Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 30

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy
Latest comment: 4 years ago by MediaWiki message delivery in topic New bot to remove completed infobox requests
Archive 25←Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32→Archive 35

WP:JOURNALS needs help

Latest comment: 5 years ago42 comments7 people in discussion
See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 27 § Top-cited missing journals

A few of the top-cited journals without articles on Wikipedia belong to astronomy. Going through WP:JCW/Missing1+, we've got

All of those are cited hundreds of times. Help writing the journal articles (or website or whatever) would be greatly appreciated. We have a guide for that at WP:JWG, which means writing a solid journal article takes 20-30 minute. It's possible some of those don't warrant full articles, but could be sections in another article. E.g. maybe a dedicated section inside SIMBAD would be sufficient for Catalogue of Eggen's UBV data. SIMBAD. It could also mean some citations need to be cleaned up. Thanks for any help you can give! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

We have VizieR, which is essentially VizieR On-line Data Catalog. There are also several "... originally published in ..." redirects already, and most likely a redirect would be appropriate for II/168 also. Or a different approach with an external link since it is merely a specific table at VizieR. Lithopsian (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
We have List of astronomy journals and other such list articles where some of these could be linked. Praemonitus (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Asteroids IV is a textbook [1]. Eggen's UBV we're discussed here before; it doesn't have a formal published source and doesn't merit its own article either. The IRAS data is [2], which is a catalogue of data from the Infrared Astronomy Satellite. The Great Lakes Entomologist is a biology journal, not something WP:ASTRONOMY can help with. I've redirected VizieR On-line Data Catalog to VizieR, but any of those references should be specifying precisely which catalogue they're referring to; VizieR is just a big database holding thousands of catalogues. II/168 is [3], those references should be updated to cite it properly. JQSRT should definitely have an article, that's a major journal; New Astronomy Reviews is more niche but probably also merits an article. Vistas in Astronomy no longer exists and I seem to remember discussing it here before, though not what the outcome was. Never heard of Astronomy Quarterly. Modest Genius talk 15:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The point is, those should all a) have dedicated articles b) redirect to something if possible (e.g. a section of another article) c) have the citation fixed to make sense. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. It only makes sense to write articles if they satisfy WP:GNG. I cannot see how the IRAS or II/168 catalogues could do so, or even the asteroids textbook. The actual journals probably meet GNG. Also, the list seems to have changed since I wrote my reply... Modest Genius talk 17:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
IRAS catalogue could just redirect to IRAS, where some words should be written on its output catalog(s). I don't think those kind of catalogs are significant enough to deserve their own wikipedia entry. Psyluke (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Specific source discussions

Asteroid IV

As a note, Asteroids IV seems to be a notable textbook based on its reviews. Especially if you treat the previous editions too (presumably Asteroids III, Asteroids II, and Asteroids I/Asteroids?). Looking at WP:JCW/A68, those seem to at least ~410 citations on Wikipedia. There could be more as a proper {{cite book}}, or in plain refs.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

CBET

CBET is just the email version of CBAT. I've redirected to Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams. Modest Genius talk 17:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Should probably be mentioned in the article somewhere.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
It is: "they continued as the Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams". Modest Genius talk 18:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Determination of Radial Velocities and their Applications

Likely Bibcode:1967IAUS...30.....B Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Eggen

Eggen is possibly UBV Photoelectric Photometry Catalogue. See Bibcode:1987A&AS...71..413M.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed that's what it was. Eggen is Olin J. Eggen, and Mermilliod used his data in the 1986 version of the compilation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
II/168

Based on the previous discussion, I think all the references to II/168 should be replaced with something like:

  • Mermilliod, Jean-Claude; Mermilliod, Monique (1994). Catalogue of Mean UBV Data on Stars. Springer-Verlag. Bibcode:1994cmud.book.....M. ISBN 3-540-94355-2.
That would require either a bot or a lot of manual searching. Modest Genius talk 17:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
An AWB run could likely help with that. A search with insource:/VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II\/168\. Originally published in: Institut d'Astronomie/ would find them all. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy
Apparently, this is a Springer Nature journal published by the Indian Academy of Sciences and Astronomical Society of India. [4]. Probably not notable enough on its own. --K Lepo (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
It actually passes WP:NJOURNALS easily, being covered by Journal Citation Reports and having an impact factor (and also being indexed in multiple selective indices). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer
This journal covers some astronomy topics, but looking at recent articles, it seems to be mostly biological applications of spectroscopy. [5] --K Lepo (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah this one is rather multidisciplinary, it covers spectroscopy in general, a lot of which apply to astronomy, but there's also a lot that doesn't. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
JQRST is a large and well-regarded journal in many areas, including astronomy. I'm surprised it didn't get an article years ago. Modest Genius talk 12:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Michigan Spectral Survey
The Michigan Spectral Survey was a project run by Nancy Houk to reclassify the HD Catalog as described here. It should have an article. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, although satisfying WP:GNG may be a challenge. Praemonitus (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Could always be a section of Nancy Houk, or a section of the HD Catalog. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the Nancy Houk article is in the same boat. Neither has received much attention outside the professional astronomy community. Praemonitus (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
New Astronomy Reviews

Astronomy Quarterly. Lithopsian (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The sequence is Astronomy Quarterly became Vistas in Astronomy, which became New Astronomy Reviews. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Translating from nl:New Astronomy Reviews any good? Lithopsian (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Well it's a start, but doesn't go beyond what WP:JWG would tell you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Some VizieR sources

The following should probably be converted to a proper reference.

