12th Planet Be Blatant In A Sentence
See, reading is educationalŠ Pg 12 - ibb and obb. The Yak-12 was a 'utility' plane designed for short take off and landing, which made it ideal as a spotter plane. Elsewhere in the bar (and over the page) are triffids - the source of a thousand Venus flytrap phobias - the krell is something to do with the forbidden planet. Return of The 12th Planet The Zetas predict that the 12th Planet will pass closest between the Earth and the Sun in late December 2012, At that time, the earth, being completely overwhelmed by the gravitational influence of the 12th Planet, will stop rotating completely for 3 days or so. GMAT expert Mike McGarry covers modifiers on GMAT Sentence Correction.
Clockwise, from top left: an online course in circuits and electronics with an M.I.T. Professor (edX); statistics, Stanford (Udacity); machine learning, Stanford (Coursera); organic chemistry, University of Illinois, Urbana (Coursera). IN late September, as workers applied joint compound to new office walls, hoodie-clad colleagues who had just met were working together on deadline. Film editors, code-writing interns and “edX fellows” — grad students and postdocs versed in online education — were translating videotaped lectures into MOOCs, or massive open online courses. As if anyone needed reminding, a row of aqua Post-its gave the dates the courses would “go live.” The paint is barely dry, yet, the nonprofit start-up from Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has 370,000 students this fall in its first official courses. That’s nothing., founded just last January, has reached more than 1.7 million — growing “faster than Facebook,” boasts Andrew Ng, on leave from Stanford to run his for-profit MOOC provider.
“This has caught all of us by surprise,” says David Stavens, who formed a company called with Sebastian Thrun and Michael Sokolsky after more than 150,000 signed up for Dr. Thrun’s “Introduction to Artificial Intelligence” last fall, starting the revolution that has higher education gasping. A year ago, he marvels, “we were three guys in Sebastian’s living room and now we have 40 employees full time.” “I like to call this the year of disruption,” says Anant Agarwal, president of edX, “and the year is not over yet.”. Nick McKeown is teaching one of them, on computer networking, with Philip Levis (the one with a shock of magenta hair in the introductory video).
McKeown sums up the energy of this grand experiment when he gushes, “We’re both very excited.” Casually draped over auditorium seats, the professors also acknowledge that they are not exactly sure how this MOOC stuff works. “We are just going to see how this goes over the next few weeks,” says Dr. WHAT IS A MOOC ANYWAY? Traditional online courses charge tuition, carry credit and limit enrollment to a few dozen to ensure interaction with instructors. The MOOC, on the other hand, is usually free, credit-less and, well, massive. Because anyone with an Internet connection can enroll, faculty can’t possibly respond to students individually.
So the course design — how material is presented and the interactivity — counts for a lot. As do fellow students. Classmates may lean on one another in study groups organized in their towns, in online forums or, the prickly part, for grading work. The evolving form knits together education, entertainment (think gaming) and social networking. Unlike its antecedent, open courseware — usually written materials or videotapes of lectures that make you feel as if you’re spying on a class from the back of the room — the MOOC is a full course made with you in mind.
The medium is still the lecture. Thanks to ’s free archive of snappy instructional videos, MOOC makers have gotten the memo on the benefit of brevity: 8 to 12 minutes is typical. Then — this is key — videos pause perhaps twice for a quiz to make sure you understand the material or, in computer programming, to let you write code. Feedback is electronic. Teaching assistants may monitor discussion boards. There may be homework and a final exam.
The MOOC certainly presents challenges. Can learning be scaled up this much? Grading is imperfect, especially for nontechnical subjects.
Cheating is a reality. “We found groups of 20 people in a course submitting identical homework,” says David Patterson, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who teaches software engineering, in a tone of disbelief at such blatant copying; Udacity and edX now offer proctored exams. Advertisement Some students are also ill prepared for the university-level work. And few stick with it. “Signing up for a class is a lightweight process,” says Dr.
It might take just five minutes, assuming you spend two devising a stylish user name. Only 46,000 attempted the first assignment in Dr. Ng’s course on machine learning last fall. In the end, he says, 13,000 completed the class and earned a certificate — from him, not Stanford.
That’s still a lot of students. The shimmery hope is that free courses can bring the best education in the world to the most remote corners of the planet, help people in their careers, and expand intellectual and personal networks. Three-quarters of those who took Dr. Patterson’s “Software as a Service” last winter on Coursera (it’s now on edX) were from outside the United States, though the opposite was true of a course on circuits and electronics piloted last spring by Dr. But both attracted highly educated students and both reported that over 70 percent had degrees (more than a third had graduate degrees). And in a vote of confidence in the form, students in both overwhelmingly endorsed the quality of the course: 63 percent who completed Dr.
Agarwal’s course as well as a similar one on campus found the MOOC better; 36 percent found it comparable; 1 percent, worse. Ray Schroeder, director of the at the University of Illinois, Springfield, says three things matter most in online learning: quality of material covered, engagement of the teacher and interaction among students. The first doesn’t seem to be an issue — most professors come from elite campuses, and so far most MOOCs are in technical subjects like computer science and math, with straightforward content. But providing instructor connection and feedback, including student interactions, is trickier. “What’s frustrating in a MOOC is the instructor is not as available because there are tens of thousands of others in the class,” Dr. Schroeder says. How do you make the massive feel intimate?
