Talk:Uranus/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Uranus on the main page

I propose to nominate Uranus to be the article of the day on December 7 2007—the date of equinox. Ruslik 14:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Image taken by the Voyager 2 spacecraft

Uranus (/ˈjʊərənəs, jʊˈreɪnəs/), the seventh planet from the Sun, is the third largest and fourth most massive planet in the solar system. It is named after the ancient Greek deity of the sky (Uranus, Οὐρανός), the father of Kronos (Saturn) and grandfather of Zeus (Jupiter). Uranus was the first planet discovered in modern times. Sir William Herschel announced its discovery on March 13, 1781, expanding the known boundaries of the solar system for the first time in modern history.

Uranus and Neptune have different internal and atmospheric compositions from those of the larger gas giants Jupiter and Saturn. As such, astronomers sometimes place them in a separate category, the "ice giants". Uranus' atmosphere, while still composed primarily of hydrogen and helium, contains a higher proportion of "ices" such as water, ammonia and methane, along with the usual traces of hydrocarbons. It is the coldest planetary atmosphere in the Solar System, with a minimum temperature of 49 K, and has a complex layered cloud structure, in which water is thought to make up the lowest clouds, while methane makes up the uppermost layer of clouds. Like the other giant planets, Uranus has a ring system, a magnetosphere, and numerous moons.

The Uranian system has a unique configuration among the planets because its axis of rotation is tilted sideways, nearly into the plane of its revolution about the Sun; its north and south poles lie where most other planets have their equators. Each pole gets around 42 years of continuous sunlight, followed by 42 years of darkness. Near the time of the equinoxes, the Sun faces the equator of Uranus giving a period of day-night cycles similar to those seen on most of the other planets. Uranus will reach its next equinox on December 7, 2007.(more...)

What does the gravitational parameter doing in Mass?

Why does this appear in Physical characteristics - Mass: "GM=5,793,939 ± 13 km³/s²"? kandrey89 23:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, it is because the value for G is not known very precisely, while the value for GM can be known very well. Since G and M always appear together in the realavent equations, there is no real need to pull them apart. 128.6.227.175 21:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Coldest Atmosphere?

Hello, in the introduction, there is written: "It is the coldest planetary atmosphere in the Solar System,..." Should that mean, the atmosphere is colder than on Neptun (20 AU compared to 30 AU after all, although the internal heat source is missing). For what I read, Neptuns temperature on the atmosphere ist about -200 °C (1 Bar) and -220 °C (0.1 bar). And for Uranus, I read similar values. Is there a source, which cite this concise, that the atmosphere on Uranus is distinctive colder than on neptunes? regards, --FrancescoA 16:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ref [10] (Fig.6) shows that the lowest temperature in the tropopause of Uranus is ~49 K, which is lower than the same value for Neptune. Ruslik 18:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! This download is huge, so I didn't download this pdf. --FrancescoA 08:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been asked to upload the Uranus images onto the Commons

but I haven't a clue how to do it. Can anyone tell me? Serendi^podous 16:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it was me. I'm not sure whether I confused you with Ruslik0. I don't want to force you of course. It was my bid, so I should have to do that. But it is not so urgent anyway, because my newly tranlated article (from the englisch WP, which is fantastic (so detailed and good), and from what I saw you and Ruslik0 made the bulk contributions, if I am not mistaken) , that I decided to try to translate the whole article), is (still not) accepted to be put it into the article area, because I made it in first line for myself without making a discussion before. I in the meantime saved the pictures and stored them for the time being onto the upload page on the german page.--FrancescoA 23:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want you can use them in the german version or you can download them to wikicommons. Unfortunatly I don't have time right now to do this myself.Ruslik 08:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I will do this, when I finally really need them. --FrancescoA 16:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

pronounciation

Hi. Can we make it clear in the article, for people who don't recognise phonetic, that it's correctly pronounced "YOOR-a-nus", not "your-AY-nus"? Maybe that's why people are vandalising it. I'm sure there are dozens of reliable sources this can be cited from. Also, how about a spoken version of the name? Maybe not in the lede, where we mention its pronounciation correctly, but later in the article. Everyone thinks it's funny. Well, it's not. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Why would there be a 'y' sound in it? It's OO-rah-noos. What you're suggesting would be as bad as "your anus" as it would sound approximately like "urine us."

Well either way, can we indicate its pronouncation in something that can be read by the vast majority of the readership, not a bunch of symbols that might as well be jibberish (and indeed don't always display on some browsers). Timrollpickering (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Seriously. I hate the IPA. ... that said, you really need to cut it out with this 'pronounciation' bulljazz. It's proNUNciation. You have to imagine a nun smacking you, rather than a noun.. because verbs have pronunciations too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 04:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you have the readable (i.e., non-IPA) version of the "incorrect" pronunciation up, but not the correct! It would be more helpful if someone put the readable form of the "correct" pronunciation up. That said, I think oo-rah-noos is the best pronounciation, as it seems to be the only one that does not sound like something slightly offensive in today's society.75.93.4.164 (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"Once considered one of the blander-looking planets, Uranus (pronounced YOOR un nus) has been revealed as a dynamic world with some of the brightest clouds in the outer solar system and 11 rings." From nasa.gov. You can't honestly believe that changing the planet's name to some nonstandard pronunciation is a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.209.54 (talk) 09:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of how individuals prefer that it be pronounced, or whether you're offended by silly sounding pronunciations, the vast majority of people pronounce the word "yer-AY-nus" -- that has been it's name for quite a while. The article mentions that the Greek base of the word is the same base as the element [Uranium]. Think objectively, not emotionally about how people pronounce that word -- it's "yer-AY-nium". Michael.Urban (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

207.250.91.2

It seems that either way is OK:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/uranus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exguyparis (talk • contribs) 16:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Poor page

well, some people really need lives. Vandalizing poor defenceless pages...T.T

Well, I've been here for five minutes and the page has been vandalised about twenty times.—Preceding unsigned comment added by RegaL the Proofreader (talk • contribs) 17:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The image

I must say, the photo doesn't look impressing. Is there really no better image of the planet to find? Greswik (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It depicts the planet okay. I guess if you want to you can go look around for a better one, personally I think the picture is good enough. RegaL the Proofreader (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It only depicts a big light-blue ball. We see the same thing? I know the planet is far out, but it really seems like a boring picture. I haven't got any better here, my starships broken down. ;-) Greswik (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, okay then. Yes, it's only a light blue ball. I think it's actually a pic from Voyager 2, though, and I believe it's one of the only ones.