I chose this citation deliberately to indicate that there are multiple possible spectral types, but a particular one is common. However, I didn't add the url since it is a cite journal template and has a bibcode. Would removing the url make it better or worse? An alternative might be to quote all, or many, of the references individually. Lithopsian (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Maybe cite the original sources in a single {{sfn}}? Modest Genius talk 13:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
This citation is used in about 30 other articles (found via a bibcode search), but without the VizieR link. Lithopsian (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

BTW, updating citations is nice, but if you could also create redirects to the relevant catalogue (or whatever) when they exist, that would be nice. For example, II/246 = 2MASS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Neil Degrasse Tyson

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is an ongoing discussion that may be of interest to the members of this board at Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson#Text_proposals. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Updated: Pages in Category:Astronomy

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Lists of all pages, only articles, & only redirects in Category:Astronomy updated.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  00:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Merge "List of Solar System objects most distant from the Sun in 2015" with "List of Solar System objects ... 2018"?

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

We have two nearly identical articles. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 17:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

clearly merge. If the intent of two articles is to point out that we are discovering things further away each year, that is still best represented in a single article, with a table that can be sorted by date or something. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I cannot easily make the merger, so if someone would be kind to merge them for me, that would be appreciated. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 17:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I've initiated the merge discussion. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 21:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, the article might need to be moved to ...2019 soon.

Change appearance of templates

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Would it be possible to change the appearance of {{Infobox planet}} so that for exoplanets, it has the appeance of the {{Planetboxes}}? Loooke (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Exoplanet

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's a discussion that I have a feeling is going to require some additional input (just based on the edits that have occurred there in the last few days). In short, it's about whether to put amateur astronomy into the Exoplanet article (and if so, where to put it, and how much to include). Primefac (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Absolute magnitude

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There are issues with Absolute magnitude (C-class, high importance), see the discussion I started at here. For the past 14 years, the article contained WP:OR that is probably wrong, but has since been used in multiple peer-reviewed articles. @Tomruen:, who originally added it in 2004, has brought the issue to my attention yesterday, and we both are working on fixing it. We need help though! Renerpho (talk) 05:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Galaxies used to be called Pinwheel nebulae?

Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

I read the section Pinwheel_nebula#Spiral_galaxies, I don't ever remember reading anywhere that this ever took place. "Spiral nebulae" was the case, but not sure of "Pinwheel nebulae" being the case. Anyone know this to be true? If not, I think that section needs to be removed. The article itself is fine, as Pinwheel nebulae does exist and astronomers call them that. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I checked my 1887 copy of Newcomb's Popular Astronomy, and didn't see "Pinwheel" mentioned in any discussion of nebulae (the section about nebulae was admittedly short). Of course, it also didn't mention "Spiral nebulae" either, so I don't know that this proves anything. I'll check with someone who has a very old Encyclopedia Britannica. - Parejkoj (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
There were certainly several individual galaxies that were referred to as 'the pinwheel nebula' before they were known to be galaxies, as demonstrated by Pinwheel Galaxy (disambiguation). However that's not the same thing as being a name for the entire class. I found no hits prior to 1920 on ADS or Google Scholar, but they probably don't have good full text records for material that old. Modest Genius talk 12:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
The common historical term for these objects (originating with Herschel) appears to be "spiral nebula", with pinwheel, whirlpool, and watch spring being used as a descriptor. Praemonitus (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Praemonitus : can you give a citation for that statement? I just spent some time looking in the 9th edition Encyclopedia Britannica "Astronomy" article, which mentioned a variety of types of nebulae (citing Herschel), but "pinwheel" was not among them. - Parejkoj (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Well I was mistaken -- "spiral nebulae" were a discovery of William Parsons. He used the term in a presentation to the Royal Society in 1850.[6] Praemonitus (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
I had a look and couldn't find pinwheel nebula used for anything except specific objects. Lithopsian (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Should we just delete Pinwheel_nebula entirely? Is it worth it for the handful of stellar nebulae that occasionally have that term used? - Parejkoj (talk) 07:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I suggest turning it into a formal disambiguation page. Modest Genius talk 11:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation of what, though? It seems like the only actual usage is for those particular stellar nebulae. - Parejkoj (talk) 06:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Latinisation of Bayer designations

