Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

what can Wiki Education Foundation do to help WikiProject Astronomy?

Hi WikiProject Astronomy,

The Wiki Education Foundation wants to know what it can do to empower editors who work on science-related content on Wikipedia.

If you're familiar with Wiki Ed, it's likely by way of our classroom program, which grew out of the Wikipedia Education Program and through which we provide support for instructors and students who work on Wikipedia as part of a class assignment. This post is about something different, though. We'll be continuing to develop that program, of course, but we also want to start working on ways to help the existing Wikipedia community directly.

In 2016, Wiki Ed will be running a campaign tentatively titled, "Wikipedia Year of Science". The goal, generally stated, will be to improve the content and coverage of science-related content on Wikipedia ("science" interpreted loosely). Whereas our classroom program, as with many other extra-organizational initiatives, is premised on attracting and/or training new users, my aim is to figure out the sorts of things we can do to help the editors who are already engaged in the improvement of science content. The question is indeed wide open, but think about it this way: we have staff and a lot of institutional connections; how can we use our resources and relationships to support you? For example, is there a special collection of photos we should try to get on Commons? What about a document archive? Databases or specific journals? Organizationally, is there software that could be built that would help people working on these topics? What kinds of research could we conduct or help to organize that would help you to work more effectively? What are ways we can connect you with other human resources -- experts, for example (though, again, this is not intended to be an outreach program)? How could we motivate people to contribute, whether it be adding content, improving content, conducting reviews, adding images, improving sourcing, or any other part of the process? How can we get more astronomy-related articles to FA/GA? How could we help you to spend more of your time working on things you find fun and interesting and less time on process, organization, and functionary duties?

These questions are really just intended to get the ball rolling as this really is a nascent idea. So all ideas are welcome: big, small, obvious, obscure, ambitious, simple, technical, organizational.... I want to be clear that this is not just some survey -- the feedback I get will help to give shape to the "Year of Science" campaign.

I should also mention that this community engagement program we're starting isn't limited to the Year of Science campaign. Researching and planning it is high on my priority list right now, but we can also talk about shorter- or longer-term projects you may have in mind, too.

Apologies for the long message and thanks for your time. Looking forward to hearing what you think. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 04:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC) (volunteer account: User:Rhododendrites)

Astronomy appears to be one of the better supported areas on Wikipedia. If you look at the list of vital topics, Astronomy is doing very well. But there are a few areas of weakness; one of those is in the area of cosmology. Perhaps more attention is needed for the Physical cosmology article? Cosmic microwave background is an important topic that it would be good to bring up to a GA level. Perhaps another is the Cosmic distance ladder article? Praemonitus (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Need independent fresh eyes on this AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self-creation cosmology.

jps (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Messier 87 vs M87

I am fine with the article being at Messier 87...but what do folks call it most of the time? I've always abbreviated. The reason I ask is that in writing the article what we should call it each time we use the term in the text.....Messier 87 vs M87...input at Talk:Messier_87#Messier_87_vs_M87_and_other_things Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Both are fine, and using both in the article is fine too. No need to pick one. (It should perhaps technically be Messier 87 when at the beginning of the sentence of a sentence isn't supposed to start with an abbreviation.) I more often say M87 in conversation but try to say Messier 87 when speaking to an audience that may not know what Messier objects are. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 02:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem with "M" is that it is frequently used in military weapons, so "Messier" is better terminology for article titles. -- 70.51.46.11 (talk) 05:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Nobody says Messier unless they're trying to make a specific point, or perhaps are incredibly pedantic. M87 in the pub, Messier 87 on its tax return. Lithopsian (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I would say 'Messier 87 (M87)' at first usage, and M87 thereafter (with exceptions for stylistic reasons e.g. first word in a sentence). But both are fine and acceptable. The full version is preferable for article titles because it is less ambiguous. Modest Genius ^talk 18:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I compared the search results for "Messier 87" and M87 on Google Scholar. The predominant usage was M87, but there were plenty of instances of "Messier 87". Even articles labelled one way in the title switched to the other in the body. I would suppose that "Messier 87" is the more formal usage. Praemonitus (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree...but would you personally switch to M87 for the body of the text? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Switching to the abbreviated form seems to be fairly common practice in many science articles. As long as it is clear and unambiguous, I think that is a reasonable practice. Praemonitus (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion about lead image for Earth