That’s what everyone is trying to figure out. Many places offer MOOCs, and more will. But Coursera, Udacity and edX are defining the form as they develop their brands. THE FLAVOR OF THE MOOC Coursera casts itself as a “hub” — Dr. Ng’s word — for learning and networking. The learning comes gratis from an impressive roster of elites offering a wide range of courses, from computer science to philosophy to medicine. Not all are highbrow or technical; “Listening to World Music” from the University of Pennsylvania aims to broaden your iPod playlist.
While Coursera will make suggestions, Dr. Ng says, “ultimately all pedagogical decisions are made by the universities.” Most offerings are adapted from existing courses: a Princeton Coursera course is a Princeton course.
But the vibe is decidedly Facebook — build a profile, upload your photo — with tools for students to plan “meet-ups” with Courserians in about 1,400 cities worldwide. These gatherings may be bona fide study groups or social sessions. Membership may be many or sparse. No one showed at the meet-up that Stacey Brown, an information technology manager at a Hartford insurance company, scheduled for a 14th-floor conference room on a Thursday after work, despite R.S.V.P.’s from a few classmates in the area.
He’s taking three Coursera MOOCs, including “Gamification” from the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School. In addition to the learning — and dropping to bosses that he’s taking a Wharton course — Mr.
Blatant Example Sentence
Brown says, “I hope to get a network.”. Advertisement Others like the discipline a group offers. Kimberly Spillman, a software engineer, started taking seven MOOCs and completed three. “The ones I have study groups with people, those are the ones I finish,” Ms. Spillman says.
She first joined a group for Dr. Thrun’s artificial intelligence course, and then ran one for a Udacity course on building a search engine, organizing Thursday-evening discussions of the week’s material followed by a social hour at a nearby pub. Fifteen people met each week at the Ansir Innovation Center, a community space with big tables and comfortable chairs, in the Kearny Mesa neighborhood of San Diego. Udacity has stuck close to its math and computer science roots and emphasizes applied learning, like “How to Build a Blog” or “Building a Web Browser.” Job placement is part of the Udacity package.
“The type of skills taught in computer science, even at elite universities, can be very theoretical,” Dr. Stavens explains. Udacity courses are designed and produced in-house or with companies like Google and Microsoft. In a poke at its university-based competition, Dr.
Stavens says they pick instructors not because of their academic research, as universities do, but because of how they teach. “We reject about 98 percent of faculty who want to teach with us,” he says. “Just because a person is the world’s most famous economist doesn’t mean they are the best person to teach the subject.” Dr. Stavens sees a day when MOOCs will disrupt how faculty are attracted, trained and paid, with the most popular “compensated like a TV actor or a movie actor.” He adds that “students will want to learn from whoever is the best teacher.” That means you don’t need a Ph.D. While there are traditional academics like David Evans of the University of Virginia, “” a first-year college-level course, is taught by Andy Brown, a 2009 M.I.T. Graduate with a B.S.
“We think the future of education is guys like Andy Brown who produce the most fun,” Dr. Stavens says.
Brown’s course is an indie version of “Bill Nye the Science Guy” — filmed in Italy, the Netherlands and England, with opening credits for “director of photography” and “second camera and editor.” Whether explaining what the ancients believed about the shape of the earth or, in Dr. Thrun’s statistics course, why you are unpopular, statistically speaking, voice-overs are as nonthreatening as a grade school teacher. “You feel like you are sitting next to someone and they are tutoring you,” says Jacqueline Spiegel, a mother of three from New Rochelle, N.Y., with a master’s in computer science from Columbia who has enrolled in MOOCs from Udacity and Coursera. While taking “Artificial Intelligence,” she discovered she liked puzzling through assignments in online study groups.
The class was tough and took “an embarrassing amount of time,” says Ms. Spiegel, who found that consuming lectures by smartphone during her 14-year-old’s 6 a.m. Ice skating sessions worked less well than being parked at a desktop. “I would listen to the lectures, then I would listen to them again.” Her effort was huge — some 22 hours a week — but rewarding.
Spiegel befriended women in India and Pakistan through Facebook study groups and started an online group, CompScisters, for women taking science and technology MOOCs. If Udacity favors stylish hands-on instruction, edX aims to be elite, smart and rigorous; don’t expect a gloss of calculus if you need it but never took it. Some 120 institutions have been in touch; only Berkeley and the University of Texas system have been admitted to the club. Advertisement EdX’s M.I.T. Roots show in its staff’s geeky passion for building and testing online tools. They collect your clicks.
Feedback from the MOOC taught last spring by Dr. Agarwal (who, students learn, is obsessed with chain saws) revealed that participants would rather watch a hand writing an equation or sentence on paper than stare at the same paper with writing already on it. The focus is on making education logical.
“Someone who is consuming the course should know it is not serendipity that the course is chunked in a certain way, but that there is intentionality to sequencing video,” says Howard A. Lurie, vice president for content development. Free id3 editor.
