1541:
1640:
that, I don't think I would personally bother sourcing any of these, even if they may technically be WP:RS. All of them are just citing the pre-print anyway and the pre-print will eventually pass peer review, and is less likely to be a dead link in 10 years than the random science interest sites. So, if it were me, I'd either 1) cite the pre-print directly, as the likelihood of it being rejected in peer review is incredibly low and anyway the articles in question are citing the same information, forcing a retraction by WP in either case or 2) wait until it passes peer review and then cite it.
442:
578:
257:
433:
506:
475:
290:
676:
390:
311:
227:
602:
516:
1070:
looking at in 2018'”, but I'm pretty sure the author misunderstood Green. I've seen Mike Brown explain multiple times on
Twitter that JWST's small field-of-view makes it worthless for finding Planet Nine, but if and when it is found by some wide-angle telescope like Subaru or Rubin, then a top priority will be pointing JWST at it to get a better look.
1639:
Hi there, I actually found out about this precisely because there are a lot of secondary sources reporting on it (I'll include a few here for the purposes of discussion, but if you search for "Planet Nine" on Google with the time criteria set to "within the last month", you'll find many). Having said
1455:
some image and video materials on IPAC public web sites are owned by organizations other than
Caltech, JPL, or NASA. These owners have agreed to make their images and video available for journalistic, educational, and personal uses, but restrictions are placed on commercial uses. To obtain permission
1698:
That's actually great then. Seems like the primary is getting plenty of secondary references; atp I think it's good as a source for the article. Id say find the references of highest journalistic quality and then either start adding to the article or post them here for another to add (I am more than
1537:
I fall back on my original reasoning. It's a pitch black blob. I'm fairly sure Planet Nine is not a pitch black blob. From the position of the sun we'd expect to see a significant crescent (and maybe a hint of atmosphere) so even by its own limited standard this is not an accurate representation of
777:
The sentence was added back in '18 when it seemed like there was going to be a short search and then BAM it got found. Clearly, three years later, we're still waiting, so I would have no issue with removing the statement. If and when an observation is announced, we can obviously update the article.
1371:
if it’s been discussed since 2016, then I think that helps to make my point, that it is is not obviously encyclopedic. A black disc against an unlikely background of stars could be an image of anything – planet Zog or the Death Star. Put it like this – it’s unreferenced and just something somebody
1600:
We present a search for Planet Nine using the second data release of the Pan-STARRS1 survey. We rule out the existence of a Planet Nine with the characteristics of that predicted in Brown & Batygin (2021) to a 50% completion depth of V = 21.5. This survey, along with previous analyses of the
1069:
says "Jim Green, director of NASA’s
Planetary Science Division ... is optimistic that if Planet X is out there, NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope, expected to launch into space in 2018, could find it. The large infrared telescope is Hubble’s successor. 'If these guys are right, we’re going to be
1192:
that surprisingly finds that the MOND gravity model could explain the observed clustering. The clustering would be the effect not of a planet but of the galactic core under a revised model of gravity. Once this paper is published somewhere, I think it definitely needs to be added to the article
855:-- The source for this is from 2017, so this is almost certainly outdated. I suggest to either update (with the results of their search), rephrase (use past tense), or remove the sentence as irrelevant (do we really care what some students planned to maybe do, but didn't, half a decade ago?).
1356:
We've been having discussions about the infobox image since 2016, and so far consensus has held to use the current image (or to be pedantic, there has not been a consensus to change the image). I don't particularly have an opinion on the substance of the question, but it shouldn't be removed
1560:
This is a mountain of a molehill. A black blob is hyperbole. We will have nothing for decades or more to represent Planet 9 accurately, if ever. I rather like the obscurity, because it emphasizes the enigma that its appearance is unknown, and it remains elusive and difficult to detect. It's
1620:
This sounds like good info and the preprint is solid but I don’t think it counts as a reliable secondary source yet. If you can find something else that cites it, that might be a stronger reference. Either way this is definitely relevant to the article and should probably be included.