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Earth about what the lead image for Earth should be. Images are very subjective, so having more voices to help build consensus will be very useful. Come by to give your preference on the existing candidates or to propose a new candidate (with an explanation for why it is better than the existing candidates). Editors who can make informed comments on astronomical photography will be especially valuable. Thanks! A2soup (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Astronomical Unit at the MOS

This discussion may be of interest to many of you. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Symbol for astronomical units (again). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Ugh, even being 3 kly (did that on purpose) away from the MOS is WAY too close for my liking. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I followed it for a while, but it boiled down to one person with a fetish arguing with a bunch of people trying to come up with sensible policy and template settings. At least one person may now have started on an edit spree changing AU to au. Lithopsian (talk) 10:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

That editor wants it to be mentioned in the MoS. He supports using "AU", but until it is mentioned in the MoS, he will use "au" and (sometimes?) change "AU" to "au". I have just made a proposal there to officially sanction using "AU" on Wikipedia. --JorisvS (talk) 10:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this about me? I will never apologise for preferring symbols that are defined by international standards bodies such as the IAU and the BIPM. JorisvS has summarized my position on use of AU accurately, and I support his proposal at MOSNUM. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dondervogel 2: Making the same change to three different articles which is clearly contrary to consensus in a discussion you are participating in (and are therefore well aware of) is not appears to me to be disrupting to make a point and seems to me like something for which an apology and self-revert might be appropriate. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 13:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ashill: The consensus that I have seen, until very recently has been "There is no need to adopt a single harmonised unit symbol for the astronomical unit on Wikipedia". There is gathering support now for harmonisation, and I will support that process if it leads to a clear choice between AU and au. (I would also support a process that leads to either of AU and au being permitted - what I seek is clarity). Dondervogel 2 (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dondervogel 2: Right. Meaning there's no consensus to change to au. And making any widespread change based on an editor's own opinion while in the midst of an ongoing discussion is not good form, regardless of whether the change appears to be supported by the early !votes. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I will refrain from editing astronomy articles for as long as the discussion at mosnum continues. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Dondervogel2. I agree with Ashill wrt the timing (during discussion). I might add that so long as the consensus remains that either is acceptable, that it is also the consensus that there should be no changing of one to the other (given past circumstances). I still object to your characterization of "au" as "harmonization". It harmonizes nothing. This topic has done nothing but divide and disharmonize the editing community, and I think the present way to harmonize things is to give it a rest. Evensteven (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It is fairly common practice in style guides to use caps for abbreviations that consist of the first letter of a series of words. There are some exceptions, such as for pronounceable abbreviations like 'laser'.[1] I'm not clear why there is so much disagreement over the point. Praemonitus (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

There is an international standard that the abbreviation is in uncapitalized letters. However, common usage goes both ways. The consensus at WP is that either is acceptable usage. The disagreement is therefore about common usage vs official standard. Evensteven (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe the IAU standards were intended for use in comparing results. I.e. for scientific data exchanges. But, as a counter example, it makes little sense to use the IAU standard 'a' for year when you're communicating with a lay reader. Even the IAU admits that 'yr' is frequently used in scientific papers. I don't think those standards should be blindly followed when communication with the public is our goal. Praemonitus (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I agree. More importantly, the editing community has decided not to force compliance. If you'd like to talk more with me, let's take it to my talk page. I think the editing community is tired of this subject. Evensteven (talk) 01:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

61 Cygni is at WP:FAC

• For anyone interested, 61 Cygni is at WP:FAC. • Arch♦Reader 05:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • It looks like it failed, but it is unclear, perhaps no one said it was ready, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/61 Cygni/archive2. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Certainly failed. For now at least. I don't know how these things usually work, but nobody ever said they supported the nomination so it was killed. Presumably the reviewers knew they had to do that and it was a deliberate choice not to rather than just an oversight? Lithopsian (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Usually the way it goes is an article needs a minimum of three supports. If an article stalls for a time then it gets archived, even with one or two supports sometimes. The idea (I guess) is that the process is supposed to be rigorous. Sometimes articles stall for lack of interest and bad luck, and sometimes (I think) reviewers take a look and see that too much needs to be done. I looked a few times - I was happy that the nominator was enthusiastic but found too many things to correct so figured it was going to require too much of an overhaul....and couldn't rustle up the enthusiasm for that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
• As is Eta Carinae....at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eta Carinae/archive1 cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Mars habitability