With mini-notebook in hand, he has been leading the “daily stand-up” meeting (so called because attendees lean against walls) to keep course development on schedule. After one meeting, Lyla Fischer, a 2011 M.I.T. Graduate and edX fellow, sat at her computer, a tag still dangling from the chair, and edited the answers for problem sets in Dr. Agarwal’s course.
Last spring, students could download PDFs with brief answers. Now, she says, “there is a full explanation of how to do it, here are the steps,” right on the site. “We are trying to use the magic of all the tool sets we have,” Mr. Students control how fast they watch lectures. Some like to go at nearly double the speed; others want to slow down and replay.
Coming: If you get a wrong answer, the software figures out where you went wrong and offers a correction. WORKING OUT THE KINKS Assignments that can’t be scored by an automated grader are pushing MOOC providers to get creative, especially in courses that involve writing and analysis. Coursera uses peer grading: submit an assignment and five people grade it; in turn, you grade five assignments. But what if someone is a horrible grader? Coursera is developing software that will flag those who assign very inaccurate grades and give their assessment less weight. Mitchell Duneier, a Princeton professor, is conducting a study that compares peer grading of the final exam in his sociology MOOC on Coursera last summer with the grades he and his course assistants would have given the students.
Brown, the Hartford I.T. Manager, does not have confidence in peer feedback. “This could be a 14-year-old kid in South Africa answering me,” he says, thinking of his 14-year-old. The challenge is not just in grading.
The diversity of MOOC takers — teenagers to retirees, and from across the globe — means classmates lack a common knowledge base and educational background. Out-of-their-league students, especially in highly technical courses, can drag down discussions. Which course is right for you? What prerequisites are really needed to perform well? Princeton’s “Networks: Friends, Money and Bytes” on Coursera recommends basic linear algebra and multivariable calculus but the “instructor will see if part of the course material can be presented without requiring this mathematical background.” “Introduction to Computer Science” from Harvard lists prerequisites as “none” — as long as you’re Harvard-ready. Where are the Yelp reviews?
Advertisement “We desperately need crowdsourcing,” says Cathy N. Davidson, a Duke professor of English and interdisciplinary studies. “We need a MOOCE — massive open online course evaluation.” Most important, what do you get for your effort? Do you earn a certificate? A job interview?
Or just the happy feeling of learning something? “If one is going for the knowledge, it’s a boon,” says Dr.
Schroeder of the University of Illinois. “If one is looking for credit, that is one of the challenges. How do we fit this into the structure of higher education today?” Dr. Agarwal predicts that “a year from now, campuses will give credit for people with edX certificates.” He expects students will one day arrive on campus with MOOC credits the way they do now with Advanced Placement. The line between online and on campus is already blurring.
This spring Dr. Davidson will teach a class called “” at Duke and as a MOOC, with her Duke students running the online discussions. This fall, San Jose State students are taking Dr. Agarwal’s course on, with professors and teaching assistants on campus leading discussions. They add their own content, including exams. In the spring, Massachusetts Bay Community College in Wellesley will use an edX MOOC in introductory computer science.
Stavens promises more change, and more disruption: “We are only 5 to 10 percent of the way there.”. Correction: November 11, 2012 An article last Sunday about massive open online courses, using information from the MOOC provider Coursera, included several errors.
The source of a study of peer grading in a Princeton sociology MOOC was Mitchell Duneier, the teacher, not Coursera. The student work was regraded by Professor Duneier and his teaching assistants, not by Princeton instructors. And it is not the case that the results have been released. The article also misspelled the surname of a co-founder of another MOOC provider, Udacity. He is Michael Sokolsky, not Sokolosky.
. Emspak, Jesse (July 6, 2014).
Retrieved July 7, 2014. The mysterious makeup of the solar system's innermost planet may be due to a massive 'hit and run' collision billions of years ago, a new study reports. — 11:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC) I really don't see how this relates to the planet.
Did the Indians give the name 'Budha' to the planet that we call 'Mercury'? If so, it would be relevant and interesting. If not, there is no justification for mentioning Budha in this article. 20:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC) Actually, it is the other way around — 'Mercury' is the name given the god, planet and midweek day already named Budha — which is not used for the element called quicksilver. I, however, may be the only person alive on this planet, to read the mythical origin of the infant god Budha as a massive 'hit and run' collision between other gods whose names have been given to the other orbs implicated in the planet's origin. — 05:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC) naked eye viewing far north It would seem that sometimes viewing an apparition would at high-north latitudes.
11:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC) See. GOD=74 algorithm determined Venus.7 AU and Mercury.4 AU (aphelion.47 AU) Our measurement of historically comes from our observations of our physical. Are based on the annual of being 365.25 long. Were originally based on the lunar 'moonth' of 29.53 days or an alternating between months of 29 & 30 days long. There are 4 of a little over 7 days (7.4 days) each varying due to and; this is where we get our 7 day and 4 weeks in a month from.
