Talk:Cleared the neighbourhood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Programmatic Issue

I'm not sure where to report this, maybe one could guide it along the correct channels: To sort the list after values with 10x^6 and 5.6 is not only faulty and confusing but renders it as a tool useless. The Javascript sorting-code should be fixed to accept values with exponents (be it base 2, e, 10 or any other) and real-number points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GENtLe (talk • contribs) 23:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stern's use of "clearing the neighbourhood"

Has Stern himself used this term in his papers? From everything I've read by him he supports the concept but think's the IAU definition has lousy wording. If he hasn't, this needs to be made clear in the article. The Enlightened 05:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Stern/Levison paper from 2002 used four slightly different versions of the phrase. All four were quoted in an earlier version of this article. Perhaps they should be put back in. See /Archive 1#Origin of the phrase, and what to do about Stern, above. 64.122.41.167 05:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] graffiti

I'm not sure where to put this, but there seems to be an extraneous bit of information on the page with the line "HE WAS BORN IN MICHIGAN IN 1946" near the top of the page.

24.159.236.28 06:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Mentor397

[edit] What are the cleanup tags actually asking for?

This article is accumilating various pastel-shaded boxes at the top that request work be done, but I can't easily tell exactly what it is that's wrong with the article. Why does this article need the attention of an expert? What sort of information on this subject would be "more general"? Which bits of the article are confusing to some readers? Bryan Derksen 17:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

From the edit history:

  • {generalize} added 11th April by User:Wassermann "Please generalize for lay readers"
  • {confusing} Added Sept 2006 by User:JianLi, no reason given.
  • {expert-portal|Astronomy} Has been there from day 1, seems abundantly satisfied by now. PaddyLeahy 14:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm taking out the confusing and expert tags, in that case. As for generalizing, I'm still not sure what can be done about that. The subject isn't a general one. Bryan Derksen 17:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Probably not clear from the first few sentences of the intro what it was about; I have rewritten. I hope you also don't mind that I've renamed this to cleared the neighbourhood - this is the far more common term, it's what the definition refers to; the process of "clearing the neighbourhood" is not really given much discussion in the article anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri (talk • contribs) 16:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Use of ΛE

As written, the article notes that bodies with a Stern-Levinson parameter Λ > 1 have "cleared a substantial fraction of small bodies out of [their] orbital neighborhood[s]", and implicitly those bodies with Λ < 1 have not "cleared the neighbourhood." Yet the table lists values of Λ normalized to the value for Earth, although the cited Soter article lists the actual (approximate) values for Λ in Table 1. To me, this seems like a disconnect between the text of the article and the table, and confusing for the lay reader. I would rather just be able to see at a glance whether the Stern-Levinson parameter for a body is less than or greater than 1, which is the important distinction, rather than the value of the parameter relative to Earth's value. This is why I added a note giving the value of ΛE and the values of Λ for the other 10 bodies relative to 1. Can someone explain why the table in this article (and associated tables in related articles) uses Λ/ΛE, rather than simply Λ? Spiderboy12 14:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


Perhaps this is in order to make the article more clear for the casual reader? Even if they are unfamiliar with this concept and just want to do some light reading, Λ/ΛE gives a frame of reference for this value, as opposed to some arbitrary number that they know little about. 204.85.24.5 (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naming

This name is a bit cnfusing if you don't know what it should be about. A correct name should have "". Nergaal (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] K?

Okay, this article has now been around a while. Re this part:

where k is approximately constant

...will someone please take the time to define k? Or has IAU become a secret society and this is a secret that we're not allowed to know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.4.13.72 (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)