Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
What I was doing was discussing with a friend about the possible origins of the moon. Since i was actually typing, i had to actually think about my responses before typing and while i was in the middle of typing one response, some thought hit me like a ball peen hammer. it solves ALL questions.
1) The earth mark 1 wasn't lifeless, it had bacteria and an ocean.
2) When struck by Orpheus to create our moon, all life on both planets were disintegrated but some material containing life was sprayed into space and instantly froze.
3) After the earth cooled enough to support life again, some of the bacteria took hold after raining back down on the planet. in the mean time, some of the bacteria made its way to Mars and started up there.
4) A collision back there blasted off a chunk of Mars sterilizing the planet and made it land in antarctica to be found by modern scientists for a life on mars debate.
this solves the panspermia idea, it solves the life on mars idea, it solves the question on if life existed on the earth mark 1, and most of all, it poses a new question about the real age of our solar system since we now know the explosion that created earth mark 2 was 4.5 billion years ago and life existed back then on our planet. how did life start in the earth mark 1? who knows, maybe panspermia again. it also solves the origin of the moon.
Wheller007 (talk) 04:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Mars Star |
To Drbogdan, for your excellent and quality contributions to Mars related content. Here is wishing you a great 2013, and success in your editing. Fotaun (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Space Barnstar | |
For creating and developingKOI-172.02, and for your excellent contributions to articles about space. Fotaun (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
For your contributions and improvements to articles! Fotaun (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC) |
@Fotaun - Thanks Again! - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, Chandra is the reviewer of his own journal and his own articles:. Please see my comment and questions in the Panspermia talk page. Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
This is the original press release: http://rt.com/news/lake-vostok-russia-bacteria-944/ "There has been one strain of bacteria which we did not find in drilling liquid, but these bacteria could in principal use kerosene as an energy source,” the head of the laboratory of the same institution, Vladimir Korolev said. "That is why we can’t say that a previously-unknown bacteria was found,” he stressed." Cheers, BatteryIncluded(talk) 13:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey Drbogdan; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Maybe this Martian rock (Tintina) can have a wiki-article?: Curiosity breaks rock to reveal dazzling white interior (BBC News, 19 March 2013). Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
FYI, I've reverted your update to the Age of the Universe. I had already updated the age based upon the journal article, which quotes 13.798 ± 0.037 × 109 years when combining the Planck-only data with the estimates from other sources; the 13.82 billion number that's widely circulating in the press appears (as far as I can tell) to be the Planck-only number, which is marginally higher but doesn't include other data. —Alex (ASHill | talk |contribs) 22:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dennis, I see we've been editing a couple of the same articles recently and was wondering if you'd be interested in helping with something. In the Physical cosmology article there's a poorly written section, Energy of the cosmos, that really needs rewriting. I copied the section to my sandbox with the intention of including material from the second half of this Stanford University cosmology lecture by Leonard Susskind, which I'd recently watched.
To be honest, I was getting in a muddle trying to decide how far back to begin, and how much or little detail to go into. I suppose it could stick to the four epochs described in the video, as that follows where the energy of the Universe was deployed at different times. Then there's dark matter and dark energy. It get's confusing! If you'd like to have a go at writing something you're welcome to use my sandbox, or maybe just provide a bit of opinion and a few pointers. If nothing else I hope you enjoy the video. Kind regards,nagualdesign (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleExtraterrestrial skies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extraterrestrial skies until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.Roodog2k (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- KEEP - Seems to be a *Very Popular* (and Reader-friendly?) Wikipedia Article - ALSO - seems to satisfy WP:NASTCRIT #3 => "The object has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries and articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals." => SeeReferences - in any case -Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I have filed for arbitration on this case. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&action=edit§ion=2 Wyattmj (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC) You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Copernican_Principle and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, — Precedingunsigned comment added by Wyattmj (talk • contribs) 18:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Drbogdan
FWIW - my usual "edit summary" re the Copernican principle article urged a discussion on the article's talk page - to reach WP:CONSENSUS among interested (& knowledgeable) editors per WP:BRD - as follows =>"rv edit - text doesn't seem well settled - please discuss on talk page - and reach "WP:CONSENSUS" first - per "WP:BRD" & related." - afaik this seemed appropriate at the time for the text/refs involved - please let me know if otherwise of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please seethe Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ21 05:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Copernican principle". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk07:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by Drbogdan
As before, my involvement in the Copernican principle article was limited to the questionable quality of newly posted text and references- and urged a discussion on the article's talk page - to reachWP:CONSENSUS among interested (& knowledgeable) editors per WP:BRD - as follows =>"rv edit - text doesn't seem well settled - please discuss on talk page - and reach "WP:CONSENSUS" first - per "WP:BRD" & related." - afaik this seemed appropriate at the time for the text/refs involved - please let me know if otherwise of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
RT: "Russian space fan may have found lost Soviet Mars probe in NASA photos" Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I just added a "Controversy" section to the Non-cellular life. Please review and edit at will. Thanks! BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your initial work on the Archicebus article. I will be working to expand it significantly over the coming days, as I did last night. Just so you know, I'venominated it for "In the news". – Maky « talk » 11:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I wanted to let you know that while researching and documenting the past habitability claims by NASA, I finally understood the context of the NASA press release early this year. Basically, their press release stated that the chemistry pointed at the likelihood of past habitable environment on Mars, a fact that I contended as a "media stunt" as habitability requires several factors, not just soil chemistry. So I believe I edited your post then, toned it down and used "cautious optimism" in the Wikipedia article. Now it is clear to me that they did reach the past habitability conclusion by using not just on the soil chemistry and evidence of past flowing water, but on all other environmental factors previously characterized by other missions. The soil chemistry and the ancient stream bed finds were the final nail, not just the only proof. I see now that the Curiosity find complemented the previous discoveries of a now dead magnetosphere (global magnetic field) and the long-gone thick atmosphere that acted together as a radiation shield, and with the higher atmospheric pressure, presence of liquid water and soil chemistry, made it potentially habitable in the past.