The + 7 day week + 4 days =, so the 12 in a solar year must be adjusted accordingly. The (/Roman Calendar) has 7 months with 31 days, 4 with 30 days, and February's 28 days (7x4). 12 x 30.43 days (avg. Month) = 365.16 days 30.43 days x 7.4 months = 225.182 Earth days of Venus' orbit which is actually 224.65 days (30.4 x 7.4 = 224.96 or rounded off to 224.7 or 225 days) is at.7 AU and Mercury at.4 AU , Mercury's 4.7 AU. There are many more examples in this solar system of the GOD=74; see.
Benjamin Franklin 17:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC) The year used in astronomy is the julian year of 365.25 days. No adjustment is needed to get a different year length. 19:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC) Rounding off to 30.43 days caused an error here. 19:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC) And the calendar we use is not related to lunar phases. 19:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC) Earth days?
Why does the article, and others at times, qualify days with earth? The well–known default meaning of days is earth days. No need to explain. 05:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC) In the context of talking about the length of a day on another planet, it could be confusing. A little disambiguation doesn't hurt. 06:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Right, but the phrase is used in other contexts, when there is no risk of a misunderstanding.
Such as in the first sentence with an orbital period of about 88 Earth days 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC) All planets have their own. When referring to another planet using Earth days, it's important to make this designation. Benjamin Franklin 17:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC) They all do, for sure. But it is not necessary to spell this out, except in certain contexts. 08:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC) This is a context where it is IMHO absolutely necessary, especially due to the 3:2 resonance.
10:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC) You can see Mercury now. Not for long, thanks to a very slow moving cloud. But is very obvious.
I'm mentioning this for the benefit of those who have thought it must be very hard to see, so they can check for themselves. It elongation is now about 25°, which is about the angular distance between the thumb and smallest finger stretched out, with your arm extended. 04:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC) Take a look at: Mercury is presently visible in the evening sky, but only for observers in southern latitudes.
Mainly the Southern Hemisphere. As is explained in this WP article, folks down there can often see Mercury better than those of us who live in north-temperate latitudes. 02:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Thanks but I'll have to let another observation confirm or disconfirm this belief. There's ambiguity as to whether Chicago would count as mid latitude. I'll probably be in Chicago today at sunset, this will be the perfect excuse I need to get to the John Hancock observatory at sunset. It should be cloudless.
I've been thinking.I saw it on a day the the Sun was obscured by clouds so there was less scattered light. 14:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Let us know if you see it, with naked eyes, of course. A good telescope would almost certainly let you see it. I once saw Mercury purely by chance, without looking for it, while I was driving my car here in Toronto, which is only a degree or two north of Chicago. It was soon after sunset, and I was driving westward. I noticed a bright 'spark' low in the sky ahead of me. Having seen Mercury many times previously, I recognized it.
When I got home, I checked that Mercury was in the right place. It was, so I am confident that I saw it. But that was near the March equinox, when Mercury can be much more easily seen from these latitudes than it ever is in September.
15:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Mercury's internal structure Please consider revising the paragraph about Mercury's internal structure. The most recent paper about the planet's interior (Smith et al., 2012, Science) assesses that Mercury's outer radius of the liquid portion of the core is 2030 km, while there is no estimation for the inner solid component of the core. This means that, being the planet's radius 2440 km, the total volume of Mercury's core is 57% of the planet's volume.
This percentage is much larger than the previously estimated 42%. Being the core 2030 km, the outer silicate shell (mantle + crust) automatically gains a 410 km nominal thickness, though this might be thinner if we consider an hypothetical FeS layer at the base of the silicate shell ranging from few tens of kilometers to 200 km (Smith et al., 2012). This layer is the authors hypothesis to explain the high bulk density of Mercury's solid outer shell, which is in contrast with the low Fe abundances detected on Mercury's surface. In the same paper a crustal thickness ranging from 20 to 80 km is also estimated. Thus, considering the layers upper limits, the new internal structure would be: 20-80 km - CRUST 80 - 210 km - MANTLE 210 - 410 km - FeS layer (hypothetical) 410 - 2440 km - CORE (liquid+solid) I am not an english native speaker and cannot directly contribute to the article, but I hope you can use this information anyway. 18:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC) All local planets should make some mention to the Antikythera mechanism The existence of the Antikythera mechanism shows that Mercury and other planets were already well understood at around 100BC. I think this is of quite historical significants, and thus a sentence about this should be at least be mentioned under the historical heading of these planets.
— Preceding comment added by 10:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC) (planet) The URL/name of this Mercury page includes “planet” in parentheses. It is the only one of the sun’s planets (+ Pluto, don’t do that argument here) having this parenthetical qualifier. Is there a powerful reason why Mercury should be so distinguished? 14:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Basically, there are 3 or 4 notable 's on Wikipedia. 14:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Agreed.
But the same is true of most of the planets. 20:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Not quite: There is, which is not the case for any of the others.
20:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC) The element mercury appears to be the only article among the chemical elements that has parentheses in the title as well. 21:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Yes, the element clashes with the planet as the primary topic and vice-versa. 21:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Clearly the consensus is happier than am I with the seeming inconsistency. In so far as this was construed as a suggestion, that suggestion is withdrawn. 10:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Image of mercury's place in the Solar System Wouldn't it be nice to have the image of all the planets in the solar system, that's currently only in a hidden template at the bottom, on a more prominent spot? I think it's the most informative picture.