1169:
So what's next? Together w/ Gabe
Pichierri, a postdoc in my group at @Caltech, we are working on the next generation of P9 models with an eye towards the wealth of data soon to come from Vera Rubin Obs. While I won't share specifics yet, exciting results are on the horizon.
688:
1561:
appearance is all speculation. A blue blob, a highly detailed red blob, it doesn't matter. None of it will be correct, and it's possible Planet 9 doesn't exist. Change it back to the original image if you prefer, but it too, is a black blob that I'm perfectly happy with.
1112:
This is a hypothesis discrete from Planet Nine. While it's similar in that it's a hypothesized planet beyond
Neptune explaining the orbits of objects like Sedna, it's different enough that it's considered a hypothesis entirely separate. See the last paragraph on page 3.
1434:
By the way, if the image has actually been discussed since 2016, and has not been removed, that shows it's not obviously UNencyclopedic, otherwise it would be long gone. That's why I asked for a link to the discussion at the FAC, which I haven't been able to find.
1414:
However, if this file will in fact be uploaded to
Commons and used here as lead image, I would like to wipe out the bright clouds on the night side shown there, as long as the article does not mention any serious theories presuming the existence of such clouds. --
1456:
for commercial use, contact the copyright owner listed in each image caption and/or credit. Ownership of images and video by parties other than
Caltech, JPL, and NASA is noted in the caption material and/or image credit with each image.
1540:
1823:
1475:
727:, with two citations given for this - one from 2017, one from 2018. How are these citations relevant for the claim? Of course it's true that no observations of P9 were announced, but the references seem to be out of place.
1174:
Probably predictions what exactly Vera Rubin's limits should be, and how likely it is to find P9 (if it exists). We have something to look forward to in the coming months, and in anticipation of first light at Vera Rubin!
1649:
There's precedent on this article for citing pre-prints btw. B&B papers on this subject don't generally get rejected and this one isn't making any bombshell claims (fundamentally, it's still "We haven't found Planet
928:
900:
824:
153:
886:
I couldn't find published results in my search, but maybe somebody else could. We should not assume they completed these tasks. I recommend deleting this sentence if a published result is not found.
1310:
weird planet made of vantablack? Speculation - I’m pretty sure Brown didn’t say it looked like this! Also, totally uninformative and i encyclopaedic. What are readers to gain from this black blob?
1209:
That Brown&Mathur paper, which was uploaded to Arxiv in April, has to share the credit with
Migaszewski's, which was accepted for publication in MNRAS in July and uploaded to Arxiv in March.
1334:
seem to include any discussion of the image. FAC2 mentions it in a single sentence, no discussion (just saying "it seems fine"), nothing that addresses
Andyjsmith's rationale to remove it.
1763:
1341:
I don't know if I agree with
Andyjsmith, but an unencyclopedic image is certainly a good reason for removal, and we often shy away from using artistic impressions for that very reason.
742:
I think I may have said a long while ago this is pointless as of course until it has been seen its not been seen. I do not think we need this, as it will need to be updated every month.
446:
1671:
1601:
Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF) and Dark Energy Survey (DES) data, rules out 78% of the Brown & Batygin parameter space. Much of the remaining parameter space is at V : -->
853:
they will offset the images to account for the calculated motion of Planet Nine, allowing many faint images of a faint moving object to be combined to produce a brighter image.
1793:
1758:
1131:
should be operational by late 2024. Wait until it has collected data for a few years, then ask again. Brown himself has said that this was the ultimate test of the hypothesis.
924:
669:
1053:
I see some Feb 2023 articles suggesting that it may be possible to search for heat signatures of P9 satellites. Is this worth adding? What about the proposed JWST survey?
896:
820:
218:
1135:
568:
1331:
1327:
377:
358:
271:
1581:
There is an arXiv pre-print published January 31st 2024 giving new information on the search, some of which has already been reported in the popular astronomy press.
147:
1510:
Well, it's useful to say that is an artists impression, and the article should have a lead image. If not this one then we should discuss replacing it with another.
895:
I'd even go as far as to suggest to remove the whole article. This is all WAY too speculative to warrant such a long article for something nobody ever observed ...