FYI, there is a notice at WT:WikiProject Mars about the page Draft:Present_day_habitability_of_Mars -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Pluto, the largest (known?) Kuiper belt object

I understood that it is exceedingly unlikely that objects larger than Pluto lay undiscovered in the Kuiper belt, which is supported by note [h] in the Pluto article. However, @WilyD: reverted an edit of mine in which I removed the "known", suggesting that this is wrong pointing to [2]. That article does not support either assertion, AFAIK, only suggesting a few KBOs in the size range of Quaoar and above are yet to be discovered, not saying anything about whether one of these should be expected to be larger than Pluto. It has me wondering nevertheless, how accurate is this statement about Pluto being the largest, without any qualifier, and why precisely? @Kheider, Serendipodous, Drbogdan, Ashill, and A2soup: --JorisvS (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Footnote h in the Pluto article is uncited, but seems to be supported (not contradicted) by the ref provided by WilyD as well as this paper: they estimate a probability that there is one more object with V < 19 to be discovered to be 32%, and the probability that there are two or more such objects to be 10%. I've had trouble finding the R-band magnitude of Pluto, but this source says m(R)=13.65, if I read it right; that means that the cited claim that there ~12 KBOs with m(R) < 19.5 does suggest that we're unlikely to find another object brighter than Pluto. "This suggests that the majority of the brightest KBOs have already been discovered, with perhaps one or two remaining to be found in the galactic plane or southern hemisphere.") I think "known" is probably still a reasonable qualifier to include, but the explanation could be better and adhere more closely to sources. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 13:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I've improved the references and cleaned that up. I added "likely" where "known" was (with a ref from the body of the article); that's stronger than "known" and I think more in line with the probability estimates from the sources. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Those're apparent magnitudes, which is a bit of a concern (Pluto gets pretty close to the Sun, and Solar system apparent mags are R^(-4)). The sky is mostly surveyed, but not as well as high latitudes, and we know shit-all towards the galactic centre. "Probably not" I'd agree with, "Definitely not" I wouldn't. Mike 'n' 'em wouldn't have been searching last year in shallow surveys if it was definite, of course. Brown's paper gives Pluto's V-band magnitude as 14.0, which driven a lot by it being at 31 au (Eris ranks 4th, although it has the largest absolute magnitude). WilyD 15:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

(Any reason this is being discussed here and not at Talk:Pluto?) —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 13:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

"Likely" is better than "known". It is simply misleading to suggest that something larger than Pluto will be found currently within ~100AU of the Sun. It also depends on how you define a KBO. If you separate SDOs from KBOs then nothing larger than Pluto will be found, but now-a-days it seems many astronomers (including the MPC) combine KBOs and SDOs as one group. -- Kheider (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Depends on what you think "known" implies. Obviously, "will" is way to strong. Could happen, probably not. I would agree with likely, but it'd be nice to have a published statement from somewhere. "Known"'s upside is that it's known to be true, while likely is only likely to be true. WilyD 15:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