One could argue that that's an image of the solar system, so it should only be shown there. But i think that many users will come to this page to look up where Mercury was in the order of planets and how big it is. It's either being technically correct, or supporting the information that people actually come to this page for with a nice image.
I'm sure someone will say it's against this or that policy or something, but let's not forget the purpose of wikipedia: providing the information people come for. At the very least we should leave the template box open imho. 20:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Something like that sounds more appropriate. As required, the first lead sentence says that Mercury is the planet closest to the Sun. 11:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC) The mean radius of Neptune's orbit is about 80 times Mercury's. Showing them both to scale on a diagram would be difficult. If the radius of Neptune's orbit were shown as the width of the screen, the radius of Mercury's orbit would span only the width of a couple of letters.
Putting the name of the planet in this tiny space would make it illegible. 22:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC) I was talking about planet sizes and relative order, not about showing orbit distance to schale. 11:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC) Another issue to consider is consistency.
The image you speak of belongs to a navigation box that is at the bottom of (every?) other article(s) dealing with members of the solar system. If you were to display the navbox more prominently, it would be inconsistent, or, if you're only talking about the image, would make the navbox image redundant. I think the way the article is now, with a link to the Solar System article up front, as well as making clear Mercury's size and closeness to the sun, should be enough for anyone who realizes he or she wants a quick overview of the entire system, but who isn't yet aware of the availability of the navbox. 12:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC) I see the potential disadvantages. Perhaps it's best to only leave the solar system infobox open by default.
And of course do that for all planets. 15:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC) This image: shows the sizes of planets to scale. Maybe a link to it should be put in the 'see also' section of every relevant article.
23:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC) That is the image at the Solar System system article, undermining the goal of making every See Also link not be redundant to in-body links and References. It's also an inferior image to the one in the Navbox, which OP likes, but which I think is available enough (the Navbox is at Solar System, too), once people get to know how these articles work, and then start to value consistency and lack of redundancy, as well. 22:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC) That's a beautiful image, DOwenWilliams.
The one in the navbox has a major advantage though. It's already there. It's also clickable for each planet. I agree articles shouldn't be too redundant, but a little redundancy can serve the purpose of quickly helping WP users to the info they want. So how about just setting the infobox open by default?
That would be a relatively small change, easily done in all planet articles for consistency. 16:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC) But this article is just the wrong place for a more explicit image of the planets of the Solar System, because this article is about Mercury, not the Solar System.
16:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC) I don't agree per the arguments given above. 00:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Meaning precisely what? - 11:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC) A certain degree of overlap in articles discussing overlapping topics is desirable. As i stated above, i think the image of mercury's size and position relative to other planets is the most informative image one could find on a page about mercury. Technically it's an image of the solar system and should therefor be placed on that page. But what's wrong with providing a little context and delivering information (both in text and images) that people actually come to this page for?
I've once had two lectures about a difficult topic. One was by a brilliant professor who was completely technically correct and immediately went into all possible exceptions and avoided any simplifications and, importantly, any redundancy. The other one was actually understood by the audience.
21:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC) ┌ ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── ┘I've lost count of colons.) I've added one short line to the 'see also' section. It's a link to the diagram of the sizes of all the planets that I mentioned above. Is there any reason why this little line should not also be put into all the other planets' articles? It leads to information that many readers may be seeking, without using much space. 22:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Perhaps it would be even better to expand the infobox by default so users don't even have to click to see such an image. But one wouldn't exclude the other per se. 00:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Is that diagram drawn to scale?
Is its scale better than the Navbox image, which includes Pluto and other dwarf planets? The See Also addition you made is redundant, unless it shows to better scale, and redundancy in a written reference is different from that in an oral presentation. I think it would be useful to have a discussion at Wikiproject Astronomy or Solar System, before making changes to other articles.
Use Blatant In A Sentence
01:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC) That's a good idea. Would you mind starting that discussion and placing a link here? 23:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC) I'm not the one who wants to change things. I just think that if you want to change more than this article, the discussion should range more widely than just this article Talk page.
(By the way, I'm signing your comment above, by copying your signature from below User:JorisvS.) 06:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Redundancy should be natural: Because something about either topic would be missing if not presented on both pages. A size comparison with Earth and the Moon would be good (I think would be better/clearer than the current size comparison of the four terrestrial planets). 10:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC) I totally agree.
Note that in the image about planets in the infobox, the moon is also visible and to scale, but that's only a few pixels. So i think at least adding the moon to the image at the bottom of the page would be a good idea. And expanding the infobox to show the relative place of mercury.
23:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Redundancy should be labeled as such, then. The See Also image (is it to scale?; it's not labeled as such, but could well be) should be labeled as the same one appearing at the Solar System page (that's obvious from the link, I suppose, but here some redundancy labeling might be helpful). There is an image at Commons that shows Mercury and the Moon, as well as Mars, Pluto, and Haumea. Adding it, if only to balance the other image under Comparison, might be helpful. However, I don't see the need to have the Navbox open, still. I'd consider the best comparison(s) something like or, especially the former, but of course with Mercury (included) (which does not currently exist).
