Talk:Umbriel

Cross checking numbers for density and surface gravity

If you know the Radius, Surface Area, and Volume, and the Mass, then the density, and the surface gravity

are simple calculations. Density is Mass / Volume and it is more than that listed. it should be around 1.522. The gravity is between 0.24 and 0.25.

To find the surface gravity use Radius(km) X Density (kg/m^3)/ 3,582,688 = __________ m/sec^2. 584.7 X 1522 / 3,582,688 = 0.248 393, which is between 0.24, and 0.25.98.245.216.62 (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 23 October 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved (WP:SNOW). Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

---

• Umbriel (moon) → Umbriel
• Umbriel → Umbriel (disambiguation)

The moon Umbriel is very clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as you can see by the pageview statistics here. --Mondtaler (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Double sharp (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom, demonstrably PTOPIC. ArkHyena (it/its) 17:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 00:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom. --_ZZ^Z'S 00:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom. Andre Farfan (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Nervelita :3🏳️‍⚧️ (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom: even the disambiguation only has a stub on a mountain in Antarctica, and a couple fictional characters, none of whom actually have articles. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom. --Pithon314 (talk) 03:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Endemic"

In the sentence "The surface is the darkest among Uranian moons, and appears to have been shaped primarily by impacts. However, the presence of canyons suggests early endogenic processes, and the moon may have undergone an early endogenically driven resurfacing event that obliterated its older surface."

The word endemic is used twice without defining what the word is or even a hyperlink to a Wikpedia or Wiki dictionary article I used two online dictionaries and they had no entry except for the definition in Biology and not planetary science.

Chat GBT did a little better:

"The term "endogenic" refers to processes or phenomena that originate from within a system or organism, rather than from external sources. In geology, for example, endogenic processes are those driven by internal forces, such as tectonic activity, volcanism, and geothermal energy. In biology, it might refer to internal factors influencing development or behavior. Essentially, it highlights something that arises from within rather than from the outside."

Now I am not able to make corrections or to make a new Wikipedia entry as I have not learned how to do so.

Can an expert Wikipedia editor resolve this issue? THank you in advance. Matthewota (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Note that endemic and endogenic are two different words. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I came here to make the same point. "Endogenic" is a difficult word and will not be understood by many readers. To repeat it twice in the lead without explanation looks... careless. John (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Page move

Daniel Quinlan, not great doing it when it's on the TFA, nor after only 12 hours. It could—should—have waited until it was off the MP until it was moved. - SchroCat (talk) 06:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback moved to a new section from above as per the template guidance. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

SchroCat, I recognize the preference for stability for a TFA. Ideally, the move request would have waited until after the article was off the main page. I made the decision to proceed given the avalanche and the clear improvement to both the main page and the article. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not only stability, also record of viewcount. At least a redirect is in place, but it's still not a good idea to move any article while linked from the Main page, which will continue for this FA for three more days. (Please take note that blank lines in a discussion thread confuse the editor program reading to the vision-impaired.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Aside from having the redirect on the MP for several hours, others have had to then go round and change the other links for the next three days. It would have been far better to wait until tomorrow. There is zero improvement to either the article or the the MP by changing the article title while it's the TFA, while there are several drawbacks. Please try to remember this for next time, particularly as the move request had only been open for less than a day. It had been at the same place for well over twenty years, another twenty hours would not have been a problem. - SchroCat (talk) 10:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

So, in essence, the only concern with the page move is that people care about view count statistics? Otherwise Daniel did nothing wrong? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

No. - SchroCat (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Perhaps a more constructive comment then "no" would be beneficial. I'm personally not seeing any issue aside from view count. It's not like anybody actually has to change targets either, considering that's exactly why redirects exist. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The reason I just said 'no' is because the reasons have already been enumerated. The pageviews are a big one, but there's also the rule about not having redirects on the MP, which is what we had when the page was moved (and what we would have had over the next three days if JennyOz had not done the tidying up). One of the things we FAC coordinators do when we write the blurbs is to ensure that there are no redirects (this is double checked by people like JennyOz and Ravenpuff go through all the blurbs to ensure a lot of minor bits are all aligned and tidy). And that's before we start looking at the other repercussions such as the links that are used off-Wiki - we can't always control what off-Wiki does, but that doesn't mean we need to make it awkward or difficult for them).

What's not needed on TFA day is for someone to move the article after over twenty years with the same title - not on that specific day, and not after just 12 hours of voting, regardless of the essay at SNOW. Moving the TFA has numerous downsides and zero upsides. It should have waited until the article was off the MP and then done properly (ie, with all the redirects fixed at the same time). - SchroCat (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Why do you think it would have been left for 3 days if JennyOz didn't do it first? That's an assertion I don't agree with. Forgive me, but I was under the impression, based on the header at WP:FAC and WP:TFA, that you aren't a coordinator for those processes, yet you said "we FAC@ coordinators".

