User talk:Renerpho
Nicely done although a full on prize requires that you take the photo yourself (the approach I had in mind here was waiting for 2028 and then going after it with one of those remotely operated telescopes). It certainly gets you an Honourable mention mind. Been a bit of a year for people knocking things off the list and 2006 RH120 is the third space based one to go (although in the case of Kosmos 482 its because it probably no longer exists).©Geni (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2026 (UTC) Reply
- @Geni: Hehe, no problem! I take the honorable mention. Happy to knock it off the list. I think it would have been too faint (peaking at 23 mag, not within reach of any remotely operated telescopes) during its 2028 approach.
- As a bonus, there are some additional observations from 2006 that were uncovered in the process of making this, which extend the arc of 2006 RH120 back by a few days -- to be published in the coming days, hopefully. That should make predictions of its future position a bit more accurate (it is strongly affected by non-gravitational forces). Renerpho (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2026 (UTC) Reply
I felt I should add my two cents, since no one responded to it. My feeling is that Marsden's opinion is not relevant, as nothing came of it, other than Clyde Tombaugh being seriously offended. Marsden voiced his opinion numerous times before the 2006 debate, and as far as I can tell had little to do with the reclassification itself. Serendi pod ous 22:04, 5 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- @Serendipodous: It certainly helped shape the public perception of it, and explains why some people got so angry when the reclassification finally happened. Renerpho (talk) 08:50, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- @Renerpho: I think Alan Stern has done the most to keep the flame of planet Pluto. and the rage at its snuffing, alive. Brian Marsden died 16 years ago, and his role in the story is only known to the minuscule minority who study it in depth. Serendi pod ous 09:08, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Yes, that's the point. Marsden had a big influence on how this was reported in the media in 2006, and that is mostly forgotten today (or overshadowed by Stern, if you will). Renerpho (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- @Serendipodous: Archiving it was okay. I was merely asking to make sure that there wasn't a reason not to mention this in the article, and nobody came forward with anything; so I presume the edit I linked to in the talk page post was fine. Renerpho (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- @Renerpho: I think Alan Stern has done the most to keep the flame of planet Pluto. and the rage at its snuffing, alive. Brian Marsden died 16 years ago, and his role in the story is only known to the minuscule minority who study it in depth. Serendi pod ous 09:08, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(181902) 1999 RD215 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.I have undone your removal and marked the award as "Nominated". Softlavender (talk) 02:18, 18 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- @Softlavender: Alright -- could you also add a reference for the nomination, please? The remaining unreferenced items are what is holding back Sam Neill from being posted in the recent deaths section on the main page. Renerpho (talk) 02:22, 18 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- You're welcome to do that yourself. Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 18 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- @Softlavender: No, that's not how it works. The WP:BURDEN of proof lies on whoever wants to have material included in an article, not on the person who questions it. I have tagged it as "citation needed", per WP:PROVEIT, but I am not going to give it much time as I have doubts that the material is verifiable. Renerpho (talk) 02:45, 18 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- You're welcome to do that yourself. Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 18 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
Thank you for your thoughtful edit summary on reverting the change I had made. I see exactly what you mean, and while my version was "right" in a way, I agree that it was "more right" before I got there. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:46, 19 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
Hi! I just finished revamping the article for 52246 Donaldjohanson. Before I nominate it for GA, mind if you review the article for any potential issues? Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 18:38, 19 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- @Nrco0e: Maybe tomorrow :) Renerpho (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- @Nrco0e: Well, that was fun. I'm done for tonight, and I don't know if I'll find time/energy tomorrow to return to it (having minor surgery that might prevent me from editing much). I'll check out the peer review page again as soon as I can. Renerpho (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Thank you so much for the review! It's certainly above and beyond what most peer reviews get on Wikipedia. Good luck with your surgery too! Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 23:31, 22 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- @Nrco0e: Well, that was fun. I'm done for tonight, and I don't know if I'll find time/energy tomorrow to return to it (having minor surgery that might prevent me from editing much). I'll check out the peer review page again as soon as I can. Renerpho (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
On 19 July 2026, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Sam Neill , which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer T• C 21:03, 19 July 2026 (UTC) Reply