Maybe I'll make a Mercury version of the former later. 11:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Adding the image definitely helps a lot in terms of visualizing the relatice size of mercury. However, one of the most important facts about mercury and the other planets in the solar system is their relative position.
I think it's elegant to visualize the most important points in a WP article. 16:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2015 This has been answered.
Set the answered= or ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. Please replace momentofinertiafactor = 000000000♠0.346 ±0.014 with momentofinertiafactor = 000000000♠0.346 ±0.014 because the current value is unsourced.
Please replace axialtilt = 2.11′ ± 0.1′ with axialtilt = 2.04′ ± 0.08′ because the current value is obsolete. ^ Margot, Jean-Luc; Peale, Stanton J.; Solomon, Sean C.; Hauck, Steven A.; Ghigo, Frank D.; Jurgens, Raymond F.; Yseboodt, Marie; Giorgini, Jon D.; Padovan, Sebastiano; Campbell, Donald B. 'Mercury's moment of inertia from spin and gravity data'. Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets.
117 (E12). Cite error: The named reference Margot2007 was invoked but never defined (see the ). 02:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Done 05:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Linking I agree that normally, making the word 'metallic' into a link to is silly and unnecessary. However, in this situation (Mercury consists of approximately 70% metallic and 30% material.), 'metallic' is being used in a technical chemical sense that requires clarification for the layman, not in the common sense. Some things that seem metallic in the common sense are not chemically metallic, and some things that do not seem metallic in the common sense are, in fact, metallic. So, IMO, the common word 'metallic' should be linked to here, since it is being used in a technical rather than common way.
01:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Disagree. No clarification is needed here. The average reader knows there are lots of types of metal and doesn't need to read an article about metals to understand the one sentence here. Metal is a common-enough word not to need explaining here in any detail. If it would be useful to know the types of metal involved, we can be told here instead (with specific, rather than general, links). Silicate is an uncommon term and needs a link.
(As it happens, another reason to avoid a link to metal is that it currently takes the reader to an article which says in its lead that in astronomy everything is 'metal' apart from hydrogen and helium - as silicates are neither hydrogen nor helium, what is the poor reader to make of that claim?) 01:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC) I mildly disagree with your initial arguments, but very much agree with your last. On the balance, you are correct that it is more confusing to link metal than to not link it here. Thanks for pointing out the confusing statement in the lead! 01:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Isn't 'metal' in this context kind of 'stuff heavier than rock'? - 10:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2015 This has been answered. Set the answered= or ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. Under heading Magnetic Field and Magnetosphere.
Please change the sentence According to measurements taken by Mariner 10, it is about 1.1% as strong as Earth's. To According to measurements taken by Mariner 10, it is about 1.1% the strength of Earth's. Because I feel it is more readable. 11:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Done 17:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Dark surface caused by carbon accumulation 'Mercury 'painted black' by passing comets'. 'Darkening of Mercury’s surface by cometary carbon'.
02:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Would the carbon make Mercury's surface electrically conductive? If so, would electric currents in it be related to the magnetic field? 02:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC) Crash Article had incorrect phrase, 'was crashed into Mercury', which translates as, 'Mission controllers used thrusters on the spacecraft to change its orbit so that it would crash into the surface.' But that was not the case. Mission controllers did everything they possibly could to prevent the crash, including using the helium, which pressurized the fuel, as a propellent. Before approval, early in the mission design phase, it was understood that the spacecraft would crash into the surface of Mercury. They knew there was no way to design the mission to avoid this fate.
They also knew that the human mission controllers would not need to do anything to make this outcome happen. In the event the mission was extended 3 years past the planned 1 year, and all of the control fuel was used up.
At that point the Sun's massive gravity perturbed the Messenger orbit enough to cause it to crash. As said above they even used the pressurization gas as a 'fuel' to extend the mission one extra day. 22:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC). ^ Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2015 This has been answered. Set the answered= or ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. In the box on the right, replace 'greyscale' with 'grayscale' 10:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC) Not done - is a perfectly good spelling - 10:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC) Better banner image? Is in true colour, rather than greyscale, and I think it is more informative.
18:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC) I prefer color images, too. The downside is that it is of lower resolution, although I don't think that is a problem in this case. 20:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC) to appear as POTD Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that will be appearing as on January 13, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the. Thanks! — 01:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC).
12th Planet Be Blatant In A Sentence Meaning
– Possible Math Mistake in 'Advance of Perihelion' Quote from article: 'The perihelion precession of Mercury is 5600 arcseconds (1.5556°) per century relative to Earth, or 574.10±0.65 arcseconds per century96 relative to the inertial ICFR. Newtonian mechanics, taking into account all the effects from the other planets, predicts a precession of 5557 arcseconds (1.5436°) per century.96 In the early 20th century, Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity provided the explanation for the observed precession. The effect is small: just 42.98 arcseconds per century for Mercury' Is there a mistake here, or has there been a new discovery in the past few years?
I remember hearing on a television special (History or Science or some such,) that the precession of Mercury is in fact not entirely explained by Relativity, and that there is still an unknown influence on Mercury causing it to precess. This detail is not mentioned in this section of this article, though it definitely should be. Also suggest mention and references of how alternate calculations were done before relativity. It helps to know what 'wrong' or 'insufficient' calculation have been tried in the past.