Who cares if it's been at that title for over 20 years? That doesn't matter in the slightest. When you don't consider the timing of it, is the move incorrect? There was very clear consensus on the matter. I also disagree on the zero upsides part because I agree with Daniel that having the move discussion banner there is a worse look since the goal is typically to not have any banners on a TFA. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah well, I am, and it was me that scheduled October's list.

The point about the title being there twenty years, is that another twenty hours would not have caused the fall of Rome. As I have already replied to you, the banner could have been removed and either the discussion left open, or closed and the message "There's obviously consensus, but let's use common sense and not move it until tomorrow, once it's off the MP": that wouldn't have been too difficult to manage, and everyone would have understood. Moving on MP day is sub-optimal. - SchroCat (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I see that you did add yourself to the pingable folks at Template:@TFA, so perhaps consider getting WP:TFA updated then. As I mentioned below, if you feel so strongly on the matter, get consensus to codify a rule that pages scheduled for TFA cannot be moved and that move discussions, if active, will have a move discussion banner temporarily removed during the duration of the page's run at TFA. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued thoughts, SchroCat. Let's be real, "zero improvement" isn't accurate and redirects exist for a reason. Having a banner on top of the TFA was far from ideal and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is a guideline for a reason. Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy and gathering statistics isn't the goal of the site. If the statistics software has issues presenting page view data when a page has been moved, it should be improved, not put in charge of the site. Anyhow, I can't recall the last time such a clear-cut move with avalanche support was the TFA previously so I don't expect a next time any time soon. I'm sorry you don't see it the same way, but I believe the move improved Wikipedia, which is what matters. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I've just posted: no redirects on the MP: that's an issue. The move request should not have been opened on the eve of the MP appearance (or at least suspended during the TFA), but the page should not have been moved - there really was zero improvement to the MP and a lot of downsides (see my comment above). Clear-cut or not: doing it on TFA day after twenty years at the same title was not a good move: the following day would have been better and screwed up a lot less. - SchroCat (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Move requests can be opened whenever, there's no problem with that. What are you to do? "Stop discussing this, it's going to be on the main page tomorrow!" Hey man im josh (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Take off the banner and post a message on the TP explaining it will be off for 24 hours but the discussion can continue? It's not beyond the wit of people to come up with a workaround for 24 hours. - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

That's not how move discussions work. You're welcome to propose something that says anything scheduled to appear on the main page isn't allowed to have a move discussion for a week before it's set to appear, if you so wish, but until then, your suggestion isn't reasonable. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I have not suggested anything of the sort - that's a bit of a straw man. Closing the discussion with "yes, this will be moved, but let's let it roll off the MP first - it will be moved tomorrow" would also have been a common sense step to take. - SchroCat (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that's where we disagree on what "common sense" means. If you feel so strongly about this you really should propose something that actually makes it a rule. As it stands, I see nothing wrong with closing the discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Jeez - you two have gone into defensive mode with all guns blazing here, and ignoring what I'm trying to explain. My earlier comment when pointing out all the extra steps other people had to do to tidy up was "Please try to remember this for next time", but you're making me wish I'd used stronger terms when someone fucks around with things they don't properly understand and use an essay to do an action that leads to extra work for others. Unwatching this now, as some people are clearly not in listening mode. - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Unwatching this now, as some people are clearly not in listening mode. – Oh the irony... Believe me, this is definitely not guns a blazing or defensive mode for me. I'm sorry you feel that trying to talk it out, and encouraging you to codify the assertions you're making, was too much for you. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Having seen this unfold and having read the discussion, I agree it might have been better to wait a day or two before doing this. On the other hand, how did an article pass FAC, and then separately a TFA selection process, when it was so obviously at the "wrong" title? Featured Articles should be our finest work, but it's not unheard of for one to make it to TFA with one or more serious flaws. The reason given for not usually fully protecting TFAs is that as well as showing off our best work, we are also showing off our real USP, the ability to correct articles quickly when there are many eyes on it to spot imperfections. Nobody died from this and an article was improved. If anybody involved in the previous discussions to promote and then to select this article wishes to learn lessons from this, that might be one more thing for them to check for in the future. I don't think enacting a "rule" to prevent this would be a good thing, as on this occasion some parts of the system failed, but other parts of the same system fixed the problem. John (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  I would be hesitant to update processes based on such a rare case, but I do think it's worth considering whether move banners for current TFAs could be delayed by the bot until the following day. An RM on a recent TFA isn't going to lack for attention. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Not necessarily against that, and I'd agree one day's delay would be enough, not three or whatever. Our great articles make us great, but what really makes us great is seeing errors promptly corrected by the wisdom of the crowd. John (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Very unstable planet

Anything on stability and geological qualities? Theflyingpadres (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

which "planet" are you referring to? 2603:6080:21F0:AB60:58F2:B8EE:B88F:FE64 (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)