We call Jupiter the largest planet in the Solar System, yet there could be a 1.1 Jupiter mass object 40,000 AU from the Sun. -- Kheider (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Me and WilyD disagree on practically everything, but here I agree with him. We can't say that Pluto is definitively the largest Kuiper Belt object, because while it may be with 99% certainty, there is always a small chance that a larger object has avoided detection. Especially since Kheider notes that the scattered disk objects are often classified as Kupier Belt objects, we need the "known" qualifier to avoid misinforming readers that it beyond any doubt the largest. As for the Jupiter comparison, I could be wrong (I don't know much about the solar system and don't care to, because I think it's overtaught at the expense of extrasolar astronomy), but I would presume that the chance of any jupiter-sized object is so, so small as to basically be 0.00001% or less, and I'd say that's enough to remove the known in that case, but not in Pluto's case. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope, Jupiter mass planets at 40, 000 au have already been excluded [3]. The largest undiscovered body in the Solar system is probably somewhere in mass between Mars and Neptune. WilyD 16:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Wrong, your cited paper is only valid for a "distance limit of 26,000 AU for a Jupiter-mass" object. Depending on the background noise, WISE could have trouble detecting a 1.1 Jupiter mass object ~40,000 AU from the Sun and such an object could orbit 70,000 AU from the Sun. Yet no one is claiming we should call Jupiter the largest *known* "planet" in the Solar System. -- Kheider (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, Jeez, read the paper, don't just skim the abstract. Super-jovian planets are excluded to more like 80k au WilyD 16:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The paper basically says, "the outer solar system probably does not contain a brown dwarf or a large gas giant planet." It does not rule out a 1.1 Jupiter mass object around ~40,000AU even if such an object is unlikely. -- Kheider (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@StringTheory11: 99% confidence would normally be considered certainty in statistics and science. Does the current word, "likely", address this concern? 99% confidence is certainly likely. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 17:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Depends on the field...see physics, where often new discoveries need 5- or 6-sigma confidence to be considered confirmed. I was in a hurry while typing my post, and probably 95% would've been a closer estimate to what we know today, from what I'm seeing. 95% is still 2-sigma, which is enough for some discoveries, but many, even in astronomy, from what I've seen, require higher 3-sigma to be considered confirmed. Of course, you're the expert here, not me, so please correct me if I'm wrong on that. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

No, you're right; 3- or 5-sigma is the standard. But even 95% confidence could certainly be described as "likely", I think. That is, from my reading of the two or three lightly-cited ApJ papers we're discussing, it is within the realm of possibility but not likely that another ~Pluto-mass Kuiper Belt object will be found. (And I'm no expert on the solar system.) —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 17:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

And, of course, which populations count as "KBOs" is going to be a huge factor. A "Twotino" Pluto's size and albedo could be three or four magnitudes dimmer than Pluto at perihelion, if it's 5:1, it could be below the 19.5 threshold where we think we're mostly complete. Gladman's SSBN scheme calls everything with a > 47. 5 au e < 0.24 a outer main belt classical KBO (although I take issue with it), but the cliff at 46-47 au only exists in the Cold Classicals, so you're kind of hosed once you start mixing in other pops. WilyD 16:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

There is probably around a few percent chance that a large KBO could still be hiding in the galactic plane area, but it is unlikely and very unlikely to be bigger than Pluto. -- Kheider (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, depends on what one means by large. And, of course, what one means by "unlikely" and "very unlikely". If you take the Schwamb result that we've got ~9 of the ~12 biggest, and call those "large", you might think it's kinda likely (the zero object hole is 15-20 degrees wide, so ~12 objects = one every thirty degrees, call it fifty-fifty). As for bigger ... less likely. But hard to quantify - and, of course, we know there were hundreds of PLuto+ objects. If we're calling resonant objects KBOs (which we probably shouldn't, but we are calling Pluto), the 2:1, 5:2, and so on, are going to give us some decent changes. Unlikely, but I dunno about "very" unlikely. If only there was a reliable source we could ask, rather than bickering over our own guesses. WilyD 16:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The Schwamb result is that we've got 9 (no ~ there) of the ~12 largest, where largest is R < 19.5. Pluto is R=13.65, if I read the sources right, so that's an awfully high confidence exclusion of an undetected Pluto-brightness object. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 17:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The size distribution is pretty wonky at the largest sizes, but it's very, very unlikely Pluto is not (currently) the brightest TNO in apparent magnitude, and will, I would guess, remain so until Makemake becomes the brightest KBO in something like a century. But we're not talking about brightness, but size. WilyD 11:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm just describing what the source you referred to says. It talks about brightness, not size (since brightness is far easier to measure and is a reasonable order of magnitude proxy for size. But it sounds like we mostly agree. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 12:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but the context is the Kuiper belt article, where we talk about size, not brightness. So the disconnect between the two is important. Are there KBOs brighter than Pluto still to be found? No, almost certainly not. Bigger? Probably not, but it's not certain (and it depends on what we mean by Kuiper belt, which is not well defined in the literature, nor even really on Wikipedia, despite some attempts by an editor to insert his personal opinions. By, say, the Gladman classification scheme in SSBN, which is the closest thing I can find to an authority, a bigger than Pluto object in the outer classical/resonant populations isn't all that implausible). Brightness is R^{-4}, and Pluto's only at 30 au. 5x brighter than an equal-size object at typical KBO distances (and ~25 times brighter than equal size objects at common but far distances). WilyD 13:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Confusion over which population is meant (Kuiper belt proper or "Kuiper belt" as including the scattered disc), that is easily remedied using a note explaining we're talking about the Kuiper belt proper and hence not including the scattered disc. --JorisvS (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, except that each author defines "Kuiper belt proper" differently, often including the scatter(ed/ing) disk (or more wisely, excluding the resonant objects - and hell, "proper" should exclude hot classicals, which are just the scattered disk). So not easily, no. WilyD 11:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

No, because the Kuiper belt proper (a shorthand to refer to the more restricted definition) does not include the scattered disc. The comment would spell this out and leave no room for confusion over the definition. --JorisvS (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Your continued attempts to use Wikipedia as a venue to publish your own research and conclusions are highly inappropriate. Please read Wikipedia:No Original Research. WilyD 08:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

WilyD (talk · contribs) Do you even read what I'm saying? If you'd do that, you'd see I'm not proposing to do WP:OR. --JorisvS (talk) 09:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you consider Eris (dwarf planet) a Kuiper Belt Object? If you do, then it's bigger than Pluto. So it is misleading to say Pluto is the biggest without some qualification on Eris not being in the particular definition of Kuiper Belt you're using. Since Eris appears in the lead of "Pluto", that's already covered, however, the meaning of Kuiper belt would still need qualification to deal with Eris. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Eris is in the scattered disc, not in the Kuiper belt. So Pluto is the largest object in the Kuiper Belt. SkyFlubbler ^(talk) 07:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Plus, while it IS more massive than Pluto, latest estimates are that it's smaller in diameter than Pluto. So it might be bigger, but it might be smaller. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

So we can definitely say that Pluto may be the largest known Kuiper belt object for some definitions of "largest" and "Kuiper belt" :) Gandalf61 (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

It is the largest and most-massive known in the restricted definition of "Kuiper belt", the classicals, both cold and hot and resonant objects with semi-major axes in the relevant range. No one can disagree with that. The point of this discussion was whether we can be certain enough that it is the largest, not just the largest known. And then people went mixing in the problem that sometimes the scattered disc is included under 'Kuiper belt', where we know a more-massive object that could be slightly larger than Pluto (i.e. Eris). --JorisvS (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I still think the lead of Pluto reads better WITHOUT the "known" (or the "likely") as it is simply "very unlikely" that anything bigger than Pluto will be found that is currently within 100AU of the Sun. -- Kheider (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree, and with the original note, only the situation up to ~50 AU is relevant, where it is even less likely. Still, it would be better if we could have this quantified better and backed up with source(s). --JorisvS (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Your continued attempts to use Wikipedia as a venue to publish your own research and conclusions are highly inappropriate. Please read Wikipedia:No Original Research. WilyD 08:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

WilyD (talk · contribs) Do you even read what I'm saying? If you'd do that, you'd see I'm not proposing to do WP:OR. I'm actually talking about wanting a source for it, for crying out loud! --JorisvS (talk) 09:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you keep suggesting we use your definition of the Kuiper belt rather than any published ones. This doesn't work with Wikipedia's crowd-sourced editing model, for a few reasons - the next editor along is likely to prefer a different definition, there's no particular sense on the part of the reader that you're the person they should follow, and so on. WilyD 09:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Our Kuiper belt article is about the narrow definition, with which I had nothing to do. There are plenty of sources that distinguish the Kuiper belt and the scattered disc. Before I was active at Wikipedia, I didn't distinguish them and then Wikipedia taught me to distinguish them. But, sure, it's my definition and I'm the leader others should follow. --JorisvS (talk) 10:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Our article doesn't exactly define it, except to note (as an observational fact), that it appears to end at ~50 au. The closest thing I can find to a published definition is the Gladman chapter in SSBN, which calls all objects beyond 30 au with e < 0.24 KBOs, (although he'd presumably change it when we started finding objects with e = 0.2 at 50 000 au). So, it's not really true (and I'd say, if we started finding low e/low i objects at 70+ au, as was envisioned in the wake of Bernstein et al. 2004, we'd almost certainly call 'em KBOs, but be stumped as hell about what it meant). Beyond that, Ask and you shall receive: "Pluto is almost certainly the largest object in the Kuiper Belt." (I didn't ask him to write that - but he does also call Eris a KBO, of course). WilyD 16:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Grammatically, one can kind of say "Pluto is the largest KBO" with a kind of implied "known" for people who're familiar with the subject. Estimating the likelihoods is a little dodgy - we're presumably all guessing it's more like 1% than 10% or 0.1%, but it's not totally clear, and inserting our own guesses is bad, and we're relying on some other assumptions that're almost impossible to quantify (such as a Nice-y history where the drop-off at 46 au is the primordial edge, rather than the start of some trough that'll pick up, as was the fashionable assumption 10 years ago, say). So, it's a bit of a "lies we tell to children" that all articles necessarily contain, balancing those is always a bit of a dark art. I'd move it to the "size" discussion in the Pluto article, where cavaets are more sensible than the lede. WilyD 08:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

FAC update

Serpens is now finally at FAC here, and Eta Carinae is still at FAC here...input on either would be hugely appreciated. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Geology of Charon

Can someone start a geology of Charon to complement geology of Pluto? We already have a Charon region article, and three Pluto region articles -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Just be bold and create it yourself! If you don't want to create account (so you get article creation rights), submit a draft to WP:AFC. Modest Genius ^talk 13:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

More User:CarloscomB

At this point, due to the magnitude of the problem of CarloscomB articles, and the fact that many of his articles have absolutely no salvageable content within, I think it may be worth it to simply take the axe to all his articles that have not been significantly edited by another human. See User:StringTheory11/CarloscomB cleanup for why his articles are so problematic, and look at HD 183589 as a typical example. Thoughts? It seems drastic, but basically all his articles are doing are misinforming people. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Eek! I just stumbled across HD 183589 randomly. I didn't realise what a mess there was out there, although I think I've come across a few of the other articles before. Lithopsian (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hmm, I sympathise. Trying to think how this would fit in policy. If it were copyvios it'd be easy, but it's just silly misinformation sprinkled into these articles. I've been doing one now and then and will step up the process. also, some have been attended to by others and not checked as yet. Would not oppose mass deletion but think it might not be in policy as such. Will check some more now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The absolute magnitude is often wrong, and the cooridnates are often not updated. However some of the material is accurate but annoyingly not sourced. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

He also had the annoying habit of copying the infobox of a preceding article and not changing anything in the infobox to match the star the article is nominally about... -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I have to suspect that many of the unsourced absolute magnitude calculations on Wikipedia may be in error, as they don't appear to take into account extinction. Praemonitus (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

He took another value off the SIMBAD page and assumed it was absolute magnitude - many I have found are just completely wrong. Checking them is mainly removing that value and updating coordinates and parallax. and seeing if the star is notable and has some other material on it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Most if not all of his 'Details' entries appear to be entirely OR; I can often find no sources for the data, and in many they are very uninformed and misleading. Those should all be scrubbed and replaced (where possible) with cited data. Praemonitus (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

What are the notability guidelines? Most of the stars are faint naked eye, or variables down to a magnitude fainter than that, but otherwise of no particular interest that I can see. Lithopsian (talk) 09:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Generally it is anything visible with the unaided eye or has had some significant material published on it. Many variables have had significant amounts, anything with a planet etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I would disagree that anything with a planet is notable now, given the thousands of exoplanets known... It would be like saying any O-type star is notable. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

(yes that was a misclick...damn rollback on smartphone...) - dunno - anything with a planet will have been discussed in detail in at least two peer-reviewed sources in around 99% of cases I suspect, which is the rule of thumb for general notability guidelines. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to infer that at least one should be a secondary source, so the article can satisfy WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Pluto articles

So I noticed that Donut (Pluto), Mordor (Charon) and Pluto's heart all have newly-made articles. While I can see the rationale for the latter page (name change notwithstanding), do the first two really merit articles, since (a) the names aren't official, and (b) they're one-sentence mentions? Primefac (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion about Donut (Pluto) and Mordor (Charon) right now, but List of surface features of Pluto and List of surface features of Charon should be created, following the model of List of lunar features. Then articles for individual features can be debated at AfD without the danger of removing the information from Wikipedia entirely. A2soup (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Those first two are ridiculous and should be deleted or redirected to the main articles. Even Pluto's heart is dubious, but as you said, at least there could be some minor rational in keeping it. I'd put them all on a "List of features of Pluto" article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, these plainly fail WP:N for now. Once the data are analyzed and more comes out about them, sources may well talk about them enough to merit their own articles. But not now. Turn them into redirects to a list or a section of the main Pluto article. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 21:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I'll redirect the first two to Geology_of_Pluto#Surface_features. Primefac (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Mordor isn't a surface feature on Pluto, it's on Charon. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I can see the Pluto's heart article being kept, but it should probably be renamed to "Tombaugh Regio". Even though that term is informal, it stands a chance at being adopted. The other two...definitely not. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget Whale (Pluto) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I've managed to redirect them all (save for the Heart). Primefac (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Cthulhu (Pluto) was restored as an article, apparently pending other discussions (at least that's what I think happened there) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Mordor was restored as an article, but I don't see a link to a another discussion, unlike for the whale Cthulu -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

All of them have been restored, with the reason being along the lines of Editor's summary: this is not how we handle names before they're official. article is about the feature, not the name (see WP:DICT). I was bold, they reverted, there probably won't be a discussion...

edit: I just saw lots of our astronomy articles are at unofficial names. that has nothing to do with whether we should keep them.; if that's true then those names should be fixed. Primefac (talk) 07:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

There's a whole lot more of these articles now Category:Surface features of Pluto -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Life on Mars (disambiguation)

The disambiguation page Life on Mars (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been getting weird additions lately by Beite123 (talk · contribs); someone may want to keep track of that page. His/her additions were rolled back once on 22 July, and I just rolled them back right now on 23 July. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Can do. Primefac (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I just took a look at those, and they generally seemed to me to be good-faith additions. Problems:

1. The magazine article is probably not notable. Even if it were, it would require a properly detailed citation.
2. The project, while quite possibly notable, needs better links - again, a proper citation - and evidence of notability.

Rather than edging into edit-war, how about addressing the poster directly, say with a {{ping}} from this discussion? It's a brand-new user, 2 days and just these 7 edits... unless it's a sockpuppet, of course. --Thnidu (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Breakthrough Listen or Breakthrough Initiatives

Hey all. I started a stub for Breakthrough Listen today, and saw that the separate article of Breakthrough Initiatives was also started today. They currently wikilink to each other, but my first inclination was that Breakthrough Initiatives should be merged into Breakthrough Listen, and that the latter should redirect to the former. I figure you guys are more knowledgeable about this area than me (I don't typically write about astronomy on Wikipedia) so I thought I'd ask for some opinions here. Note that I have not yet tagged either with a redirect template, because I figured I'd see if there was an overwhelming consensus here first. (Perhaps you guys would find they do warrant separate articles after all.) I've notified Hiberniantears (talk · contribs) and A5b (talk · contribs) (both of whom have edited the Breakthrough Initiatives page) about this discussion. — Hunter Kahn 23:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

B. Initiatives has two initiatives: Listen ($100 mln) and Message ($1 mln). Now there is no plan to send these messages in the Message initiative; and I think that Listen can be started in near time. `a5b (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps then, rather than having three separate articles for Breakthrough Initiatives, Breakthrough Message and Breakthrough Listen, we should simply have the Initiatives article, and redirect Message and Listen to that one? — Hunter Kahn 00:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Support merge - there isn't enough information for three articles, so the three stubs should be merged until such time as the content can be forked back out. Shift everything to Initiatives and redirect as appropriate. Primefac (talk) 07:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Support merge I almost broke the initiatives article out into the constituent parts, but I decided there weren't enough firm plans from the project just yet which is why I kept it pretty basic yesterday. That said, I do think that the Listen article will be deserving enough shortly as it represents the only actual program so far. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Why is "Listen" rated as HIGH-importance? How is this particular project that highly important? What has it done to be all that important? Why is "Initiatives" rated as MID-importance? What has it achieved that is important? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they should be merged -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Publicity. It hasn't done anything, might not do anything much for some time, but it has been in the national news in a number of countries and people will be looking for it. Support merge, with redirects. Lithopsian (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

That's a very poor reason for mid-or-high importances. Should we re-rate them to low until they discover something that makes the project actually significant? Is this topic actually more important than Talk:Johann Bayer ? Or the Talk:Wow! signal ? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Definitely both low importance on our scale, at least for now. I've re-rated them. Modest Genius ^talk 12:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed Hiberniantears (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Life on Mars

As the name of this Wikiproject may provide confusion with the article located at Life on Mars (to which is it unrelated to), I thought you'd like to know about a change to the naming of that project, see WT:WikiProject Life on Mars -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

This has been converted to a taskforce of WikiProject Television, which is what it should have been in the first place IMO. Modest Genius ^talk 07:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI, Ceres is mapped to Mars

e.g. if you click on the coordinates in the infobox on pyramid-shaped mountain on Ceres. — kwami (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

That's due to the use of {{MarsGeo-Mount}} in the article. A suitable Ceres template can be created if needed, but I'm not sure if geohack supports any Ceres globes at present. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Oops! Yeah, just noticed that. There's a generic box that supports Ceres, though yes no globe support yet. — kwami (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

"Eris"

The usage and primary topic of Eris is under discussion, see talk:Eris (dwarf planet) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

"Ceres"

The usage and primary topic of Ceres is under discussion, see talk:Ceres (dwarf planet) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

pronunciation of "Tombaugh"

Hi. Hearing different pronunciations of "Tombaugh" from the New Horizons team: with the final vowel like "cow" or like "law". The latter is traditional, but the former is how Stern introduced the Tombaughs. Anyone know which the family uses? Thread at talk:Tombaugh Regio. — kwami (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploration of the Sun

Please weigh in on whether this article should be kept or deleted. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploration of the Sun. Thank you. Waters.Justin (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

De systemate orbis cometici, deque admirandis coeli characteribus

I created this article yesterday. In particular, it contains one of the earliest astronomical catalogue of nebulae, although I'm not quite sure if this is the first attempt at cataloging nebulae. It predates Messier by a few years, but because its author Giovanni Battista Hodierna lived/worked in a remote section of Sicily, the catalogue had pretty much no impact in its day. The catalogue was rediscovered in 1985, and there's a few sources in JHA that talk about it.

Help with expansion would be appreciated. Also trying to find something DYK-able. I'd welcome ideas for that. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Repeating edits at list of most massive black holes

Someone in this list is trying to get back Holmberg 15A to the top spot at a value of 170 billion M. I am always reverting it however, it just keeps going. I am getting tired these days, and I was not always around. If you even check Kormendy et al's reference in the list it clearly states the ten billion value. I am calling for someone who is responsible to keep watch of the list and find that particular person doing that edit and please reword the article Holmberg 15A in agreement with the reference. Thank you! SkyFlubbler ^(talk) 23:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Holmberg 15A carries only 1 reference, so is currently in poor shape w.r.t. referencing -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox cometary globule

{{Infobox cometary globule}} has been proposed for deletion -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Dubious article about life on Mars

Could someone who knows something about this take a look: Gillevinia straata. Is it even notable? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Also of note is Life on Venus. Anyone willing to go through the edits of --User:DN-boards1? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Gillevinia straata is obnoxiously stupid rubbish and I have nominated it for deletion. Good catch! No opinion about Life on Venus yet because I haven't got time right now to go through it carefully. Reyk _YO! 20:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

"Gillevinia straata" also appears at Life_on_Mars#Gillevinia_straata which should also be removed; (the classification is insane, the Viking results do not indicate any single species, only that there might have been life. If it was life, there's no way to determine that it's a single species instead of a whole population of various different lifeforms) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

That should be the target of a redirect from Gillevinia straata. The life on Venus page actually looks reasonable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)