In other words, why isn't the best previous Newtonian calculation actually shown, and then actually show the best Relativity calculation. This is relevant, because I have discovered.an anomaly.and want to mention it in a paper. 00:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Information this detailed is probably better suited for. 02:13, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Mercury's atmosphere. Elkins-Tanton, Linda T. Infobase Publishing.
I made the change in the article, and added the source. I also made a to article. 15:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC) OK, So, I understand the cited book says 3:2 'resonance', but I can't figure out why this should be a; what seems to actually happen, if you watch Mercury from the Sun, is that Mercury's rotation follows the Sun.near perihelion. (very near Perihelion rotation actually lags behind orbit); far from perihelion, the tidal stress tends to slow Mercury's rotation, but near perihelion the tidal stress is about three times greater.
The apparent ratio 3:2 isn't necessarily an integer ratio at all, but something that should be calculated from Mercury's eccentricity. NOW, whether one can.put that in the article. One would have to hunt up an actual source. In any case, the cited work doesn't actually establish the claim.
05:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC) Near perihelion, when the tides are largest, they are almost stationary on Mercury, so they don't significantly slow down or speed up its rotation. As you say, this would be only an approximate situation, which would not lead to a precise 3:2 ratio. However, here is another factor. Even without tides, Mercury is not exactly spherical. It has a permanent bulge on one side. The rotation is such that at perihelion this bulge faces toward or away from the Sun. This couples to the tidal component of the Sun's gravity, which keeps this situation permanent.
This locks the rotation of the planet to an exact 3:2 ratio with its orbital motion. 15:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC) Requested move 7 April 2016. The following is a closed discussion of a. 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Closed 09:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC) → – This is a level-3 vital article, while the element is a level-4 vital article. Thus, this should take precedence. 19:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC). Oppose. That's not how determining primary topics works. I could elaborate, but as I don't expect this will get much traction, I'll just leave it at this for now.
19:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC). Support. The levels have nothing to do with it. But the planet is currently 50.3 percent of pageviews (499,133/991,696). 03:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC).
Strong oppose the element is much more common in the daily life of most people than the planet. The god is also not uncommon in ordinary life. And I can't see why you'd want to delete the disambiguation page and merge it into a hatnote onto this article. 05:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC). Oppose - shows this article and as essentially equal.
Google returns twice as many results for than for. Historically and scientifically, neither is the primary topic.
The current setup with a dab page is the correct one. 05:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC). Oppose. Leaving 'Mercury' as a disambiguation page is the best option.
— ( ) 05:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC). Strong oppose.
The planet is less often referred to in everyday life, compared to to the chemical element. 05:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC). Strong oppose. Neither the element nor the planet are clearly the primary topic, so the status quo should be maintained.
05:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC). Strong oppose, the current title is wrt to all mentioned criteria of naming conventions superior to the suggested alternative. I'd propose to include a hatnote referring back to the disambiguation in both articles, serves afficionados of both. 05:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC). Oppose. On a fine, warm (northern) spring day, me thinks I detect an unseasonable snowball. 07:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC).
Oppose. The metal is far more common than the planet: (1,570 hits) vs (5,220 hits) and (7,460 hits) vs (23.000 hits). 07:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a.
No further edits should be made to this section. Correcting outdated information. Dear Admin, I see that the section 'Spin–orbit resonance' provides outdated information. Specifically, the sentence 'This is thought to explain Mercury's 3:2 spin–orbit resonance (rather than the more usual 1:1), because this state is more likely to arise during a period of high eccentricity. 93' should be changed to: 'This was thought to explain Mercury's 3:2 spin–orbit resonance (rather than the more usual 1:1), because this state is more likely to arise during a period of high eccentricity. 93 However, accurate modeling based on a realistic model of tidal response has demonstrated that Mercury was captured into the 3:2 spin-orbit state at a very early stage of its history, within 20 (more likely, 10) mln yr after its formation.
Noyelles, Benoit; Frouard, Julien; Makarov, Valeri; and Efroimsky, Michael. (2014) 'Spin-orbit evolution of Mercury revisited.' 26 - 44 Bibcode:2014Icar.241.26N DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2014.05.045 Many thanks, Michael Efroimsky Astronomer US Naval Observatory Washington DC 20392 21:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC) Removed hatnote IMHO, the recent removal of the hatnote by degrades the article, and the given WP:NAMB does not apply to it, and such is no justification. I plead for reinstating the hatnote in a form whatever, to suit the previous fulfilled purpose of at least user's convenience. 07:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC) The edit in question cited about the use of hatnotes in articles with disambiguated titles. In articles with disambiguated titles, say:. a hatnote is required if the disambiguated title is still ambiguous (engggthis does not apply in this article).
a hatnote 'can be removed' if the disambiguated title is not ambiguous (this applies in this article) I note that goes on to say 'The presence or absence of hatnotes in articles with disambiguated titles has been a contentious issue, and this guideline doesn't prescribe one way or the other.' Consequently, I believe that applies to 's edit. Consequently, I believe the appropriate action is to restore the hatnote until a discussion here on the talk page reaches a consensus. In a few minutes I will the article to the status quo ante. I myself am not yet convinced one way or the other, so I am hoping for a that will convince me one way or the other and more importantly result in a better article and a better encyclopedia. 17:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC) Thank you for searching for the right bureaucratic reason for starting an attempt to get to a consensus on this. In the light of the most recently discussed move request, which was 'closed WP:SNOW', I obviously misunderstood the intention of.
