Talk:Astronomers to vote on potential new planets

Active discussions
  • Looks good enough to publish for my tastes (which might be questionable) --SVTCobra 23:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Listen, I am not an astronomer . . . there's a lot of the technical stuff I couldn't properly proof-read. Probably some regular mistakes too. Truth be told, I didn't spend too much time on it, beyond reading the space.com article and doing some glancing comparisons. But I did publish this article because I felt it could not just be left in Development and Collaboration limbo. It is already the 17th (UTC) and I feel that news by definition has to be timely. --SVTCobra 01:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I left the article unpublished because I wanted some proofreading of my English first, so if you didn't find any, thank you for being bold!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Talk) 10:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that there were enough people to have read it and made their little corrections that it was probably ok. --SVTCobra 13:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit protectedEdit

{{editprotected}} Please change 2003UB313 to 2003 UB313: see en.wiki article on 2003 UB313, now Eris. 220.255.2.154 (talk) 11:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

  Not done due to archive conventions. — μchip08 23:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Return to "Astronomers to vote on potential new planets" page.