Wanna borrow my starship? Only one million an hour ;-) RegaL the Proofreader (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's what the planet looks like, or did when the only close-up pictures were taken. There's nothing at all wrong with the photo, Uranus is, unfortunately, really that bland-looking. Riedquat (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Under Miscellaneous

Under the Uranus page, I had noticed that one person has humorously edited all the 'Uranus"s to say 'Your Anus'. While I do not agree with what said editor has done, I do believe that you should have a side note addressing the fact that 'Uranus' is phonetically pronounced 'Your Anus'. Furthermore, I believe that it is culturally relevant and is therefore deemed worthy of a spot on this page. If I may:

"Comically, when spelled phonetically, Uranus is pronounced 'Your Anus'. For example, a science teacher may ask, "What are the characteristics of Uranus?" In which a student, class clown if you will, may reply, "Hairy." "

Just think about it. Jared H —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.66.50 (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've thought about it, and I seriously don't think that something like that deserves a place within a Wiki article. It's just not encyclopdic content.RegaL the Proofreader (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Must say i do wonder if herschell had a smile over it.77.251.188.67 (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Lock This Article

Dude, this article is getting vandal'd every 2 minutes. Can someone lock this article from edits? --199.227.86.10 (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I second this call. My first click-through from the main page led me to one of the vandalized articles. It's childish bathroom-type humor and not acceptable especially as it's linked from the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.164.170 (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for now, as the vandalism is heavy, even for a featured article, but be aware that another administrator may unprotect it again. Acalamari 18:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Confusion on Main page condensed version

"Uranus' atmosphere, while still composed primarily of hydrogen and helium, ..." After reading the article more closely, and allowing for others' usage differences, I know what it means, but my first thought was, "What was its composition way back when it was discovered?" Tim1977 (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I rephrased it a bit. Is it clearer now, do you think? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 19:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Partly confusing introduction

It says in the introduction that:

"It is the coldest planetary atmosphere in the Solar System, with a minimum temperature of 49 K (−224 °C, -371 °F), and has a complex layered cloud structure, in which water is thought to make up the lowest clouds, while methane makes up the uppermost layer of clouds.[10]"

This statement is misleading and may possibly incorrectly paraphrase the cited reference by summarizing too many details into one sentence. For water to make up the lowest clouds, a word or two about the corresponding atmospheric conditions (temperature and pressure) that the clouds of water face would be well spent. Particularly, since it is stated that (at least certain parts of) the atmoshpere is (are) relatively cold with just above 49K, and elsewhere it is stated that wind speeds are 250 m/s, poses the questions what keeps the most likely water-based ice/snow from forming a hard core or ice shelfs? Alternatively the temperature of the water clouds could simply be much higher then the reader might be led to believe. Yet another option is that the extreme wind speeds prohibit the formation of ice shelfs.

Lastly, why is solar system capitalized into "Solar System"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.103.18 (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A few points:

• Please sign your comments (four ~ marks are enough)

• New topics for discussion are placed at the bottom, not the top

• "Solar System" is capitalised because IAU rules stipulate that all names of astronomical objects be capitalised, including the Solar System.

• I have edited the line and broken it into two.

Thank you. Serendi^podous 22:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(Archive)

(There is a fault somewhere in the archiving process, so the threads are out of sequence. I've moved content from here dated June 2008 to March 2009 to a new page archive 6 and I'll try and fix the fault. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC))

Inner Asymmetry of Uranus by Photos from Voyager2 and HST

Photos of Uranus; HST in infrared 1994-2003 (a,b,c); and Voyager2, 1986, (d,e)

Infrared photographs of Uranus taken in 1994-2003 (Fig. a, b, c). During these nine years the Uranus has moved for about 38,5° on its orbit (the planet’s year equals 84.014 Earth’s year). We can see the same change of about 38,5° in direction of orientation (in relation to HST) of warmer zone of Uranus’ atmosphere axis and the orbit’s plane of its satellites and rings. The warmer zone of Uranus’ atmosphere clearly turns away from the Sun together with the planet’s rotation axis and the plane of satellites’ orbits. It is an unquestionable proof for that the Sun cannot be the reason of this irregular distribution of temperature in the upper layers of the Uranus’ atmosphere. If it was the Sun that warmed the planet so irregularly, then the warmer zone would always be turned towards the Sun. In the photographs taken by HST we can see a clear correlation of this warmer zone of atmosphere with the plane of equator and the orbit’s plane of Uranus’ satellites. The only logical explanation of such irregular distribution of temperature in the atmosphere of Uranus can only be the big asymmetry of its hot interior. That is why a conclusion appears that the 'false colors' picture of Uranus (Fig. e) sent to the Earth in 1986 by Voyager2 shows the position of hot inner core of this planet, not a layer of 'smog' warmed by the Sun as it was misinterpreted by the members of JPL-NASA Imaging-team in Pasadena. Tadeusz Tumalski (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources? Serendi^podous 07:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources: Voyager, HST, your eyes and logical thinking. Tadeusz Tumalski (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

In other words, original research. Serendi^podous 13:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Uranus Dark Spot

We have a diagram of Uranus Dark Spot, but can we include this somewhere in the article? The dark spot might seem like a storm. Actually Uranus globe I thoguht to seem baby blue possibly baby green sometimes in true color. Dark Spot might even be more inactive than Great White Spot of Saturn's, appears twice as long as the do on Saturn. Uranus Dark Spot appear in 1993, maybe next time is 2020s.--Freewayguy ^{What's up?} 23:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comical name

Uranus is bigger then pluto —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.53.133.111 (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we should include a reference to the comical nature of this planet's name. It is important to modern culture I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.172.182 (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, how do you cite something like that? Serendi^podous 17:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

References in popular culture? Maybe if a list was made on the discussion page it could be transferred to the article when it gets long enough —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.172.182 (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking for reliable sources, and I can't find any as yet. Serendi^podous 20:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I doubt you'll find any sources explaining the humourous potential in pronouncing Uranus' name as "your anus", but you might make a list of films/games/cartoons/whatever where this gag is made. The only one I can remember off the top of my head is in Futurama, where the professor explains the planet had been renamed in order to put a stop to all the stupid jokes (it had been renamed to "Urectum"). 151.68.5.224 (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Such a list would probably be tagged for citation or notability. Serendi^podous 11:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Uranus isn't a comical name. For example, one Saturn's moon is called Janus. Is that funny? Uranus is funny for meny people because is a planet, not some small rock. But joke is stupid.--Gospodar svemira (talk) 09:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with that logic. In English, "Uranus" can be read as a cognate of "your anus" as mentioned above. But I absolutely agree that pop culture references ("Oh, we scientists got tired of that joke years ago and renamed the planet." "What's it called now?" "Urectum.") do not belong here. The absolute most I could see is a single, reliably sourced sentence in the pronunciation paragraph under "Nomenclature". But even that's a stretch for an encyclopedia. Thompsontough (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The 3rd and 5th Harry Potter novels have 'blink and you miss it' jokes around the standard pronunciation of Uranus. though they may only deserve a mention in the Harry Potter page. I have a hard time understanding pronunciation guide that is in the article. Can the difference between the scientific pronunciation and the one that causes off-color jokes be spelled phonetically(Ur-ran-is) maybe Tydoni (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• What about this? Astronomer Pamela Gay navigating the intricate waters of "Uranus" pronunciation. Serendi^podous 09:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Nomenclature

I’ve removed this (Where does this come from? I don’t remember seeing it before):
"this is the standard Latinate pronunciation"
This may be the preferred pronunciation for astronomers, but it’s neither literary (the spelling isn’t in question) nor Latinate. Are we saying the Romans pronounced “u” as “you” or “yuh” and the “a” as “uh”? Was unus said as Eunice, or canis as cunnis? Mars as Murs? We don’t really know how the Romans said anything (until someone digs up some audio tapes) but we can guess, from words like urban, ursine umbellifer, or like Milano, Roma, Napoli. That's "u" as "oo" or "uh", and "a" as "ah". So it’s a safe bet the Romans pronounced Uranus like the Greeks did (ouranos) especially as it was a loanword; which is pretty much like everyone in Europe says it except the Brits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonraker12 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
(oops, forgot to sign! Moonraker12 (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

wow nice article

69.14.239.216 (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Why thank you. :-0) Not all that sure that comment qualifies as a valid addition under Wiki rules, but hey, it's nice to be appreciated. Serendi^podous 22:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Formatting

From the beginning of the article:

[snip] It is named after the ancient Greek deity of the sky ([[Uranus (mythology)|Uranus]],
''[[wiktionary:οὐρανός|{{polytonic|Οὐρανός}}]]''), the father of [[Cronus|Kronos]] ([[Saturn (mythology)|Saturn]]) and grandfather
of [[Zeus]] ([[Jupiter (mythology)|Jupiter]]). [snip]

I have no idea why this is formatted as:

 [snip] It is named after the ancient Greek deity of the sky (Uranus, [[wiktionary:οὐρανός|Οὐρανός]]), the father of Kronos (Saturn)
 and grandfather of Zeus (Jupiter). [snip] 

Perhaps it was the template inside the link that caused this to fail, but I don't know. Please follow this up. --Ernest lk lam (talk) 10:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

fixed. :-) Serendi^podous 10:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Who unprotected this article?

This article, of all articles? Do they want to spend the rest of eternity reverting "your anus" jokes? Serendi^podous 15:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not, of course, want to spend the rest of eternity reverting these jokes. I only want to test the abuse filter 37, which I created. WP:Abuse Filter extension was recently enabled on en.wiki and can be very useful. I have just instructed this filter to disallow such edits, however, the filter may need some tweaking. You can find the log here. Ruslik (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Test completed. I can not design a filter that catches all kinds of vandalism to this article. Ruslik (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was worth a try, and you couldn't have used a better guinea pig. Fact is, if someone wants to vandalise an article, they'll find a way to do it. Just ask anyone who's had to deal with HAGGER. Serendi^podous 20:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is not unprotected but semi-protected. That is enough to discourage the vandals, as registered users will be reported for vandalism while unregistered cannot edit. Full protection would really be overdoing this. We cannot full protect all articles prone to silly jokes.

My changes explained

I should have explained my changes the first time, I do so now:

• Right now, there is no reasoning given for a link between the element Uranium and the planet. If there is one, Uranium has a place in here, if not not. But it has to be explained.
• "Uranus" is a god in Roman mythology too, the father of Saturn. That he was imported from Greek mythology doesn't really matter - many elements of Saturn and Iupiter (not to mention the whole transformation of Mars into a war god) were imported too, regardless of the Latin names. And readers will either already know that the Greek was Ouranos or not be interested in this. We do not say the "latinized name" in other cases either. Caelus has no place in here, as he was never the father of Saturn or the counterpart to Uranus. Roman mythology has various sky gods, just as there are various sun gods.
• Why do we need to quote Maskelyne verbatim, given that the actual information of the quote is small and it contains all these strange spellings (faver, &). IMHO the picture fits better at the top of the section.
• The explanations about which syllables are stressed and about the differing sounds are enough, especially since we already have the IPA information. And why is "urunus" with three "u"s here?

Str1977 ^(talk) 16:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment about Uranium at all. The article states that Uranium was named in Uranus's honour, just like Neptunium was named after Neptune and Plutonium was named after Pluto. What other connection is required? As far as I can tell, the only "strange spelling" used by Maskelyne was "faver" instead of "favour", unless the use of "&" instead of "and" qualifies. It seems strange because it's old. I don't really think it's wise practice to start removing material for being too old. I don't know enough about Roman mythology one way or the other to have an opinion, so I'll bow to you on that for now. Serendi^podous 16:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

But why was Uranium named after the planet, was it just a whim? The bare information that the element was named after the planet seems on topic in Uranium but not here, at least not under Nomenclature. It seems more like a "cultural reference".

OK. I found a citation for Uranium, though I'm not happy with it. Why I bother to do these things is a question I should be asking myself. Serendi^podous 19:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have an objection against the quote if the article gained by its verbatim inclusion. But I don't see any gain by it. The information (and that's what I consider material) is still present. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Meaning

Folks, what is the meaning of this sentence (Internal structure section, paragraph 3) :

However for the sake of convenience an oblate spheroid of revolution, where pressure equals 1 bar (100 kPa), is designated conditionally as a ‘surface’

Ayrenz (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I've copyedited it. Let me know if it's clearer. Serendi^podous 12:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Symbol

Is there any source for "Its astrological symbol is "? Since no one of William Herschel, Jérôme Lalande and Francisca Herschel mentioned in connection with the symbol is known for promoting astrology, I doubt that the proposed division " astronomical" and " astrological" is universally valid. The latter symbol seems to have been used in an astronomical context at least in the past and at least in English almanacs, see [1] (1912), [2] (1913) and [3] (1989). --80.129.107.55 (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

What's going on with "Astronomy Cast: Uranus" reference?

The link in it takes to the edit window for that section of the article. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 13:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well. That was ... weird. Fixed, anyway. Thanks for spotting it. Serendi^podous 13:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The reference should link to the show page, not the mp3 file directly. The correct link should be http://www.astronomycast.com/solar-system/episode-62-uranus/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amb599 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

axial tilt, 98 degrees ?

Seems like 82 would be more logical.CorvetteZ51 (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I also find the axial tilt of 98 to be strange. In the section of the article where it is discussed, the article seems to state that the preferred convention is to label the north pole as that one above the plane of the solar system. Following that convention, would not the north pole be tilted 82 deg?

thanks Ed Sproles Edinfo (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

In Uranus' case, the north pole actually ends up being on the opposite side of the plane than most planets. Either that, or the inclination is 82 degrees and the rotation is retrograde. --Patteroast (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I do believe that astronomers just find retrograde rotation to be really weird and unlikely, and assume it doesn't happen (when it's possible to assume that; exceptions are rare), which means (by the rules of math, basically) that the angle in question HAS to be 98 degrees, once that assumption is made. Patteroast's comment, immediately above mine, is absolutely correct, and explains the only two options possible. 64.72.43.69 (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't North and South pole defined by rotation (I'm assuming you're not talking about magnetic pole right)?--99.237.222.73 (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Change in Pronunciation Involving Carl Sagan

I remember when Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" first came on television. Before that, everyone called this planet's name something that sounds like "your anus," and Sagan got really, really tired of that, as well as the snickering of 5th-9th graders, so at some point he started pronouncing it "urine us" instead (like that's better). That caught on, and was the predominant pronunciation in America for many years, but recently the original pronunciation seems to be making a comeback.

That's all based on personal observations and recollections; I can't edit the article on the basis of those non-encyclopedic sources. However, the fact that the pronunciation of this planet changed for a couple of decades or so is significant, and should be included if anyone can find suitable sources to back it up. I have not found any, but if anyone else does, please add such a section to the article. In as serious a tone as possible, of course, as befits an encyclopedia. 64.72.43.69 (talk) 13:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"Urine us" as you put it, is the original pronunciation. Remember, when it was discovered in the 18th century most educated people could still speak Latin. "Your anus" is a newer variant that has caught on. Serendi^podous 17:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't. See below.Moonraker12 (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation, yet again

How many times is this conversation going to take place? I thought this paragraph (Nomenclature) was stable.
Your pronunciation (the “astronomers preferred version”) is NOT Latin. The source given does NOT say that ( it says that is how the Daily Mail (that trustworthy newspaper of record) says the BBC say it, which is something altogether different). “U” pronounced as “You”, and “a” as “ay”, is entirely English (probably something to do with the Great Vowel Shift). In Latin “u” is “oo”, and “a” is usually “ah”.
So this repeated claim for your preferred pronunciation as “classical”, or because “educated people could still speak Latin” when Uranus was discovered, is entirely spurious. If the scatological implications were absent then, it’s more likely the majority of people didn’t use the word “anus”, than anything else. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether Latin pronunciations would have said "you" or "oo" is beside the point. The point is that Latin pronunciation places the stress on the first syllable, which would discourage the "ay" sound. And what evidence do you have that it was pronounced "your anus" at the time of Herschel? Serendi^podous 15:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The point of the comment is that some people pronounce the name as in Latin, or at least as they think that Latin should be pronounced, not that everyone speaks Latin. We don't give the actual "Latin" pronunciation because that would spark edit wars over the proper pronunciation of Latin names in English. kwami (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No need to rely on The Daily Mail: The BBC publication Oxford BBC guide to pronunciation is the same as the OED, as cited in the article, and actually uses the phrase "yoor-uh-nuhss...preferred usage of astronomers". Is there scope for including this, or is the existing one enough? --Old Moonraker (talk) (no relation)

It's always better to go with the more authoritative source, especially when the one source is quoting the other. Serendi^podous 02:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Reference from BBC added. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)

(outdent)Some replies
OM:I've got no issue with "yoor-uh-nuhss" being the preferred pronunciation of astronomers (well I have, but not for here) nor that the astronomers preference should take precedence in this article. What does get up my nose is this repeated claim of a classical pedigree for it which it does not have. User:64.72.43.69 up above suggested it stems from Carl Sagan, and that seems likely enough to me; the first person I heard use it was Heather Couper, in the 1980's.
Serendipodous: I don’t see how your source helps your case; It says English people pronounce Latin the way they pronounce English, and if you want the traditional pronunciation you should go to the Catholic liturgy, which mirrors Italian. So it is entirely about pronunciation, not stress at all. As for evidence of how English people pronounce it in Herschel’s time, I don’t think either the BBC or the Daily Mail go back that far, so my guess is as good as yours, I think.
Kwami:This is a Greek word, so how it's pronounced in Latin is a bit of a red herring; but this whole "stress on the first syllable" business is flawed, to me. SPQR is "Sen-ah-tus Pop-oo-lus-qway Rom-ah-nus", as far as I know, with the stress on the penultimate syllable, so the whole premis is off. And the statement is not supported by the source, so it shouldn't be there ( I notice you've put it back). Moonraker12 (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

MR12, stress is all I'm referring to. In order to pronounce Uranus as "your anus" you have to place the stress on the middle syllable. The alternate pronunciation places the stress on the first syllable, as in Latin. Serendi^podous 18:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

And where is your evidence that putting a stress on the first syllable in this case is “as in Latin”?

Also, if the stress is the only point being made, why Latin? why not any language where the stress falls on the first syllable? The source given claims the stress is on the first syllable, “as used by the BBC”; why mention Latin at all? Unless you really are trying to imply a Latin origin for your preferred version, which is the allegation I’m making.Moonraker12 (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I provided the cite that showed that Uranus, in Latin, is pronounced with the stress on the first syllable. And "Uranus" is a Latin word. If it were the original Greek, it would have used the Greek "-os" nominative instead of the Latin "-us". Serendi^podous 09:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

From Latin Pronunciation - a Beginner's Guide (BBC again, but not one of their definitive publications this time):

• "If a word has only two syllables, the accent will fall on the first syllable eg, ámo, únus.
• If a word has more than two syllables the stress will fall on the second last syllable if that syllable contains a long or a short vowel followed by two consonants, eg amátis, deféssus.
• Otherwise the stress will fall on the third last syllable, eg celériter, sollícitus."

Any help? --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

With respect, Serendip, your cite doesn’t say that, unless you are seeing it different to me. take another look (this has the first paragraph of a piece on pronunciaton, which doesn’t mention stresses at all). Though it does support your position that the initial "U" is pronounced "Yoo", as in today’s English, and unlike Latin. But I do take your point about this being a Latin version of a Greek name.

And yes, OM, it does help, as I’ve been going by what I was taught (Latin as she is spoken by the pimply English schoolboy!). Though in this case I’m not clear how you are using it. It says there that stress on the first syllable applies to two syllable words; if longer the stress is further in. And it gives am-a-tis as an example of a three syllable word. With the vowels sounds given, that would make our word here Uhr-ahn-uhs, or Ooh-rahn-uhs, depending on if the initial U was short or long.

And, why is it so important? The text already has "The pronunciation of the name Uranus preferred among astronomers is /ˈjʊərənəs/, with stress on the first syllable", which is not in dispute. (Although the statement “the former pronunciation also saves embarrassment” is really a moot point; I don’t know why anyone thinks it’s an improvement...) Moonraker12 (talk) 11:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Amátis would only be pronounced that way if the 2nd a is long: Amātis. If the a were short, it would be ámatis. That's what we have here: the a in Ūranus is short. (Thus the utility of adding the Latin only as long as we indicate vowel length.) kwami (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Kwami : OK, that makes sense (though it’s a shame none of the sources here actually say that). But that leads to the question, what is it that tells you the "a" in Uranus is short, rather than long? Moonraker12 (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The Latin, when written with macrons. Latin preserved Greek vowel length, and the form Ūranus shows that the a was short. (This is rarely written out explicitly, but you will occasionally see Ūrănŭs.) Also, long ᾱ is uncommon in Greek, because in pre-Attic Greek all ᾱ became ω, so any long alphas in Attic were borrowed from other dialects or were otherwise subsequent developments, such as Μίμᾱς from older Μίμανς. Also, if you have a good Greek dictionary, such as Liddell and Scott, they indicate the long/short distinction in the headings to their entries, and they have Ὀυρᾰνός. kwami (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)

I remember sometime in the 1980's (does anybody have a date) Uranus was in the news and this was the first time that I had heard the 'polite' pronunciation. This was picked up by the series Spitting Image who assumed (as did I) that newsreaders were being coy. They did a wonderful sketch about a new moon of Jupiter called "Boom-Holly" and spelt "bumhole". The fact is that nobody ever tries to force a new pronunciation on uranium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.141.94 (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I would assume it was around 1986 when Voyager 2 had its flyby. As for uranium, elements often seem to have quite different pronunciations than the words they're derived from. Example: Americium, named after America. I've only heard it pronounced 'am-er-ISS-ee-um'. There's a tendency to shift the stress to right before -ium, so I don't think that's a really helpful argument. --Patteroast (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

(Speculation alert.) Uranium was an important element and its pronunciation was well known. Is it possible that this influenced the common pronunciation (with regard to the stress on the second syllable) of the name Uranus in many cultures? Had they used Neptunium instead in making atomic bombs, perhaps people would be pronouncing that planet's name as "nep-TYOON" (or "nep-TOON") instead? WHPratt (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's been over a week, now, and there’s been no reply here, so I’ll restate my contention that the phrase “as in Latin” should be removed as it is a) misleading b) redundant and c) unsupported by sources.
Serendipodous: your source says only that the English pronunciation of Latin vowels follows English usage, and is unlike that in Latin.
Old Moonraker: your source says the "stress on the first syllable" rule applies in two syllable words, and is ambiguous about longer words.
Kwami: your suggestion that the "a" in Uranus is short, begs the question "what makes it so?" ( and I think the answer is perilously close to “ because the stress is on the first syllable”, which brings us in a big circle).
And your position, citizens, also suggests that the Romans took a Greek word (pronounced oo-rahn-os) and changed it (to uhr-uhn-us, or is it yoo-run-us?/yuh-ruh-nus?); but that all the languages derived from Latin have abandoned this (Italian, Spanish oo-rahn-oh; French, Romanian ooh-rahn-us): All except English, which has managed to keep it unadulterated, in its proper Latin form? Hmm?
So unless someone can come up with something, I propose taking the phrase out. Response? Moonraker12 (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've extended the OED reference to cite that the word arrived in English from the Greek via the Latin; this is a different argument and, as far as I can see, not in dispute. However, the OED rendering of the Latin as "Ūranus" may be relevant. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in English we pronounce Greek Classical names with Latin stress placement. That's been the norm since at least Shakespeare's day. So stress assignment in English depends on vowel weight, and never on Greek stress, which is utterly irrelevant. The alpha in Ouranos is short, so the stress is on the first syllable. (Of course, many words are idiosyncratic, and the alt. pronunciation of Uranus is an example.) kwami (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, fair enough; if the OED gives the Latin as Ūranus I can live with that, I reckon, though I have to say I’m really surprised. But, that would still make the pronunciation ooh-rah-nus, or uh-rah-nus, which is still some way away from a Latin pedigree for yoo-rah-nus, and still leaves the statement “as in Latin” misleading. (And the comment, that the Greek stress is utterly irrelevant to pronouncing a Greek word in English, (if that's what it meant) speaks volumes (I’m reminded of HG Wells’ comment about ploughing the Little-go). And I still think the whole section protests too much.Moonraker12 (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Romanus Eunt Domus

Why not specify The original name of the god as it was spoken in the good old days. The probable pronunciation of it in Herschel's days and the two alternate pronunciations used today could be included for fun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.244.49 (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

There is a fault somewhere in the archiving process, so the threads are out of sequence. I've moved content from archive 4 dated June 2008 to March 2009 to a new page (archive 6), to correct that; and I'll try and fix the fault. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Done (I think); perhaps someone who knows about the automatic archiving function can check. Or we could disable it and do the archiving manually. Thoughts? Moonraker12 (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I still don't think this is working properly, so I've disabled it. It's probably better to archive manually, say when threads are about 6 months old, or in half-year/one year clumps. I hope that's OK with everyone. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge from 34 Tauri

I propose the stub-class article at 34 Tauri should be merged into this article and the page 34 Tauri turned into a redirect. Icalanise (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Serendi^podous 07:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You should put more in about culture

I mean, can you not elaborate a bit more on the San Franciso gay scene, especially about the Cockettes and the Club Uranus, tell me more! I'm sure it's really useful information to everyone who comes here to read about a planet. Stroll on! Call this an encyclopedia. I think not. Mister Flash (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved to a link on the disambig page. Jminthorne (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Good move. Thanks, I would have done it myself but not being a regular here it may have been reverted. Mister Flash (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's odd how long this nonsense lasted in the article. It was discussed in a thread on the Wikipedia Review forum over a month ago. Ottre 13:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Civility.—RJH (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Colloquial 'your anus' reference

Don't you think the classic joke about Uranus sounding like 'your anus' should at least be mentioned?128.100.71.45 (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"Humorous" comments regarding the name of this planet are inappropriate content for this talk page. This is an ecyclopedia, not a place for fart jokes. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 17:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe it relevant. gonads³ 17:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The use of the name as a joke needs demonstrated notability, substantiated by reliable citations. I think it somehow needs to be demonstrated that the joke, as such, is culturally significant. Otherwise it is just a humorous anecdote with little encyclopedic value.—RJH (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Although I disagree about elaboration on the San Francisco gay scene (as it is not universally known as relating to the word "uranus", and is more likely, a marketing attempt to build off the name Uranus), I do concur with IP address 128.100.71.45 that it is quite hilarious that the word Uranus sounds like "your anus". I don't think that universal concepts should be disregarded simply because they're "humorous" as User:Tbhotch pointed out. With relation to "relevance" as enlisted by user:gonads3, I'd say it is highly relevant, as in most schools, conference of the word "Uranus" would cover "your anus" as a childish (and really, nonsensical) joke. I'd actually say to User:RJHall that the statement is culturally significant, as well as notable. I am sure we can substantiate it with reliable citations. Here are some notable educational sources:

* University of Pennsylvania

* NF Observatory

* Northwestern College

* Stanford University

* University of Ballarat

* Penn State University

* Massachusetts Institute of Technology

* D'Youville College

* LaTrobe University

There is a whole heap more you can find with the search query "ur anus" uranus inurl:".edu" on most search engines.Twigfan (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I propose that in the 11 In Culture section, what perhaps can be written could be:

The english word Uranus is often used in a comedic manner as a result of its commonality of sound with a bereaved body part.

I would say also that Wikipedia is not the place to outrightly state the word "anus" - it just isn't civil. Twigfan (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing uncivil about the word "anus;" after all, Wikipedia has an article on it. :0) The refence to "your anus" was moved to a note. I wouldn't mind putting it back, however.Serendi^podous 08:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a great insight, User:Serendipodous. I wonder if there's any anthropological connection between the word Uranus (from the Greek root "deity of the sky") and the word anus (from the Latin root "ring"). Without having deep insight into Greek/Latin, I'd even tend to think the Greek word may have been derived from the Latin term? Twigfan (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's a few literary citations that might be viewed by some as a little more reliable:

• De Wire, Elinor (2002), The Florida night sky: a guide to observing from dusk till dawn, Pineapple Press Inc, p. 155, ISBN 156164238X
• Elster, Charles Harrington (2006), The big book of beastly mispronunciations: the complete opinionated guide for the careful speaker (2nd ed.), Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, p. 480, ISBN 061842315X
• Meredith, Dennis (2010), Explaining research: how to reach key audiences to advance your work, Oxford University Press, p. 27, ISBN 0199732051

Regards, RJH (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Tilt of the moon's orbits

A question I didn't find answered on this article (or on the Moons of Uranus article) is why the alignment of orbital plane of the planet's moons matches the axial tilt of the planet? Naively it would seem that a collisional event that knocked the planet on its side would leave the orbits of the moons (or the orbiting material) in the previous alignment.—RJH (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The idea of a collisional event is somewhat out of date. Uranus's axial tilt is now believed to have happened gradually as a result of gravitational interactions with Jupiter and Saturn. Serendi^podous 06:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Are you referring to this Brunini (2006) paper? If so, then note that the article has been retracted.—RJH (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The answer is that satellites formed after the collision. This is discussed in this paper. I actually know the only other way an obliquity can be generated—interaction between the planet and its interplanetary disk as described here (for Jupiter). Ruslik_Zero 18:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that is interesting stuff. I noticed the Mousis (2004) paper makes no mention of any pre-existing disk, like the one that presumably formed the moons around the other gas giants.—RJH (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

So how should we revise the Uranus#Axial tilt section? Serendi^podous 06:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Since the article has been retracted, there is currently no sources for the claim that obliquity can arise purely from gravitational interactions with J. and S. Therefore this claim should be removed. Though there is another paper that advances a different collisionless model. Ruslik_Zero 17:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

A little blimp

I don't know much about wiki code, so I'll probably screw it up more if I try to fix it, but half way down the quote's formatting is all screwy. Just letting you guys know! 116.212.212.41 (talk) 04:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Screwy in what sense? (It is fine on my PC) Materialscientist (talk) 04:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The quote halfway done runs over top of the picture of Herschel. 134.7.248.131 (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Try now. Materialscientist (talk) 03:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That works, thank you =) 116.212.212.41 (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Can someone re-write the beginning of the section labeled "Internal Structure"?

Can someone re-write the beginning of the section labeled "Internal Structure"?

Here's a copy paste of the problem paragraph that is impossible to understand -

Uranus's mass is roughly 14.5 times that of the Earth, making it the least massive of the giant planets, while its density of 1.27 g/cm³ makes it the second least dense planet, after Saturn.[9] Though having a diameter slightly larger than Neptune's (roughly four times Earth's), it is less massive.[7] These values indicate that it is made primarily of various ices, such as water, ammonia, and methane.[11] The total mass of ice in Uranus's interior is not precisely known, as different figures emerge depending on the model chosen; however, it must be between 9.3 and 13.5 Earth masses.[11][57] Hydrogen and helium constitute only a small part of the total, with between 0.5 and 1.5 Earth masses.[11] The remainder of the mass (0.5 to 3.7 Earth masses) is accounted for by rocky material.[11]

I totally understand the concepts of size, weight, mass, and density, - but I am scratching my head trying to understand to the first two sentences - this is what I understand - Uranus is 14.5 more massive that Earth, but the end of the second sentence ends with "it is less massive" - huh?

This section needs a readability edit. ____________________________________________________________ It says that Uranus is the smallest of the GIANT planets.

USE YOUR BRAIN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarnainanzig (talk • contribs) 16:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.91.94 (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It is less massive than Neptune, not Earth. Serendi^podous 08:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph could use a little work to improve the flow. How about this:

Uranus's mass is roughly 14.5 times that of the Earth, making it the least massive of the giant planets. However, its diameter is slightly larger than Neptune's at roughly four times Earth's. A density of 1.27 g/cm³ makes Uranus the second least dense planet, after Saturn. This value indicates that it is made primarily of various ices, such as water, ammonia, and methane. The total mass of ice in Uranus's interior is not precisely known, as different figures emerge depending on the model chosen; however, it must be between 9.3 and 13.5 Earth masses. Hydrogen and helium constitute only a small part of the total, with between 0.5 and 1.5 Earth masses. The remainder of the non-ice mass (0.5 to 3.7 Earth masses) is accounted for by rocky material.

Still some room for improvement, I think. Also, the final three sentences don't quite make sense. Is the "remainder of the mass" meant to be the non-ice mass or the non-hydrogen/helium mass? I changed it to say "non-ice mass" for clarity.—RJH (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Subbed. Serendi^podous 18:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely we can get a better image showing Uranus's internal structure (one in English for starters)? In such a good article it sticks out like a sore thumb. Wasn't there once a similar NASA-sourced image on this page or does my memory deceive me? There are a few decent pictures on Commons such as File:Opengewerkte ijsreuzen.jpg and File:Uranus cutaway (pl).svg, but they'd need to translated into English. mgiganteus1 (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

And so it begins... again.

No sooner is the protection icon removed from this page then, whaddya know, the jokes come back. Personally I can't understand why it keeps getting unprotected. If there is any article on Wikipedia that deserves permanent semi-protection, surely this would be it? Serendi^podous 18:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

inter

I am very interested about uranus is there more information about it more pictures Alertfiend (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the JPL? VQuakr (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Here are a few links: JPL Photojournal, NSSDC Photogallery, NASA Images, Palomar Observatory. Try to keep these types of requests to a minimum however. The discussion pages are generally intended for discussing contributions to the article rather than chatting about the content. --Xession (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Right sorry i jut wanted to read more about it Alertfiend (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

formation

The topic of formation contains this phrase "...the larger they became; the larger they became..." It seems unnecessary to use "the larger they became" twice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.238.221.22 (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That is chiasmus; a perfectly acceptable rhetorical device. Serendi^podous 19:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Axial Tilt

The section on Axial TIlt comments that "Uranus rotates more like a tilted rolling ball", but this phrase might be misleading. Around the solstices, Uranus will rotate like a ball rolling around its orbit. Around the equinoxes, it will not 'roll around its orbit' but rather move like a rifle bullet. The paragraph does go on to accurately explain the effect on Uranus' days and seasons, but it would be good to clarify the phrase "Uranus rotates more like a tilted rolling ball" clearly but in simple terms - perhaps by including the spinning rifle bullet analogy? --Kyuzo2000 (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Since this section notes that the International Astronomical Union currently defines "north" as the pole that's above the plane of the solar system, it seems inconsistent to have an axial tilt of greater than 90 degrees in the side-bar of planet facts. Instead of 97.77, shouldn't it be -82.23 (negative to show retrograde rotation)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.157.62 (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

It should also be noted that the alternative pronunciation sounds like Urine Us, and would also cause embarrasment. AmericanLeMans (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Needs a citation. Serendi^podous 06:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The "embarrassing" English pronunciation with the long a and accent on the penult is the standard, traditional way to pronounce this Latin word, which has an open penultimate vowel. Cf. the English pronunciation of Latin angǐna. For a parallel on the vowel sound, there's also that other planet Vee-nus, not Veh-nus, despite the short -e-. The version with the accent on the antepenult is, I suspect, a way to avoid the other pronunciation. The text should probably make this clear. Eponymous-Archon (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Uranus exploration

Hi I think we should add a section on sending a metallic probe to Uranus, and about some of the gasses that can be found on Uranus. Also the possibility of a man landing on Uranus someday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.5.14 (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe the first two are already mentioned in the article. As for the third, well there's not really anything for a man to land on. But you could potentially send a manned mission to the planet's moons. RJH (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Uranian or uranian?

At present we have "Uranian". Shouldn't it be "uranian"? We have "Earth" but "terrestrial". --John (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

My Oxford dictionary confirms Uranian (and Jovian, and terrestrial :). Materialscientist (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

No, 'terrestrial' doesn't mean 'of the Earth', it means 'of the land'. Better parallel would be Terran. — kwami (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Good enough. Thank you both. Like France and French. Excuse my senior moment. --John (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Urectum redirects here

Why does "Urectum" redirect here? Kaiserkarl13 (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a reference to a one-liner joke from Futurama. Probably somebody's attempt at humor. That can likely be {{db-r3}}'d. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I know what it's referring to (how do you think I found the redirect in the first place?), but this page makes no reference to that quote, so the redirect makes no sense and isn't funny since those who go there already know the joke. It also shouldn't redirect here---redirecting to Futurama or to "A Big Piece of Garbage" (Futurama) would make much more sense. Kaiserkarl13 (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. Serendi^podous 21:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Although, A Big Piece of Garbage doesn't mention Urectum either. Serendi^podous 21:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It does now Kaiserkarl13 (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomenclature

"Uranus is the only planet whose name is derived from a figure from Greek mythology rather than Roman mythology" This is incorrect. All the five original planets' names were originally Greek and translated into Latin later. Uranus follows that pattern by giving the Latin name for the Greek-based god. It differs in having been named by a modern rather than an ancient. This pattern was then followed for Neptune and Pluto. Earth is the only planet this isn't true for, though often sci-fi writers will call it "Terra," which is consistent. --Eponymous-Archon (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Typo, Can't edit

In the section Upper Atmosphere there is a typo in the liquid water ratio compostion: "The abundance ratio of water is around 7×10−-9". It should be: "The abundance ratio of water is around 7×10−9". Just one negative sign is all. Otherwise the ratio would be 7×10^9 due to the double negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.52.50 (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Must be s.t. w ur browser. There's no dbl negative. — kwami (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I saw the double negative in the displayed version of the page right after the IP posted. I checked something else got a second, came back to change it and it was gone. This page has been acting strange lately. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 00:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Blanked reference section

When I go to the current article, the references section is blanked.

When I go to the current article in the 'history' section, however, the references section is not blanked.

This happens with two different web browsers.

Why does the 'history' section not show the current article when it says that it shows the current article?

(Not sure if this question will be immediately 'archived' after it is posted.)

67.206.183.111 (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You probably visited the article first when it was vandalized so that the references section was blanked. This vandalism was later reverted and so does not show up in the latest revision in the history. To see the latest version of the article, you need to bypass your cache. Double sharp (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

@Double Sharp. When was this vandalism you speak of? There doesn't appear to have been any recent vandalism to the reference section and highly unlikely the IP's browser has managed to cache a version from say, several months ago, though Im not sure what is causing the problems described above. Everything looks normal on my end. More likely that the user just happened to be experiencing a temporary bug/glitch. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 04:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Good question. I should have looked at the history before responding. Double sharp (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Uranus2.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Uranus2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 13, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-03-13. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Uranus is the seventh planet from the Sun and the fourth most massive in the Solar System. In this photograph from 1986 the planet appears almost featureless, but recent terrestrial observations have found seasonal changes to be occurring.Photo: NASA/JPL/Voyager 2 mission

"Axial tilt" addition

If you approach the problem logically, than it makes sense to name the poles not north and south, which is suitable for the ordinary rotated planets, but on behalf of the zodiacal or nearzodiacal constellations targeted by the Uranus rotation axis, to avoid any "north/south confusion". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.34.119.110 (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Naming

I'm a little confused about the section about the naming of the planet. According to this article, Uranus is the Latinized form of Ouranus, Greek god of the sky. However, when you go to the actual article on the Greek god, it states that the Roman version is Caeluo. Probably doesn't really matter on a primarily scientific article like this one, but i always thought Uranus was the odd one out in terms of being named after the greek, rather than Roman equivalent.141.6.11.18 (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.6.11.20 (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

"Latinised" in the sense that the word was rewritten as it would have appeared in Latin, not as refers to the Roman god; though in truth, if they had simply decided to call the planet Caelus, it would have saved centuries of sniggering. Serendi^podous 15:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Uranus is the only planet with a Greek name. It was named after Urania the Ancient Greek muse of Astronomy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by COSMOLON (talk • contribs) 14:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it was named after the Greek god of the sky, Uranus. Serendi^podous 17:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Mantle pressure

There were mentioned pressure on the upper level of core and lowest level of atmosphere, but the layer of Ice mantle surface lie far below this "atmosphere". Is there any info or predictions how huge is pressure on the surface of ice mantle or the surface of the ocean? 91.77.251.38 (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 April 2013

Noahmw25 (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Please include the desired change with the request. —C.Fred (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Could the article make it clear that the 'academic' pronunciation is a deliberate neologism coined to prevent the unfortunate homophony? Also, calling it the "colloquial" pronunciation is incorrect, linguistically speaking, as it happens to be the traditional pronunciation. This section could stand to be more neutrally worded, currently it seems to suggest that the neologism is the only valid pronunciation, and the traditional and far more widespread variant somehow inferior. WP:NPOV please, we are not Strunk & White. 60.242.48.18 (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no "traditional" pronunciation, and the Latinate pronunciation is not a "neologism". Uranus is a Latin word (albeit a Latinization of a Greek word) and so pronouncing it in the Latin manner is about as far from "neo" as you can get. No one knows how the planet's name would have initially been pronounced, since we didn't have voice recorders in 1781. But we can argue that, since Latin would have been better known at the time among those who would have known of the planet's existence, it would probably have been closer to the Latin. Serendi^podous 13:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I have heard both Americans and British people say that the second-syllable pronunciation was the only one they grew up with. That is also my experience. Whatever the history, I can't doubt the modern use of the 'urine' pronunciation is a euphemism. 24.131.136.147 (talk) 06:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

According to the rules in Traditional English pronunciation of Latin, the paroxytone pronunciation is simply wrong. Latin Uranus has a short a, which is therefore unstressed according to the Classical Latin stress rule (and even the Old Latin initial stress rule, as well as the Greek stress, just in case you were wondering). I have no idea why the paroxytone pronunciation has ever been used by anybody in the first place. No competent Latinist would stress Uranus on the second syllable, so the joke shouldn't work in the first place. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I wonder whether the usual circumstance of Latin words ending in -anus having a long a is what did it. A stressed a in that situation should indeed be long in English, whatever the original quantity was. A version of Webster's dictionary very clearly has the accent on the first syllable, as does Knowles'. Keats' poem Hyperion also uses the god's name with that accent. Interestingly, the OED has this excerpt: "By some astronomers it is called Herschel, in honour of the discoverer; though among almost all foreigners, it has acquired the name of uranius, which it is likely to retain." Uranius ought to have a long a. That said, when I grew up in the 70s I don't remember ever hearing anything other than what's being called the "colloquial" pronunciation. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The ridiculous thing about this argument is that, as pointed out by Florian Blaschke above, there are strict rules regarding the pronunciation of Latin words in English. The relevant rules are as follows:

1. "Latin stress is predictable". In other words, the same rules ALWAYS apply and therefore words with the same letters stress the syllables the same way. This nullifies the erroneous belief that there are multiple correct pronunciations. There is ONE correct way to pronounce Uranus and ONE only.

2. "It [i.e. the stress] falls on the penultimate syllable when that is 'heavy', and on the antepenultimate syllable when the penult is 'light'". So ... you stress the second last syllable when it is 'heavy' and the last syllable if the second last one is 'light'. So, to get the ONE AND ONLY correct pronunciation of Uranus in English, first we have to determine whether the second last syllable is 'light' or 'heavy'. However this is where things get tricky. The question is whether the syllables in Uranus are Ur-A-Nus or Ur-An-Us. Once we have worked that out we are a step closer to determining the ONE AND ONLY correct pronunciation from the following...

3. "A syllable is 'light' if it ends in a single short vowel. For example, a, ca, sca, scra are all light syllables for the purposes of Latin stress assignment. Any other syllable is "heavy" if it is closed (ended) by a consonant: an, can, scan, scran". How do we know whether the second syllable is 'A' or 'An'? If it is the former then the correct pronunciation is Ur-A-Nus, but if the latter is correct it is Ur-Ain-Us. What do we do? Well ... this is where the whole problem becomes interesting because, as per the above, the stress is predictable and the same rules ALWAYS APPLY. That means, contrary to what Serendipodous has said above, we CAN and DO know how the word was originally pronounced because there are other, similar Latin words and the SAME RULES ALWAYS APPLY. For example, the word 'anus' is a Latin word, so it MUST be pronounced the same way when standing alone or if it is the end of a word. So ... if you want to use the incorrect pronunciation Ur-A-Nus then that's fine but you also need to start pronouncing the word 'anus' differently too and we're back to where we started anyway. You can't have it both ways and there's no way around it.

4. Further to Point 3 above, or even completely in place of it actually - and the icing on the cake - is that aside from 'anus' we have the perfect word to definitively help us because the element Uranium was named after the planet Uranus (the same way that Neptunium and Plutonium were named after Neptune and Pluto respectively). Given that the word Uranium is pronounced Ur-Ain-E-Um, not Ur-A-Nee-Um - the second syllable being 'an', not 'a' - and there are strict rules regarding the pronunciation of Latin words in English (as per the above), we DO know how the word Uranus was originally pronounced because the names Uranus and Uranium were coined at EXACTLY the same time in history! This leaves people to argue either that they decided to throw the very strict rules out the window at the time - just for this one particular word - or that Uranium was originally pronounced Ur-A-Nee-Um; which would mean they decided to throw the rules regarding the naming of elements out the window just for one word only. Neither of those options fly, for obvious reasons, so there are no two ways around all of this. Either you start pronouncing 'anus' and 'uranium' differently - to coincide with the pronunciation of 'Uranus' - or you concede that the correct pronunciation of Uranus is Ur-Ain-Us.

5. The article needs to change because the ONE AND ONLY correct pronunciation of the Latin word Uranus in English is Ur-Ain-Us, and that is NOT colloquial. The colloquial pronunciation is Ur-A-Nus and that is what the article should state. Three words - anus, Uranus, and uranium - MUST all have the same pronunciation in English. Those are the rules whether people are embarrassed by the results or not. There is simply no argument which can be made for pronouncing one of the three words differently from the other two, especially given that the word 'uranium' was directly generated from the word 'Uranus'... FillsHerTease (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

There is one slight problem with your argument, hon. If we are going to go by strict Latin pronunciation, then we absolutely cannot use the "ay" syllable, as that, in Latin, is spelt "ei". The "a" is either pronounced long, as in "father", or short, as in "what". So we should be saying that everyone pronounce "Uranus" as "You-RAN-us". And no, we don't know how "uranium" was pronounced in 1781 either. Serendi^podous 08:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, the traditional English pronunciation of Latin does give the "ay" syllable (/eɪ/) as a rendition of a stressed "a". English astronomers would probably have used this pronunciation in the 19th century, when Uranus became the dominant name, as it was the one taught in schools until 1907. Double sharp (talk) 08:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. Either you go with strict Latin, or you agree that the pronunciation is traditional and colloquial. Serendi^podous 09:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

What Eponymous-Archon and everyone else seems to misunderstand is that original Latin stress is always retained in Anglo-Latin pronunciation; what is not retained is original Latin vowel length. Hence YOU-ra-nus, but you-RAY-nee-yum and AY-nus. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

(._.) Right, of course. Oops. Double sharp (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, the rules are complex. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Even if all the points that have been made are valid I don't see that my 'argument' has been rebuffed so I will state it again in a different way, in the hope that one of you can explain why I am wrong:

1. Given that there are strict rules governing the pronunciation of Latin words in English, the word 'anus' should be pronounced the same way whether it is part of the word "Uranus", or the word 'anus' on it's own. The point being that if someone disagrees with the "Yur-Ay-Nus" pronunciation that's fine, but then for the sake of consistency they should also be over on the 'Anus' Talk Page arguing that the word 'anus' is being pronounced incorrectly too, and then the whole problem just rears it's head in a different way down the track.

2. Uranium was named after Uranus. We don't know - as pointed out - how Uranium was first pronounced but we also don't know how Uranus was first pronounced and that's why we're debating. Although we can't be certain, I think it's pretty unlikely that the original pronunciation of Uranium was "You-Ra-Nee-Yum". Saying that original Latin vowel length is not retained doesn't cut it because you are changing the syllables to suit your argument; not just changing the vowel length. When the word is 'anus' you want it to be "Ay-Nus". When it's 'Uranus' you now want it to be "You-Ra-Nus", suddenly changing the "Ay" into "Ra" for some unexplained reason, rather than it being "Yur-Ay-Nus". Then when it's 'Uranium' you now want it to be "You-Ray-Nee-Yum", where the "Ay" which changed into "Ra" has now changed to "Ray". You're changing syllables! So we have "Ay-Nus", "You-Ra-Nus", and "You-Ray-Nee-Yum", as opposed to "Ay-Nus", "Yur-Ay-Nus" and "Yur-Ay-Nee-Yum"; with the former changing syllables to avoid the nasty word - but also throwing consistency out the window - and the latter maintaining the same basic syllables - and maintaining consistency - by simply adding or removing the ones which make up the different words. What would Occam say about this??? ;-)

Please don't get me wrong. I am not trying to be argumentative. If I'm wrong then that's fine but it seems to me that people are going to extreme lengths and jumping through a lot of hoops just to avoid the embarrassment of saying the word 'anus'. I'm old, and so when I went to school - and studied Latin (though I am not claiming any expertise) - there was no debate whatsoever about the fact that Uranus was pronounced "Yur-Ay-Nus". Yes it was funny and all that but there was no one trying to say that the pronunciation was wrong. I mean ... if people are embarrassed and want to pronounce it "You-Ra-Nus" that's fine with me. The only thing that gets my goat is that those people are now trying to claim that it's that original, correct pronunciation when the evidence does not support it and those of us who are older remember when there was no debate and the clear pronunciation was "Yur-Ay-Nus". FillsHerTease (talk) 10:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't really understand what your problem is. The article currently says that astronomers prefer the Latinate pronunciation, which is true. It also says the "Anglo-Latin" pronunciation is considered acceptable. So what do you want? An assertion that "U-RAY-nus is the "right" pronunciation? If so, you need a source for that. Serendi^podous 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I am simply contributing to a debate that was started by someone else. As that person rightly pointed out, the suggestion that the "Anglo-Latin" pronunciation is a colloquialism implies that it "...is incorrect, linguistically speaking...". They then go on to say that "This section could stand to be more neutrally worded, currently it seems to suggest that the neologism is the only valid pronunciation, and the traditional and far more widespread variant somehow inferior". A debate then ensued and I am simply adding my argument. As I said at the end of my last posting, what "...gets my goat is that those people are now trying to claim that [the neologism is the] original, correct pronunciation...". To put it another way, in my opinion the sequence of events was:

1. The planet was named Uranus, which was originally pronounced "Yur-Ay-Nus" in English.

2. Time went by and at some point people - for reasons of embarrassment and so forth - started to pronounce the word "You-Ra-Nus".

3. Astronomers, because they have to say the word more frequently, adopted the 'new' pronunciation.

4. This debate started.

Aside from the fact that those of us who are pronouncing the word correctly are being told that we're wrong, the primary concern of myself and others is that history is now being rewritten; al la 1984. Not only do people want to pronounce the word "You-Ra-Nus" which - as I've said all along - is fine by me, but they now seem determined to change history and call the correct pronunciation a colloquialism, when in fact it is the other way around completely. So ... my objection is to the rewriting of history and I'm sure you would agree that - if that IS what is happening - it would be a bad thing? The problem, of course, is that we don't know - with certainty - how the word was originally pronounced in English, thus the debate. You're asking me for a source but there is no source for the claim that the "Yur-Ay-Nus" pronunciation is a colloquialism and, as such, it should be removed as per the original point made at the start of this debate? FillsHerTease (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

That's as may be, but it's not our job to dictate these things. We need reliable sources. You want to make your case? Find a source that backs you up. Serendi^podous 12:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm ... well ... I take your point - thank you - however the article currently says "in contrast to the colloquial", after which it proffers the 'Yur-Ay-Nus' pronunciation, but there is no source for the assertion that it is a colloquialism. So ... I would say that it's actually up to you - or someone from your 'side' - to find a source which backs the assertion that 'Yur-Ay-Nus' is a colloquialism. I would simply remove the word 'colloquial' - because it is unsourced - but this is obviously a subject which people have strong feelings about and, as such, it would not be right for me to just delete it; not without reaching a consensus first. I'm not trying to fight here - and everyone has been very polite thus far, which we should maintain if we can - so I think it would be better for me to suggest that I will remove the word in, say, 3 weeks if no one on your 'side' has found a source to back the use of the word colloquial. Does that sound fair enough? Let me know. Oh and Merry Christmas! :-) FillsHerTease (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)