1274:
611:
489:
1538:
anything. I got DALL-E to create a fairly rubbish image that makes my point. I couldn't get the sun far enough away, which would have made the crescent bigger.
1813:
1783:
918:
904:
828:
1798:
1134:
It looks to me like the interest in the search for P9 has decreased considerably, and only Rubin can really change things right now. To quote Brown again (
932:
296:
712:
1818:
1718:
1672:
https://www.livescience.com/space/planets/astronomers-narrow-down-where-planet-nine-could-be-hiding-by-playing-massive-game-of-connect-the-dots
946:
1833:
616:
406:
1390:, which seems to be the original source of the image under discussion. Frankly it's far better - actually looks like a planet. It's used by
1233:
So, I'm kind of busy with school and work. Is there a volunteer who will update the article with the MOND theory? This seems important.
923:
I am not entirely convinced. We can see numerous suns all over the place, yet nobody could detect "Planet Nine". That seems weird to me.
1431:
I don't see an indication that Hurt's image isn't copyrighted. That it's used by others doesn't help if NASA isn't the original creator.
819:
I think it is very problematic. Right now this is "vaporware" - without verification I am not even sure it should be part of wikipedia.
1808:
587:
558:
485:
79:
1739:
1778:
700:
1132:
879:
772:
751:
1788:
1828:
1768:
1391:
890:
814:
800:
787:
85:
1803:
1753:
226:
1708:
1693:
1630:
966:
168:
1098:
909:
Couldn't disagree more. The scientists studying these phenomena know much more than us and the sources are high quality.
44:
135:
1661:
1576:
846:
30:
1270:
1614:
1066:
654:
1838:
1773:
1704:
1626:
1122:
1335:
1257:
1254:
1212:
Quote from Brown&Mathur: "Accepted at the Astronomical Journal. Complementary to the findings of Migaszewski"
1528:
1514:
529:
480:
99:
1505:
1278:
796:
They are named references and may be needed elsewhere. I suggest removing them to the {reflist} at the bottom.
1035:
104:
20:
1555:
1487:
1444:
1407:
1381:
1312:
1020:
1666:
1570:
1424:
1394:
and plenty of news media, with credits to "Caltech/R. Hurt (IPAC)" - that's a proper astronomer with his own
1294:
1223:
1197:
1079:
1057:
1048:
129:
74:
1478:, which lists both a "variant" of the original image and a link to the original image deletion discussion).
1467:
1366:
1184:
1160:
Konstantin Batygin has just posted a thread on Twitter/X where he discusses the new Lykawka & Ito paper,
849:, are also examining archived data using a technique that combines images taken at different times. Using a
455:
1700:
1622:
736:
266:
65:
1496:
I have to say, as we do not even know it exists I am unsure if any artist's impression is encyclopedic.
1350:
1322:
864:
125:
996:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
185:
1128:
649:
1300:
1735:
1458:
Does that apply to Robert Hurt, who represents IPAC? If not then we could probably use that image.
1395:
1106:
175:
1089:
953:
That something was written by an expert is not a reason to mention it in a Knowledge article. See
1387:
1338:
doesn't mention it either. If I miss where the discussion took place then please point me to it.
1213:
1101:
679:
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between
432:
256:
109:
1252:
An alternative “flavor” of the Planet Nine hypothesis that Brown concedes is that it’s actually
1524:
1501:
1237:
1010:
875:
747:
1147:
978:
962:
942:
461:
289:
276:
1551:
1403:
1377:
1118:
400:
339:
1602:
21 in regions near and in the area where the northern galactic plane crosses the ecliptic.
1285:
Simply another iteration of a trans-Neptunian planet hypothesis, of which there are many.
1164:
1161:
8:
1731:
1566:
914:
763:
I agree, it is pointless. Any objections to removing the sentence altogether? Jehochman?
592:
370:
351:
332:
141:
55:
1476:
commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Planet-Nine-in-Outer-Space-artistic-depiction.jpg
1016:
This is a serious question. The article needs an update about recent efforts (perhaps).