As far as current surface habitability goes, the papers available bring it near to zero, but the subsurface habitat models and hypotheses are looking good.
So, it looks to me like the press release was not a complete list of the factors that helped them reach the conclusion, it only mentioned the last find that completed the past habitability requirements. So I want to apologize with you for that. I should have noticed the lack of scientific criticism after that release. I also want to let you know that I have always attempted to edit the astrobiology-related articles with the best accuracy and impersonal objectivity I can. Please don't hesitate to keep me in line in the future, I know you long enough to trust you in this media. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Copied from Opportunity (rover)#2013:
On May 17, 2013, NASA announced that a preliminary analysis of one of the rock targets, named "Esperance", suggested that water in the past may have had a neutral pH.< ref name="NASA-20130517">Webster, Guy; Brown, Dwayne (May 17, 2013). Mars Rover Opportunity Examines Clay Clues in Rock "Mars Rover Opportunity Examines Clay Clues in Rock". NASA. Retrieved June 8, 2013.{{cite web}}
: Check|url=
value (help)</ref>This was later confirmed in further studies, supporting the notion that ancient Mars was a "water-rich world with conditions amenable for life".< ref name="NYT-20130607">Chang, Kenneth (June 7, 2013). "Martian Rock Another Clue to a Once Water-Rich Planet". New York Times. Retrieved June 7, 2013.</ref>
@Drbogdan => Recovering Global Account - enjoy! :) Drbogdan(talk) 01:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
The attack of IP in 2013 in science defused.Alborzagros (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello Drbogdan, Could I ask for your opinion on the latest contributions to the Universearticle today? The reference quoted, whilst looking informative, is a site asking the person to join and to me is advertising. I reverted this entry as possible "spam", but it has been reinserted without explanation. Your views are appreciated. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello Drbogdan, just to say this article has been nominated for deletion, and you were involved in the debate when the article was created. Here is the notification:
A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleConcerns for an early Mars sample return is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelinesor whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concerns for an early Mars sample return until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Robert Walker (talk) 07:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC) BracketBot(talk) 01:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC) --->
Hello! I am creating the EXPOSE article and have some difficulty finding the published results of most experiments. If you have some interest and time, I would greatly appreciate your expertise. I always enjoy working with you. Cheers,BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Martian Gullies, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for adding the 1968 film to List of films featuring space stations! I figured that list would be interesting to readers who visit Elysium (film). (Though the page view statistics are currently bust, drats...) For referencing the 1961 book, I don't think we can do that for films that did not exist at the time because films may have named the station differently or not at all. Google does not seem to show film reviews (I search for "Solaris Station" intitle:review) but nothing immediately pops up in form of a proper noun. The "Space Station" column is just a field to fill in if it is easy to do so, but it's not required. (Helps to show whether or not it is a real-life space station or a fictional one too!) Erik (talk |contribs) 13:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Doc!
As part of my current wanderings through the WP Mars articles, I've just hit Martian soil. There's a claim in there that there's probably CO2 in the soils at the Martian equator. This sounds all kind of wrong to me - equatorial P/T should make CO2 gaseous, even in the subsurface I think. I came to you as I see you've been dominantly editing this thing "lately".
Is there any chance you either 1. put this info in, and have a reference to set my mind at rest, or 2. could back up my suspicions that this isn't true?
Hi, of all the literary critics, couldn't we find something better than a jape by an virtually unknown screenwriter? perhaps we could find an actual critic commenting on the literary errors in the fiction work instead of a blogger/screenwriter, and the NYT blogger/Nobel winning Economist Paul Krugman who didnt write the jape, rather repeated it? if you are so inclined, please reply in the talk page of the article where there is an ongoing discussion of this very source. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Copied from Talk:Atlas Shrugged#literary critic, Paul Krugman?
@Darkstar1st - Thank you for your comments - myrecent edit revertmay be summarized in a more complete (orig trimmed for space) "edit summary" as follows:"reverted edit deleting text/refs - the original edit seems well-cited (including NYT ref) by notable sources Paul Krugman and John Rogers (writer) - per WP:BRD, WP:CITE,WP:NOTABILITY & related."
I *entirely* agree w/ you - other well-cited and notable edits (including from worthy literary critics of course) seem appropriate (and welcome) for this Praise and Criticism section as well - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
![]() | On 3 September 2013, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Frederik Pohl, which you substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. |
Thank you for your work on this article.BencherliteTalk 22:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
To be launched tonight to the Moon: Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer. This article may need some care while the rush goes on. Cheers,BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
The recent increase to 981 (and now 997 as I write) comes from duplicate entries in the database where a Kepler number is used when a KOI number already exists e.g.http://exoplanet.eu/catalog/kepler-39_b/ is already included ashttp://exoplanet.eu/catalog/koi-423_b/ Astredita (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
You reverted an edit, asking me to "present to the talk page". Did you not see the section I had started on the talk page? 149.254.56.143 (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
This comment seems gruff. Apologies, it isn't meant to be. I've opened an NPOV discussion. ==Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion== Hello, Drbogdan. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by149.254.56.143 (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The opinion of Bernie Sanders is undue weight for the Koch articles you are adding it to. Lots of people have an opinion about the Koch's, what makes this one special? Should we start adding rants about Bernie Sanders to the Bernie Sanders article? Arzel (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure about this 40 billion figure. Some newspapers say 20 billion, some say 10bn. Some give a very specific 8.8bn. Basically the numbers are all over the place. They're all based on the same reference http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/10/31/1319909110 but it's behind a paywall so I haven't read it. Do you know if the paper gives an actual number as opposed to just a percentage? The 40bn obviously comes from 20% of 200bn but the question is: is 200bn an estimate of the number of Sun-like stars, or of the total number of all types of stars?Astredita (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
FOLLOWUP - Seems astronomer Geoffrey Marcy (co-author) isquoted as follows:
Marcy says if you combine that result with this newer study looking at sun-like stars, it suggests that our Milky Way galaxy contains something like 40 billion Earth-sized planets with lukewarm temperatures. "So that's really the stunning number, I think," says Marcy.
ALSO, just now received a recent email message from astronomer Erik Petigura (co-author) as follows:
Hi, Dennis.
Great question! We found that 22±8% of G and K type stars have an 1-2x Earth-size planet in the habitable zone. Converting that into a number of planets requires multiplying by the number of stars in the Galaxy. Astronomers quote different total numbers of stars in the Milky Way. Most say 200 billion stars. But one often hears 100 billion and sometimes 400 billion. It's not well known.
About 1/4 of the stars are GK "sunlike" stars. So, adopting 200 billion stars in total, the Milky Way has about 50 billions sun-like (GK) stars. Of those, 22% have a planet 1-2X the size of Earth in their habitable zones. Thus we have 22% of 50 billion suns, coming to 11 billion Earth-size planets in the habitable zones of the sun-like stars in the Milky Way.
If you include the red dwarf stars, the vast majority, the total comes to 40 billion Goldilocks planets.
Cheers,
Erik
On Nov 5, 2013, at 2:00 PM, Dr. Dennis Bogdan <drbogdan@comcast.net> wrote:
Hello Erik,
I'm a Wikipedia editor currently involved with some astronomy articles - Question (if possible) => how many habitable earth-like (or "earth-sized"?) exoplanets are estimated to be orbiting sun-like stars in the Milky Way Galaxy? - seems the media has reported "40 billion" ( ref => http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/science/cosmic-census-finds-billions-of-planets-that-could-be-like-earth.html - some editors on Wikipedia think the estimated number may be different (estimates range from 8.8 billion to 100 billion) -
Thanking you in advance for your reply - Enjoy! :)
Dennis
in any case - hopefully, some of this helps in some ways - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan(talk) 22:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Copied from my recent edit at => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_in_science#November
Astronomers report, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of sun-like stars and red dwarf stars within the Milky Way Galaxy.< ref name="NYT-20131104">Overbye, Dennis (4 November 2013). "Far-Off Planets Like the Earth Dot the Galaxy". New York Times. Retrieved 5 November 2013.</ref>< ref name="PNAS-20131031">Petigura, Eric A.; Howard, Andrew W.; Marcy, Geoffrey W. (31 October 2013). "Prevalence of Earth-size planets orbiting Sun-like stars". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. doi:10.1073/pnas.1319909110. Retrieved 5 November 2013.</ref> 11 billion of these estimated planets may be orbiting sun-like stars.< ref name="LATimes-20131104">Khan, Amina (November 4, 2013). "Milky Way may host billions of Earth-size planets". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved November 5, 2013.</ref> The nearest such planet may be 12 light-years away, according to the scientists.< ref name="NYT-20131104" />< ref name="PNAS-20131031" />
I was going to correct my mistake when you caught it first. Thanks and sorry.BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey Doc, was wondering if you'd mind me uploading a higher quality version of the ISON video on top of your copy. I cut the intermediate steps out of the process, going straight from YouTube to OGV format (btw, the YouTube native format of the video was actually WebM, which can be uploaded straight to Commons now), thus cutting down on unneeded compression. — Huntster (t @c) 09:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. You did a fantastic job with the Comets template, thanks. I wanted to take away the collapsible feature, so it appears open on pages where it is the lone template. You seem to say in your edit that that's fine with you, so this is an informal hanging-out on your talk page request to change that one thing back again. It seems rather obvious that having a full template open for inspection and links on the pages where it is a single template would be better for the readers enjoyment and ease of surfing through related pages. Thanks!Randy Kryn 3:30 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The Template Barnstar | ||
I, Ninney, hereby award Drbogdan this Template Barnstar, for his diligent work done on fine-tuning the template Comets. Ninney (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC) |
@Ninney - Wow - Thank you *very much* for the Barnstar - it's *greatly* appreciated -Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I was doing a search after reading a New York Times article that said it was similar to the Denisova but did not make the link yet. Even your source in Nature did not say the find was Denisovas but could be link yet more of a mystery.http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/science/at-400000-years-oldest-human-dna-yet-found-raises-new-mysteries.html But I see you are still editing the article, but it may be a bit early yet to use either source in this article. It could be a link between hominids or early humans. Since I was figuring out how to find you and post the link I have found yet another in Nat Geohttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/12/131204-human-fossil-dna-spain-denisovan-cave/ I hope you can use this to better portray the findings that may rather fit in another article, that is if you can explain why and how the DNA found links hominid or to early humans. FYI, even the scientists have not figured that out yet. Thank for helping, and forgive me if I posted this in the wrong place. Oh, I find this exciting and hope to hear/read more about the find RupJana (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24715-fiercest-meteor-shower-on-record-to-hit-mars-via-comet.html
The sky is will be falling! -BatteryIncluded(talk) 19:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello! I looked at the [beautiful] new article collection you added at and was very pleased to see the deliberate and official shifting of scientific objectives for the MSL/Curiosity :
If you remember, in the beginning of the mission, astrobiology was a secondary goal (second to habitability). I think that the MSL and Curiosity article must be updated...the team is now "exploring deliberately for organic matter" (biosignatures / biomolecules), and the rover has a couple of decades to do so!. I think this shift of focus/objectives is a huge development in the mission timeline that must be highlighted. What do you think? As usual, I get my MSL updates not from NASA bulletins but from you. :-) Cheers,BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! | ![]() |
Hope you and yours have a great holiday season, and Happy New Year! — Huntster (t@ c) 22:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC) |
BatteryIncluded (talk) is wishing you aMerry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotesWikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
-BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Space Barnstar | |
For outstanding contributions and editing on articles about space. Fotaun (talk) |
![]() |
The WikiProject Barnstar | |
For contributions to various projects and related articles, especially articles related to spaceflight.Fotaun (talk) |
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
For noted contributions to knowledge and editing in the year 2013. Fotaun (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC) |
Hi,
Since these aren't being used, I'm putting up 214, 215, & 216,000+ for deletion. I've added some of the links to the main articles; you might want to check my edits over the last couple hours to verify they're all real. (There's been some vandalism in these articles, adding spurious MPs.) There are some red links I did not move, as I tried confirming a couple and failed. If they're real, could you add them to the proper lists?
From the 214,000+ list:
Name | Provisional designation |
Discovery date | Discovery site | Discoverer(s) |
---|---|---|---|---|
329914 Lodka | ||||
329915 Kamak | ||||
(329916) Kamak 1 | ||||
(329917) Kamak 2 | ||||
(329918) Kamak 3 | ||||
(329919) Kamak 4 | ||||
329920 Skala | ||||
(329921) Proba 1 | ||||
(329922) Proba 2 | ||||
(329923) Proba 3 | ||||
(329924) Proba 4 | ||||
(329925) Proba 5 | ||||
500000 Zrantse | evenkite asteroids | |||
(500201) 2012 OP963 | evenkite asteroids | |||
(Not available) 2007 TG422 | 2007 TG422 | 2007-10-03/3 October 2007 | Apache Point Observatory | Andrew Becker, Andrew W. Puckett, and Jeremy Martin Kubica |
From the other lists:
Thanks, — kwami (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.