Latest comment: 5 years ago17 comments9 people in discussion

I noticed that Sbznpoe has been promoting the Greek letters for Bayer designations (for example, see here). I have mixed feelings about this and felt we should discuss to gain consensus (not sure if it has been discussed before). So do folks prefer "Epsilon Canis Majoris" or "ε Canis Majoris" for use in wikipedia articles containing Bayer designations? And why? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  • I'll start off by saying I weakly prefer Latinised (i.e. spelt out) as this is better for the many people who don't recognise Greek letters easily and is consistent with the article titles. Adding that I mean in body of text. In tables I prefer Greek letters due to space considerations. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • In text, I prefer to see it spelled out (in his term, latinized). In a table, where there will be several stars from the same constellation, I prefer to see the greek letter. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd say that WP:COMMONNAME applies, in that Epsilon Canis Majoris is more commonly used than ε Canis Majoris. One might wonder though whether the article should be named Adhara. Praemonitus (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • From an accuracy point of view, I'd rather see the Greek letter. A Bayer designation is a Greek letter plus the genitive of a constellation name. Latinisation is an extremely modern thing, essentially for the computer age (and possibly the decline of classical education). From a Wikipedia point of view, article titles generally don't contain non-Latin (Roman) characters, so the titles should be (and are) spelled out. WP:COMMONNAME is obviously relevant, but I think regardless, the title shouldn't be the Greek letter. Determining which is more common is problematic: look at Simbad and not only are Greek letters absent but they are abbreviated in strange ways, look in almost any book published before this century and you'll see the actual Greek letter. I may be fighting a losing battle on this one; the great and the good have decided that Greeek letters, even spelled-out Greek letters, are too scary to attract people into astronomy, so they are avoided like the plague in favour of cuddly proper names, however obscure and non-memorable. As for a proper name, when it is more commonly used (by people!) then it should be the article title. That mostly applies to about 20 of the brightest stars and a handful of others such as Mira. Adhara seems like it is pushing it, I'd be hard-pressed to identify its Bayer designation or position on the sky off the top of my head and I'm pretty dedicated astronomer. Again, press releases and the like love to use common names, but beyond that they are not widely-used for the vast majority of stars. Within the article, I'd prefer to see the Greek letter used for the sake of accuracy, after it has been introduced in the lead, and possibly in more detail in a nomenclature section. The proper name should be avoided (except for being described as a synonym, proper name, nickname, etc) unless it is the title of the article. Consistency is key, referring to the star by multiple different names within the same article will give the impression of different objects. An extra issue is the use of constellation abbreviations. These are very widely used by almost anyone that has to deal with Camelopardalis on a daily basis: applying the same principles they shouldn't be used as an article title, but could be used in the text after being introduced as the short form of the name. Lithopsian (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Are there any cases where a Greek capital letter means something different than a lowercase one in this use? eg Δ vs δ? (For Latin lettering there can be a different star depending on case)? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
No, Bayer designations are all lowercase Greek letters. Uppercase letters are used as part of some other designations, for example Σ for some double stars, but they don't use constellation names so there should never be confusion. "Bayer" Latin letters are a bit of a mess, not really Bayer designations at all although that's what they're called, and very rarely used today, but they can be either upper or lower case, sometimes both for the same letter in the same constellation. Lithopsian (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
So Lithopsian, you'd prefer Greek letters through the body of the text and leave the title as the only place where it is spelled out in words? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Not quite the only place, but basically what User:Modest Genius describes. Lithopsian (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Epsilon and ε are exactly the same thing, so it's just a style preference. All scientific articles use the proper greek letter, which is exactly the way many stars were named first, and I would keep it the same way. I think that even the IAU standard uses the greek letter. Of course, the titles should use the latinized version just because it's difficult to type greek letters. Moreover, in many sections about the name of stars, a chinese name is given with the proper chinese spelling, so there is no reason to avoid non-latin letters. Psyluke (talk) 11:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't have strong feelings on this, as long as both are mentioned in the opening sentence of the lead. Articles should be located at the Latinised version for ease of searching and per the policy WP:UE, which states that article titles "not originally in a Latin alphabet, such as Greek [...] must be transliterated." For use in the text, the shorter abbreviated Bayer designation (in this case ε CMa) works well and makes the article easier to read. It won't confuse readers if that abbreviation has already been explained in the lead. However, the expanded Latinised version isn't wrong, just more verbose. Modest Genius talk 12:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    As an aside, @Sbznpoe: should provide edit summaries whenever they make such a change. Modest Genius talk 12:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so the main reason I threw this up now is we have differing layouts in star and constellation articles and it'd be good to streamline - we can also update Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects). @Modest Genius:, in subsequent mentions on a page, did you mean using "ε CMa" or "ε Canis Majoris"? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Casliber: I meant that I prefer 'ε CMa', but there isn't anything intrinsically wrong with using 'ε Canis Majoris' or 'Epsilon Canis Majoris'. Modest Genius talk 11:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't see why that is necessary. Each article just needs to stand on its own merits. Praemonitus (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Not a member of WP:ASTRO but I do edit some articles. I have no preference of θ or theta for example, but I'm more used to the Greek letter, so Dubhe is α Ursae Majoris or in tables, α UMa vs. spelling it out as Alpha Ursae Majoris. Both could be mentioned for those without familiarity of the Greek alphabet, but I prefer the Greek letter. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 22:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • For the most part, I'm not terribly concerned which format is used, so long as both are represented in the lead and the alternate form(s) exists as a redirect for article titles. The Latinised form is important for those who wish to learn, and are trying to do so by reading our articles, but may not have an understanding of the Greek letters. All that said, using the Greek forms in tables is probably preferred as a space saving measure. I honestly don't believe shortened forms, such as α UMa or ε CMa, should be used in article bodies (even tables) aside from a mention as an "also known as" thing. It's simply more difficult for others to understand. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
    • From an editing perspective, it can be useful to have multiple naming options available so that the text doesn't feel too sterile. Praemonitus (talk)

Proposed move of 2XMM J160050.7–514245 and Stars of constellation templates

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have made two move proposals; one to move 2XMM J160050.7–514245 to Apep (star system) (Discussion), and to move the Stars of constellation templates from "Template:Stars of [constellation]" to simply "[constellation]", and change the scope from a navbox of exclusively stars to a navbox for all astronomical objects in each constellation (Discussion). You're welcome to come in and voice your opinion on either or both discussions! :) – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 04:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Uranus moon images.

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ardenau4 has changed the images of some of Uranus's moons, I believe in an attempt to show their true shape better. I personally do not think that the original images were high-enough resolution and that these may as well be images of random noise around the moons from these images. Should they be reverted? ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 01:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Support revert For instance, the first two images (Cordelia and Ophelia) suggest that these moons are elongated, when in fact Voyager did not resolve their shape; the image is just blurred by the motion of the spacecraft. The changes were clearly made in good faith. However, if showing the true shape better was the purpose of the change, then the exact opposite was achieved. The earlier images did a better job at demonstrating our knowledge of these objects (or lack thereof). Renerpho (talk) 07:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Feedback at Kuiper belt

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Your feedback would be welcome at Talk:Kuiper belt#Definition improvement to discuss improvements to the first sentence at this Featured article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Mons / Nix Olympica

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

FYI, on Wiktionary, wikt:Mons (wikt:Montes is missing an entry) and wikt:Nix Olympica have been proposed for deletion -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

More opinions needed at Rigel

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Lithopsian and I are buffing Rigel. However Arianewiki1 has a problem with the content. See from Talk:Rigel#Buffing_to_GA-hood downwards. See also User_talk:Lithopsian#Inexplicable_Behaviour. Among the issues are - which apparent magnitude(s) to use, which variable range to use, and...whether Beta Orionis is an offical Variable Star Designation....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. Praemonitus (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Naming convention

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Prompted by discussions over the title of 2014 MU69 / Ultima Thule, several users have pointed out that our naming convention guideline WP:NCASTRO is inconsistent both with itself and the policy WP:AT regarding unofficial nicknames. I've made a proposal which I think would resolve the issue, but would welcome feedback from project members. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (astronomical objects)#An alternative proposal. Modest Genius talk 16:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Move "Epoch (reference date)" to "Epoch (date reference)"?

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see Talk:Epoch (date reference)#RFC:Undiscussed page move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc3s5h (talk • contribs) 03:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Neptune XIV ---> Hippocamp.

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I don't understand the logic behind the name (sounds very, very weird for me), but okay. Ready to update, guys? ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 20:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The IAU naming convention for Neptune is minor Greek water deities, so I suppose the association is via its mythological origins. Praemonitus (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

BINGO (telescope)

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Could someone have a look at this article, please? I started it before I was involved in the project, but I now have a significant COI. It's just been (badly) rewritten, based on a rewrite of the Portuguese article by a different member of the collaboration. See before, after. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I've now made some edits to the article, if someone could check it for neutrality I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Not directly neutrality, but if it is just proposed, then you shouldn't write "will be/will consist/...". If construction is certain it is "planned" (or "under construction"?) and should get a timeline. I think the long list of institutes involved is something for the author list, not for a Wikipedia article. --mfb (talk) 07:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Can anyone find the IAU designation for this new object and make an article for it?

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/02/astronomers-discover-solar-system-s-most-distant-object-nicknamed-farfarout

"FarFarOut". I know this isn't the IAU name and the Wikipedia article should not be at that designation. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 18:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

It's good to hold off on these things until more information becomes published. We aren't a news organization, although sometimes it seems we act like it. Praemonitus (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
No name yet. Not published, not confirmed, WP:TOOSOON. Lithopsian (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Still no designation, guys? I suspect it will likely start with 2018 A or 2018 B due to the fact that the object was first observed in January 2018. The second letter and number are unknown. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 12:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I didn't find any evidence of a provisional designation yet. What's the hurry? Praemonitus (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
FYI: FarFarOut was created on Feb. 27. --mikeu talk 16:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
It might be 6 months or more before it is published. Even the press releases for the discover month/year are in conflict. -- Kheider (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

List of archaeoastronomical sites by country

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Needs a cleanup. I just found the Great Pyramids listed! Some of these sites are pretty dubious. Doug Weller talk 18:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate material added about equinox dates

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see Talk:Equinox#Explanation of the oscillation of the date of the equinox concerning an IP editor who is adding extraneous and confusing material to the article lead, concerning the date of the equinoxes. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Parallactic instrument of Kapteyn

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've accepted Parallactic instrument of Kapteyn via WikiProject Articles for Creation. Please have a look. It could probably benefit from some context for the lay reader. Some copyediting would improve readability. --mikeu talk 00:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

July 1944 lunar eclipse

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed that, as with July 1944 lunar eclipse, we have a whole slew of these stub lunar eclipse articles, which seem incapable of becoming notable. We already have lists that show more data. (E.g. List of 20th-century lunar eclipses.) Unless they have some useful content, wouldn't it make more sense to redirect these eclipse articles to the corresponding lists of eclipses? Praemonitus (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

If the list contains the same information as the article, then yes, a redirect would be perfectly acceptable. Primefac (talk) 12:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The only thing the article has are images, and I'm not sure what value they have, if any. It just looks like something generated by a software program. Praemonitus (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Linking Exoplanet Detection and Habitability

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The newly-created page Linking Exoplanet Detection and Habitability looks like it needs attention. XOR'easter (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I have marked for deletion as duplicate topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:X-ray astronomy

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:X-ray astronomy. --mikeu talk 13:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

ITN/C entry for the April 10 Event Horizon Telescope black hole image release

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#(Posted) Event Horizon Telescope.

Related articles: Event Horizon Telescope, black hole, supermassive black hole, Messier 87. Ahiijny (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

EHT targets

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Event Horizon Telescope collaboration stated "A full description of 3C 279 imaging procedures and results will be presented separately." They don't say much else about it in the papers. Also: "The 2017 science observing run consisted of observations of six science targets: the primary EHT targets Sgr A* and M87, and the secondary targets 3C 279, OJ 287, Centaurus A, and NGC 1052." It is highly likely that there will another batch of papers - possibly containing significant findings. A couple of the articles are stubs like 3C 279 which I just added an EHT image to. It might be a good idea to review these pages. --mikeu talk 23:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Help on my first article

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I wrote my first article a few days ago, but I am aware that my citations are not meeting the standards for a living person. Could anyone help peer review and added new citations? Thanks. NMilstein (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The link to it is here: Norio Kaifu — Preceding unsigned comment added by NMilstein (talk • contribs) 01:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
At first glance I'd say that the citations look ok, but the article is in need of expansion. I would suggest adding Japan Academy Prize (academics) under an achievement section. A quick look at this translation[7] shows there's quite a bit of notable information that is well sourced. --mikeu talk 15:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I tried to follow your advice, but I am unsure as to whether much of the information is usable, since much of is isn't very well sourced. Since Kaifu is Japanese, much of the information found is inaccessible. Should I use google translate to translate these sites? NMilstein (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
He has an article in three languages already, you can ask for help with specific sources on the talk pages there. The Japanese article is quite long and people there will be able to help with Japanese sources. See Wikidata and ja:海部宣男. He died April 13, by the way. --mfb (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

poll to select name for OR10

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

FYI, the discoverers of OR10 have started an online poll here to choose between 3 proposed names: Chinese Gonggong, German Holle (we have a duplicate article at Holda) and Norse Vili. The proposed names were chosen for relevance (red, water ice, etc.) plus having associated names as possibilities for the moon. Voting until May 10, at which point they'll submit the winner to the IAU. — kwami (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

This is fun. Maybe someone can try for parallels between OR10 and Holle or Vili, but I see some good links w Gonggong:

OR10 is red, Gonggong has red hair
OR10 has been resurfaced with water, Gonggong causes floods of water
OR10 has an eccentric orbit, Gonggong set the sky askew
OR10 was ejected into the scattered disk, Gonggong was sent into exile after losing out to a more powerful god
both have smaller sidekicks.

No parallel I can see with knocking over the mountain, though. — kwami (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed project, Argo Navis

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I'm thinking of taking on a project in the article List of stars in Argo Navis.
That (former) constellation, of course was divided into three now official constellations--Carina, Vela, and Puppis. But the Bayer designations that were originally assigned to Argo Navis were not changed. So it is now one Bayer series over the three constallations--Alpha Carinae (Canopus) and Beta Carinae, but Gamma and Delta Velorum, then Epsilon Carinae, Zeta Puppis and so on. And of course, there's a list of stars for each one of the modern constellations.
So sensibly, there is an article for the list of stars in Argo Navis, even though that is no longer an official constellation. But that "list" simply reproduces the list of the stars in Carina, followed by the list of stars in Puppis. Neither list is labeled on the page (one can gather it from the individual star names, where they are Bayer designations), and Vela is not accounted for.
It's been noted--correctly, I would say--that the lists ought to be combined, and Vela should be folded in. I propose to undertake that project. But it does present one issue. The resulting table should indicate which official constellation each star belongs to. As it is designed now, that will be clear only for those stars with names that include Car, Vel, or Pup--that's most of them, but not all, not by a long way.
I can think of a couple of solutions:

  • Assign a color to each of the three constellations, and give each row in the table the appropriate color. Of course, this would be a problem for the colorblind.
  • Add another column for the name or abbreviation (or just the initial) of the constellation. I wonder if we need so many columns in this table anyway; all that information is in the lists for the three current constellations.

Anybody have any thoughts on this? One or the other solution? Both? Something I haven't thought of? Uporządnicki (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The Argo Navis list sounds more like a "meta" list. I think the easiest thing would be to transclude the individual entries from Carina, Vela, and Puppis onto the Argo Navis list, mainly beacuse it saves duplication (this is what we did at List of exoplanets (full)). An intro would definitely be needed to indicate the history as you've described here. Primefac (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh my! That's a project! So many questions, not least where are all the stars of Vela? And should several stars apparently not even known when Argos Navis was an accepted constellation are suddenly become members of it? I would suggest a column to indicate the modern constellation. Colours would be arbitrary and problematic for a number of reasons. Some text might be useful, it won't necessarily be obvious to readers why stars in one constellation (Argo Navis) are also in another. Lithopsian (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Seems like a lot of work... and a lot of maintenance. For what purpose? It's unclear who would need to look this up. The existing constellation star lists are probably well out of date by now anyway. Praemonitus (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Primefac, Lithopsian, Praemonitus and for the comments. Now to respond to a couple of points, and give my thoughts as inspired by them. First, the article for Argo Navis--for better or for worse--is there. Sort of. It only copies those two of the three already existing lists--Carina and Puppis. Apparently, someone didn't get around to Vela in the "meta list," but the individual list for Vela exists.
As for the purpose--why anybody would need/want to look it up--for me, if I'm looking at the list for either Vela or Puppis, I might wonder why there's no Alpha or Beta. And even if I do know the reason, I might still wonder--looking at one list--which of the other two the "missing" star belongs to. I do think it's a worthwhile list.
As for including everything, I was already wondering if all the columns present in the three lists for the current constellations really need to be in this meta list--particularly if I'm contemplating adding a new column to indicate current constellation. But that's a good point that there's probably no reason to reproduce the lists in their entirety. The meta list need not include every 15th magnitude star that is in one of the three lists because it has a planet or there's some other special significance. What I'm thinking is, I might just carry over everything down to magnitude 6 or 7 to cover all the naked eye stars and a little bit more, and provide just a few of the columns--magnitude, coordinates, and constellation. Uporządnicki (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
It is not safe to assume that any star within one of the three modern constellations was a member of Argo Navis. It predates the boundaries of the modern constellations and only vaguely corresponds to them. Certainly Wikipedia shouldn't be assigning stars to (obsolete) constellations without some form of evidence. So probably only those stars explicitly and historically assigned to Argo Navis, such as Bayer and Flamsteed designated stars. The current lists apparently include Gould stars simply because they were given designations in Carina or Puppis, which seems a little optimistic since these were not designated with any reference to Argo Navis. TBD, I guess. The same is even more true of most variable stars; simply being in, for example, Carina in 1981 when AG Carinae was given its variable star designation is no proof that it is or was ever considered to be in Argo Navis. Lithopsian (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

A possible Science/STEM User Group

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's a discussion about a possible User Group for STEM over at Meta:Talk:STEM_Wiki_User_Group. The idea would be to help coordinate, collaborate and network cross-subject, cross-wiki and cross-language to share experience and resources that may be valuable to the relevant wikiprojects. Current discussion includes preferred scope and structure. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 02:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Eddington experiment

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dropping a note off here in case any editors are interested in helping out at Eddington experiment, an article I recently put in mainspace - it is the 100th anniversary of the eclipse observations in two days time. The article may seem a bit disjointed, as it is an old draft I started over ten years ago. Any help improving the article would be much appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

A proposal for WikiJournals to become a new sister project

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:

  • Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and feedback (example)
  • From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to Wikipedia (example)
  • Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia (example)

Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project

From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to Featured article review, but bridging the gap with external experts, implementing established scholarly practices, and generating citable, doi-linked publications.

Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Minor-planet naming conventions

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A discussion has been revived. It concerns modifications to the specific guidelines for the naming of minor planets. Some amendments have already been made, others are proposed. Rfassbind – talk 15:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of List of minor planets: 500001–501000 for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of minor planets: 500001–501000 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planets: 500001–501000 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 improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –dlthewave ☎ 18:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Reviving the newsletter?

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Is there any interest in bring back the astronomy newsletter? I think it would be interesting to discuss new discoveries and articles, similar to the Tree of Life newsletter. I personally don't have the time to write every article every month, but other people are also willing to contribute I'd love to get it started again. I'd also have to learn more about how delivering subscriptions to people's talk pages works, but it should be fun!
Please respond if you'd be interested in helping out or subscribing! Also, let me know about any thoughts or opinions you have of this newsletter, especially about its scope. Should it include spaceflight? Astronomers? There are 12 languages with an astronomy wikiproject, should there be translations of this newsletter?
Starsandwhales (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Team

  • starsandwhales

Subscribers

Telescope primary size in meters, feet and inches or inches

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see the new section in the James Webb Space Telescope talk page. It looks like there is some inconsistency in units among articles describing telescopes. We've got a mix of meters (fine with me), decimal feet, feet and inches (both seem odd to me) and inches (traditional astronomy convention.) Fcrary (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Solar eclipse article needs help

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I raised a question about the lead of Solar eclipse of July 2, 2019 on the talk page there, but it feels like I’m shouting into blankness. Given that the article is noted prominently on the front page right now, I hope some folks from this project can give it some much-needed TLC. Thanks! — Gorthian (talk) 06:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial materials

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I went ahead and overhauled the article Extraterrestrial materials, which was tagged about a decade ago for needed improvements. In particular, I am not familiar with "Nuclear spallation effects", so I left that section mostly untouched, but it remains unreferenced and I ignore if it is actually a significant topic/tool for that subject. I would appreciate other editors taking a look at that article it for content. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Outdated once again.

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Remember when 2019 AQ3 had the smallest semi-major axis? That's not true anymore. 2019_LF6 Time to update. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 12:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of all 542 lists of Meanings of minor planet names for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

From Meanings of minor planet names: 1–1000
to Meanings of minor planet names: 541001–542000
@ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meanings of minor planet names: 500001–501000.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a debate as to the scope of the AfD.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
There is no debate. The nomination says one thing ("Delete these ten or so empty articles") and the above canvassy notice says something completely different. Tom's having repeatedly edited the nomination to say the latter is irrelevant. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Listings of eclipses

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I posted over at WT:ECLIPSES regarding a concern I had over some eclipse listings. Your input would be appreciated at the discussion. Primefac (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Rewriting Meanings of minor planet names

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is need to rewrite much Meanings of minor planet names given the fact much of it has be coped from the Minor Planet Circulars(note JPL copies from the Minor Planet Circulars) I think Wikipedia should only have the "who" or "what"(i.e, actor, actress,place,poet, discoverer, science fair winner,etc..) examples on what should be done"Baton Rouge, Louisiana". JPL · 11739, Ernst Pepping (1901–1981), German composer. JPL · 11043, Jarryd Brandon Levine, ISEF awardee in 2003 JPL · 17277 In reality for most name citations there only there reliable sources, the Minor Planet Circulars, JPL, Schmadel, Lutz D. (2003). Dictionary of Minor Planet Names (note they are all copies of each other). I thing would be best in most cases to use the MPC for the Ref because JPL copes from the Minor Planet Circulars, (note we could use both). In fact some the "Meanings of minor planet names" page use the MPC for the Ref. We start the rewriting sooner rather than later. -- Bayoustarwatch (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Lunar polar circle?

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

A question for the experts: the upcoming Chandrayaan-2 mission to the lunar south polar region has triggered some discussions in that Talk page (and in the press) on how to define the landing zone area. While India claims it is on the lunar south pole (it isn't because it will be between 67°S and 71°S latitude), in Wikipedia we are using the term "south polar region". In trying to narrow a more precise and correct term, I wonder if there is such thing as "lunar polar circle", and if so, what are its limits. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

If you're meaning by analogy to the Earth's Arctic and Antarctic polar circles, certainly the moon has them. The moon's orbit is tilted about 5° relative to the Earth's orbital plane (the ecliptic), so its "Arctic" is five degrees bigger. Similarly, there are lunar "tropics" where the sun can sometimes be overhead, and they are ten degrees (five degrees north and south) wider than the Earth's. Or you might consider that the size of the polar circles (and tropics) varies slowly over 18.6 years as the lunar nodes precess. The timing of when the sun can be at the extremes of these arctic circles or tropics is rare, only occurring when the extreme of the Moon's orbital tilt coincides with the extreme of the Earth's. Not commonly-used concepts though. That timing does coincide with a well-known concept though, the lunar standstill. Lithopsian (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
If they are not common terms, then I'll leave that article at "polar region" then. Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 00:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
There is a region of the Moon south of 75° where evidence of surface ice deposits has been identified. Perhaps that is what is termed the "lunar south polar region" in analogy with the antarctic region on Earth?[8] Praemonitus (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion for List of exoplanets, 2018 and 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