1720:
1689:
1610:
1483:
1463:
1440:
1362:
1346:
1290:
1219:
1180:
1143:
1093:
1075:
1031:
992:
860:
810:
783:
768:
732:
718:
708:
70:
1520:
1497:
1450:
1420:
937:
Suns emit light, so they are easier to see than planets, which only reflect light. --
871:
838:
758:
743:
280:
51:
1662:
https://www.universetoday.com/165774/theres-one-last-place-planet-9-could-be-hiding/
389:
310:
1043:
983:
New aticle on arxiv shows that many of the eTNOs are affected by Neptune resonaces
958:
938:
692:
521:
161:
1547:
1399:
1373:
1305:
1114:
1824:
Pages within the scope of WikiProject Astronomical objects (WP Astronomy Banner)
1562:
1511:
1315:
1234:
1204:
1194:
1155:
1054:
1039:
1017:
1007:
910:
887:
797:
577:
985:
Orbital dynamics landscape near the most distant known trans-Neptunian objects
237:
1747:
1685:
1606:
1479:
1459:
1436:
1358:
1342:
1286:
1215:
1176:
1139:
1071:
1027:
988:
856:
850:
806:
779:
764:
728:
704:
1416:
1001:
954:
1667:
https://www.independent.co.uk/space/nine-planet-solar-system-b2500389.html
1453:, most of their images are released under a free license. However, quote,
805:
Done. I removed "Perdelwitz_etal_2018", as it was not used anywhere else.
24:
242:
1585:
1264:
1210:
1190:
241:
1474:
No can do, unfortunately, as it's already been tried and deleted (see
725:
As of November 2021, no observation of Planet Nine had been announced
534:
394:
1308:
has recently removed the image from the infobox, with the rationale
675:
1724:
1590:
1398:. IMHO we should replace the current image with this original one.
1006:
Is anyone’s still searching for Planet Nine or have they given up?
984:
239:
1193:
because it’s a major new explanation for the observed phenomena.
505:
474:
1684:
There are many more of these, of varying journalistic quality.
393:
A news item involving this article was featured on Knowledge's
845:
Michael Medford and Danny Goldstein, graduate students at the
601:
243:
1163:
and announces that he is working on a new Planet Nine paper:
1764:
Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
659:
1062:
What are you referring to as "the proposed JWST survey"?
160:
1794:
Knowledge level-5 vital articles in Physical sciences
1759:
Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
670:
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
511:
15:
295:This article appeared on Knowledge's Main Page as
1745:
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
1320:This image was carefully discussed during FAC.
1025:Still ongoing. Just no paper on it recently.
1814:FA-Class Astronomy articles of Top-importance
1784:Knowledge vital articles in Physical sciences
174:
1799:FA-Class vital articles in Physical sciences
1138:): Things happen slowly in the Kuiper belt.
591:, which collaborates on articles related to
533:, which collaborates on articles related to
279:. Even so, if you can update or improve it,
275:as one of the best articles produced by the
269:; it (or a previous version of it) has been
1519:Why should it have one, is that a policy?
701:Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment
1539:
430:
1260:a much bigger, much more distant planet
925:2A02:8388:1600:A200:CCD4:74A1:3FC0:A532
699:Above undated message substituted from
1819:FA-Class Astronomical objects articles
1746:
897:2A02:8388:1600:A200:891:599B:CAEB:E16C
821:2A02:8388:1600:A200:891:599B:CAEB:E16C
1336:Talk:Planet Nine/Archive 6#Image help
1834:Top-importance Solar System articles
1586:A Pan-STARRS1 Search for Planet Nine
527:This article is within the scope of
426:
1090:Patryk Lakawka has a new paper out.
460:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
13:
847:University of California, Berkeley
684:
680:
600:
576:
14:
1850:
1809:Top-importance Astronomy articles
1779:Knowledge level-5 vital articles
687:. Further details are available
674:
588:WikiProject Astronomical objects
514:
504:
473:
440:
431:
388:
309:
288:
255:
225:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
1789:FA-Class level-5 vital articles
1577:New paper on Planet Nine search
870:It all should be in past tense.
563:This article has been rated as
543:Knowledge:WikiProject Astronomy
1829:FA-Class Solar System articles
1769:Knowledge In the news articles
1224:06:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
1198:00:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
1185:07:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
546:Template:WikiProject Astronomy
1:
1571:01:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
1556:16:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
1529:15:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
1515:15:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
1506:12:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
1488:13:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
1468:11:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
1445:11:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
1425:12:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
1408:11:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
1382:09:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
1367:09:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
1351:03:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
1148:22:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
1123:15:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
1107:19:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
919:02:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
905:22:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
891:00:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
880:13:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
865:12:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
829:22:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
609:This article is supported by
585:This article is supported by
42:Put new text under old text.
815:11:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
801:11:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
788:12:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
773:11:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
752:10:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
737:10:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
713:02:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
7:
1804:FA-Class Astronomy articles
1754:Knowledge featured articles
1238:02:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
1080:00:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
1058:10:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
1049:10:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
1021:10:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
1011:10:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
967:03:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
947:03:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
933:19:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
50:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
10:
1855:
1740:15:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
1709:12:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
1694:02:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
1631:16:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
1544:Image for Talk:Planet_Nine
1295:06:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
1279:05:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
1245:which theory is the below?
997:14:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
569:project's importance scale
378:Featured article candidate
359:Featured article candidate
1699:willing if you are not)!
1615:05:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
1449:Regarding copyright: Per
1267:some 3.2 lightyears away.
1263:sitting somewhere in the
1189:There’s also a new paper
1129:Vera C. Rubin Observatory
608:
584:
562:
499:
468:
413:
387:
307:
303:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
1167:
297:Today's featured article
1839:Solar System task force
1774:FA-Class vital articles
1451:IPAC's Image Use Policy
1326:Was it though? Neither
612:Solar System task force
1701:OverzealousAutocorrect
1623:OverzealousAutocorrect
1545:
1269:
605:
581:
75:avoid personal attacks
1543:
1314:This was reverted by
1250:
691:. Student editor(s):
604:
580:
530:WikiProject Astronomy
447:level-5 vital article
219:Auto-archiving period
100:Neutral point of view
593:astronomical objects
486:Astronomical objects
340:Good article nominee
105:No original research
1301:Artist's impression
277:Knowledge community
1546:
979:Neptune resonances
843:The article says:
689:on the course page
606:
582:
549:Astronomy articles
456:content assessment
315:Article milestones
86:dispute resolution
47:
667:
666:
631:
630:
627:
626:
623:
622:
425:
424:
421:
420:
371:February 28, 2019
352:December 22, 2018
299:on April 9, 2019.
250:
249:
66:Assume good faith
43:
1846:
1727:accepted in ApJL
1372:made up one day.
1318:, claiming that
1261:
1208:
1159:
1104:
1096:
1047:
762:
715:
686:
682:
678:
639:
638:
551:
550:
547:
544:
541:
524:
522:Astronomy portal
519:
518:
517:
508:
501:
500:
495:
492:
477:
470:
469:
453:
444:
443:
436:
435:
427:
416:Featured article
414:Current status:
407:January 20, 2016
392:
373:
354:
335:
314:
313:
305:
304:
292:
267:featured article
259:
252:
251:
244:
230:
229:
220:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
1854:
1853:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1845:
1844:
1843:
1744:
1743:
1729:
1579:
1303:
1268:
1259:
1202:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1153:
1100:
1094:
1026:
1004:
981:
841:
756:
721:
698:
681:14 January 2019
672:
548:
545:
542:
539:
538:
520:
515:
513:
493:
483:
454:on Knowledge's
451:
441:
369:
350:
331:
308:
246:
245:
240:
217:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
1852:
1842:
1841:
1836:
1831:
1826:
1821:
1816:
1811:
1806:
1801:
1796:
1791:
1786:
1781:
1776:
1771:
1766:
1761:
1756:
1732:Headbomb (alt)
1728:
1717:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1669:
1664:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1641:
1634:
1633:
1604:
1603:
1594:
1593:
1588:
1578:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1558:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1432:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1384:
1357:unilaterally.
1302:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1282:
1281:
1256:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1168:
1166:
1126:
1125:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1063:
1023:
1003:
1000:
980:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
951:
950:
949:
883:
882:
840:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
723:The lead says
720:
717:
671:
668:
665:
664:
663:
662:
660:External links
657:
652:
644:
643:
636:
633:
629:
628:
625:
624:
621:
620:
617:Top-importance
607:
597:
596:
583:
573:
572:
565:Top-importance
561:
555:
554:
552:
526:
525:
509:
497:
496:
494:Top‑importance
478:
466:
465:
459:
437:
423:
422:
419:
418:
411:
410:
385:
384:
381:
374:
366:
365:
362:
355:
347:
346:
343:
336:
328:
327:
324:
321:
317:
316:
301:
300:
293:
285:
284:
260:
248:
247:
238:
236:
235:
232:
231:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1851:
1840:
1837:
1835:
1832:
1830:
1827:
1825:
1822:
1820:
1817:
1815:
1812:
1810:
1807:
1805:
1802:
1800:
1797:
1795:
1792:
1790:
1787:
1785:
1782:
1780:
1777:
1775:
1772:
1770:
1767:
1765:
1762:
1760:
1757:
1755:
1752:
1751:
1749:
1742:
1741:
1737:
1733:
1726:
1722:
1710:
1706:
1702:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1691:
1687:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1673:
1670:
1668:
1665:
1663:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1648:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1635:
1632:
1628:
1624:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1612:
1608:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1592:
1589:
1587:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1572:
1568:
1564:
1559:
1557:
1553:
1549:
1542:
1536:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1513:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1503:
1499:
1495:
1489:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1452:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1442:
1438:
1433:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1386:I just found
1385:
1383:
1379:
1375:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1339:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1324:
1323:
1321:
1317:
1313:
1311:
1307:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1283:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1266:
1262:
1255:
1253:
1249:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1236:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1214:
1211:
1206:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1196:
1191:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1165:
1162:
1157:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1130:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1105:
1103:
1099:
1097:
1091:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1068:
1064:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1056:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1024:
1022:
1019:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1009:
999:
998:
994:
990:
986:
968:
964:
960:
956:
952:
948:
944:
940:
936:
935:
934:
930:
926:
922:
921:
920:
916:
912:
908:
907:
906:
902:
898:
894:
893:
892:
889:
885:
884:
881:
877:
873:
869:
868:
867:
866:
862:
858:
854:
852:
851:supercomputer
848:
830:
826:
822:
818:
817:
816:
812:
808:
804:
803:
802:
799:
795:
789:
785:
781:
776:
775:
774:
770:
766:
760:
755:
754:
753:
749:
745:
741:
740:
739:
738:
734:
730:
726:
716:
714:
710:
706:
702:
696:
694:
690:
677:
661:
658:
656:
653:
651:
648:
647:
646:
645:
641:
640:
637:
634:
618:
615:(assessed as
614:
613:
603:
599:
598:
594:
590:
589:
579:
575:
574:
570:
566:
560:
557:
556:
553:
537:on Knowledge.
536:
532:
531:
523:
512:
510:
507:
503:
502:
498:
491:
487:
482:
479:
476:
472:
471:
467:
463:
457:
449:
448:
438:
434:
429:
428:
417:
412:
408:
404:
402:
396:
391:
386:
382:
380:
379:
375:
372:
368:
367:
363:
361:
360:
356:
353:
349:
348:
344:
342:
341:
337:
334:
333:July 29, 2016
330:
329:
325:
322:
319:
318:
312:
306:
302:
298:
294:
291:
287:
286:
282:
278:
274:
273:
268:
264:
261:
258:
254:
253:
234:
233:
228:
224:
216:
212:
208:
204:
200:
196:
192:
189:
187:
183:
182:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
1730:
1605:
1595:
1580:
1521:Slatersteven
1498:Slatersteven
1454:
1340:
1325:
1319:
1309:
1304:
1251:
1232:
1127:
1092:
1088:
1005:
982:
872:Slatersteven
844:
842:
759:Slatersteven
744:Slatersteven
724:
722:
697:
673:
655:Citation bot
635:
632:
610:
586:
564:
528:
490:Solar System
462:WikiProjects
445:
415:
398:
376:
364:Not promoted
357:
338:
281:please do so
270:
262:
222:
184:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
1271:1.38.103.24
959:Hob Gadling
939:Hob Gadling
693:Aaronfawley
401:In the news
263:Planet Nine
148:free images
31:not a forum
25:Planet Nine
1748:Categories
1725:2404.11594
1719:New paper
1596:Abstract:
1591:arXiv link
1548:Andyjsmith
1400:Andyjsmith
1396:WP article
1374:Andyjsmith
1306:Andyjsmith
1265:Oort Cloud
1115:134340Goat
1067:one source
719:References
685:8 May 2019
405:column on
272:identified
1563:Leitmotiv
1512:Jehochman
1316:Jehochman
1235:Jehochman
1205:Jehochman
1195:Jehochman
1156:Jehochman
1055:Jehochman
1018:Jehochman
1008:Jehochman
1002:Giving up
911:Leitmotiv
888:Jehochman
839:Outdated?