My personal concern is only marginal, but my support, resting on the usability of links, is on the.keep.-the-hatnote side. 06:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC) I think there are more scientists trained in chemistry and biochemistry, than there are astronomers or historians. The hat-note is appropriate and is very useful to the reader. 06:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC) In this very context: Could someone, please, explain to a newb why it 'should be' (=reason for a recent edit) that a link points to a page which 'redirects' to an other one, instead of 'directly' pointing to the latter one?
17:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC) Using a link like 'Mercury (disambiguation)' instead of to 'Mercury' is to signal to the bots that the link to the disambiguation page is intentional, i.e. So that software intended to find and fix links to disambiguation pages knows to ignore these. (In cases where a link goes to an actual article via a redirect, it is quite fine to link directly to that article.) - 18:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC) Thank you for your explanation/caveat. Obviously, I'm not yet aware of the ample consequences of 'intentionality' interpreted by bots, which edit according to their 'interpretation' of others intentions.:) 06:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC) An Interactive 3D Map of Mercury Gentle Editor, An interactive 3D Map of Mercury, based on the global topographic model and global mosaics from MESSENGER mission, complete with elevation readings, is made available. I humbly propose to have it included into.
Best regards, Ondrej Prochazka, CEO 20:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC) Requested move 25 June 2016. The following is a closed discussion of a. 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: not moved, our guidelines are clear enough on this matter. 02:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC) → – Per. 'Planet Mercury' is neither an obscure or made-up names, as the guideline suggests we avoid. The name 'planet Mercury' is used on a variety of different sources, including 's 22:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC). Strong oppose. When people talk about the planet, they surely don't say 'Planet Mercury'.
The link you provide is one for NASA's 'audience', whatever that means, but inline mentions don't use the bigram. 'Mercury' is surely the common name. Also, for consistency, there would be a legitimate case for other planets to be moved accordingly. Also, in my opinion, 'Planet Mercury' sounds like it's only tangentially related to Mercury, the planet, and could be a perfectly legitimate name for a movie, book, album, or some other proper noun that's not the planet. I see the point of the suggested move, but the parenthesized disambig is much more effective in my opinion.
— ( ) 23:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC) 23:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC). See. — ( ) 23:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC). Oppose per Andy W. 02:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a. No further edits should be made to this section.
Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2016 This has been answered. Set the answered= or ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. Hello, Upon comparing the source and the submitted result for the atmospheric composition, I noticed that in the source magnesium is in major proportions in the source material. However, is considered to be in trace amounts on this page, I was hoping to rectify this, also clarify the percentage meanings, ie by volume, moles, mass.
At the moment the information is quite ambiguous. Thank you 17:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Not done: as you have not made a specific request in the form 'Please replace XX with YY' or 'Please add ZZ between PP and QQ'.
Please also cite to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. 18:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Mercury is geologically active? So, Gizmodo just ran (headline: 'We Just Found Out That Mercury Is Geologically Active'). It references on Nature.com (headline: 'Recent tectonic activity on Mercury revealed by small thrust fault scarps'). The wiki article states 'Mercury's surface is heavily cratered and similar in appearance to the Moon, indicating that it has been geologically inactive for billions of years', which would appear to be in contradiction.
Can someone more knowledgeable address this, and possibly edit the article if merited? 21:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC) The Nature article says that Mercury is shrinking as it gradually cools and this causes features of the order of 10s of meters in height. This is far from plate tectonics that gradually resurface the planet. These wrinkles will not cause large scale resurfacing of the planet so ancient craters will persist. 23:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC) Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2017 This has been answered. Set the answered= or ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Opening passage, second paragraph, begins with 'Mercury orbits the Sun within Earth's orbit as a inferior planet' should be 'Mercury orbits the Sun within Earth's orbit as an inferior planet' 00:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC) Done Thanks for spotting it! 00:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC) Thanks for the correction of my mistake. 02:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC) Mercury's magnetic field Hello, this is.
I'm one of the new users here at, and I created an article that I invested a lot of time into:. I am asking for your consent if it is O.K. If I create an article about. I'm also sure that it will be different than just re-stating what's already on, I will inform the reader about Mercury's magnetic field strength, magnetic field detection and magnetic poles, the discovery of this magnetic field, etc.
Would that be okay? - 01:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC) External links modified Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 8 external links on. Please take a moment to review. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit for additional information. I made the following changes:. Added archive to.
Corrected formatting/usage for. Added archive to. Added archive to. Added archive to. Added archive to. Added archive to. Added archive to When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting needhelp= to your help request. If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with. If you are unable to use these tools, you may set needhelp= on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors. Cheers.— 12:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC).