consensus to keep, and further discussions on requirements should take place elsewhere and editing such as trimming can be discussed on the article talk page. I realise I am not an administrator, however I felt I was able to close the discussion adequately, whilst keeping in mind that administrators at AfD generally perform deletions, so reading the AfD would have absorbed quite a bit of time that could be spent elsewhere. Seasons greetings and thank you for such an interesting read! 11WB (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@11WB: I completely agree (and I changed my vote to "keep" half way through). I was surprised that it got relisted for further discussion, when there was already more than enough discussion, and after my suggestion that everything else can be discussed on the talk page. Anyway, it's good you got something interesting to read (although I feel sorry about the length), and I hope you've had a nice Christmas! Renerpho (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Thank you! I imagine @Doczilla relisted it just to be absolutely sure that keeping the article is what everybody wanted. 11WB (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding } to user talk pages.

Volten001 ☎ 06:15, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Volten001: Thank you! :) Have a Happy New Year, too. Renerpho (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Renerpho! Please tell me how do you calculate these phase terms from the Cox/Allen table (I've this book). --~2026-73654 (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I currently don't have the source. If it's available online somewhere, I can check. Renerpho (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Again, please: Please tell me how do you calculate these phase terms from the Cox/Allen table? --~2026-95612 (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] As I said, I don't have the book. It's been years since I've written that table, so I don't remember what came from where. If Cox/Allen give a reference for their table, please check that reference as well. Renerpho (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] I have now found it online.[6] The relevant table is 12.15. Lunar integral phase function. on page 310. The approximation formula in Absolute magnitude#More advanced models can be found like this: Take the following table, the first three columns of which come from Cox/Allen. A 5th-order polynomial approximation of the final columns, with a fixed intercept of 0 {\displaystyle 0} at α = 0 {\displaystyle \alpha =0} , gives exactly the coefficients in the Wikipedia article.

α {\displaystyle \alpha } (°)	x {\displaystyle x} (before full Moon)	x {\displaystyle x} (after full Moon)	− 2.5 ⋅ log 10 ⁡ x {\displaystyle -2.5\cdot \log _{10}{x}} (before full Moon)	− 2.5 ⋅ log 10 ⁡ x {\displaystyle -2.5\cdot \log _{10}{x}} (after full Moon)
0	1	1	0.0000	0.0000
10	0.787	0.759	0.2601	0.2994
20	0.603	0.586	0.5492	0.5803
30	0.466	0.453	0.8290	0.8598
40	0.356	0.35	1.1214	1.1398
50	0.275	0.273	1.4017	1.4096
60	0.211	0.211	1.6893	1.6893
70	0.161	0.156	1.9829	2.0172
80	0.12	0.111	2.3020	2.3867
90	0.0824	0.078	2.7102	2.7698
100	0.056	0.0581	3.1295	3.0896
110	0.0377	0.0405	3.5591	3.4814
120	0.0249	0.0261	4.0095	3.9584
130	0.0151	0.0158	4.5526	4.5034
140	0.0093	0.0093	5.0788	5.0788
150	0.0046	0.0046	5.8431	5.8431

I hope this answers your question. Renerpho (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Many Thanks, I did the same and have a comparison now. Your reply is the best answer I have ever get in the wikipedia. I get the same results including the phase terms. Great Help. --~2026-96085 (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Nice to hear that :) Renerpho (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]