798:Jehochman
540:Astronomy
535:Astronomy
481:Astronomy
450:is rated
395:Main Page
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
1686:Eniagrom
1607:Eniagrom
1480:Primefac
1460:Renerpho
1437:Renerpho
1359:Primefac
1343:Renerpho
1287:ArkHyena
1216:Renerpho
1177:Renerpho
1140:Renerpho
1072:Birdfern
1028:Headbomb
989:Agmartin
857:Renerpho
807:Renerpho
780:Primefac
765:Renerpho
729:Renerpho
705:PrimeBOT
650:Analysis
452:FA-class
383:Promoted
186:Archives
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
1650:Nine").
1417:Karl432
1095:Serendi
642:Toolbox
567:on the
397:in the
323:Process
223:60Â days
154:WPÂ refs
142:scholar
1065:I see
458:scale.
345:Listed
326:Result
126:Google
1721:arXiv
955:WP:RS
439:This
265:is a
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
1736:talk
1705:talk
1690:talk
1627:talk
1611:talk
1567:talk
1552:talk
1525:talk
1502:talk
1484:talk
1464:talk
1441:talk
1421:talk
1404:talk
1392:NASA
1388:this
1378:talk
1363:talk
1347:talk
1332:FAC2
1330:nor
1328:FAC1
1291:talk
1275:talk
1220:talk
1181:talk
1144:talk
1119:talk
1076:talk
993:talk
963:talk
957:. --
943:talk
929:talk
915:talk
901:talk
876:talk
861:talk
825:talk
811:talk
784:talk
769:talk
748:talk
733:talk
709:talk
683:and
320:Date
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
1102:ous
703:by
559:Top
176:TWL
1750::
1738:)
1707:)
1692:)
1629:)
1613:)
1569:)
1554:)
1527:)
1504:)
1486:)
1466:)
1443:)
1423:)
1406:)
1380:)
1365:)
1349:)
1293:)
1277:)
1258:—
1222:)
1183:)
1146:)
1121:)
1078:)
1042:·
1038:·
1034:·
995:)
987:.
965:)
945:)
931:)
917:)
903:)
878:)
863:)
827:)
813:)
786:)
771:)
750:)
735:)
711:)
695:.
619:).
488:/
484::
221::
213:,
209:,
205:,
201:,
197:,
193:,
156:)
54:;
1734:(
1723::
1703:(
1688:(
1625:(
1609:(
1565:(
1550:(
1523:(
1500:(
1482:(
1462:(
1439:(
1419:(
1402:(
1376:(
1361:(
1345:(
1289:(
1273:(
1218:(
1207::
1203:@
1179:(
1158::
1154:@
1142:(
1136:?
1117:(
1074:(
1046:}
1044:b
1040:p
1036:c
1032:t
1030:{
991:(
961:(
941:(
927:(
913:(
899:(
874:(
859:(
823:(
809:(
782:(
767:(
761::
757:@
746:(
731:(
707:(
595:.
571:.
464::
409:.
403:"
399:"
283:.
215:7
211:6
207:5
203:4
199:3
195:2
191:1
188::
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.