Hi everyone. Out of all of the lists of exoplanets, 2018 and 2019 stand out because they include error bars in the table values. I continued this for the 2019 page after @Exoplanetaryscience: added them to the 2018 page (you can see the revision history). However, now I'm starting think that these error values just make the lists too large while adding data that not many people will find useful. What are your thoughts on this? Thanks, Loooke (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I added them because a lot of these exoplanets have very significant error bars in their data that change the meaning of the values significantly. If you see an exoplanet has an orbital radius of 18.4 AU, that looks awfully specific, but if you see its orbital radius is 18.4+5.8
−4.2 AU, then you would much more easily notice that it's just a vague estimation, which I think is important to put into the info on the objects. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 02:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
However we don't need 6 significant digits in the error, as most 2 would be enough, and mostly 1 should do. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Agreed; once we get down to things like 14.76289 (period in days), it seems a trifle unnecessary to extend it to 14.76289+0.00065
−0.00061 as that error means almost nothing. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Wikipedia articles are not meant to be research papers requiring with such statistical accuracy, and it clutters the page. I would say one, or maybe two decimals is more than enough. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
How about if there's less than 3 significant digits without error (such as 14.76±0.98 or 0.01892±0.00035, or in a more extreme case 15+12
−9) we include error bars, but if the error is significantly smaller than the actual value and isn't likely actually have any significant meaning, it's not included? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I think you include it even in the last case so the reader knows the accuracy of the value. Otherwise, how would you know it was intentionally not listed? Praemonitus (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Seems like it would be relatively simple to just state at the top of the list that "values without error bars are known to 3 or more significant figures" exoplanetaryscience (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Sure, as long as you trust every editor to stick to that. Praemonitus (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Plus, if we try to box in the "when" of when/if to add in error bars, it's going to be a nightmare to define or keep track of. 119.109±0.011 is an unnecessary level of error, and obviously 15+12
−9 is a pretty large error, but is 820.2±14.0? The 130 in 5040±130 looks big but is still well less than 5%. I do agree that there are some very large errors (some which make it seem like they're just picking numbers out of thin air) but I'd rather have no error bars than too many. Primefac (talk) 00:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to mention that since a majority of exoplanets have been discovered using the transit method, the parameters, especially the orbital periods, tend to be pretty precise. Directly imaged exoplanets, which are few, are probably the most tricky ones, since it's hard to measure mass without an orbit, so the mass estimates end up being vague, like 15+12
−9. The thing is, is there any other way we can show that these values are highly imprecise? Like maybe ~15? Loooke (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. Most people know what ~ means. Primefac (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
We could do with a template that presents 119.109±0.011 as "119.109(11)", with included link to a description. Praemonitus (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
What would we do if the upper and lower errors were different, e.g. 0.91+0.13
−0.10? Loooke (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
The same thing we do now. If the error margin is sufficiently small, you can always just use the larger absolute value since the range will include the error bar. Praemonitus (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Misplaced bits creating flashes in the dark

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Amazing how WP accumulates dust, isn't it? Big as the sky it is.

So I'm looking at an article Southern Delta Aquariids and notice that there's a date out of place in Template:Meteor showers. Why is July 13 between July 28–29 and July 30. What is July 13? Mumble mumble "peak occurring around 5/6 December each year". So why linked to July 13? Hmm, "A very minor meteor shower with a radiant in Phoenix also occurs in July". Oh, the real link for the Phoenicids is December 5–6.

Wait, the Phoenicids are mentioned by name also in the template, as "Phoenicids (July Phoenicids)". But only for July, the "very minor" shower, not the main, more important December event? Why?

Fumble around in history and find all this has been true since 2012? Augh!!

  • Why is a very minor shower mentioned at all in the template?
  • Why has it been placed out of order for 7 years?
  • Why is the named shower not given in "by name" (could be "Phoenicids (December)")
  • Why is the "very minor" shower given in "by name" (and s.b. "Phoenicids (July)" anyway)
  • What other surprises lurk above our heads?

Shenme (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Article alerts update

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As a heads up, the alerts will now report proposals for mergers and splits, as well as AFC submissions. There's a bit of a backlog, but now we have a way to track it! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Moon for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Moon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Moon until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 19:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Solar System for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Solar System is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Solar System until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 19:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Jupiter for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Jupiter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jupiter until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 19:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Mars for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Mars is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Mars (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 19:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed move for Mizar

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a proposal to rename the article Zeta Ursae Majoris. The discussion has just been relisted due to lack of votes. I think it is a fairly important star and hopefully a few people will take a look. Lithopsian (talk) 10:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Is there a Gamma-ray binary page?

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Never knew there was a such a thing, [9]. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, a gamma-ray binary is simply an X-ray binary that is also detected at gamma-ray energies, though the mechanisms that produce the gamma-rays vary. They could be discussed in that article. This review article might be a good source to start with. Modest Genius talk 12:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the update, but the link won't load for me. If it is a different link to the paper, Discovery of the Galactic High-Mass Gamma-ray Binary 4FGL J1405.1-6119 , then I read it and this one was an O-star with a compact object companion. Thank, Marasama (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
No, that's a different paper. Try [10] or [11]. Modest Genius talk 18:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Can someone validate the spectra on EBLM_J0555-57

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

On the page EBLM J0555-57, it says component Aa is spectra F8 with a reference. Unless I'm looking at the reference wrong, I could not find an F8 spectra. Can someone verify? Thanks Marasama (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The spectral type was added to the infobox in this edit, citing the WDS catalogue. That does indeed give the spectral type as F8 [12], but that's for the whole system, not component A (or Aa). The von Boetticher reference gives an effective temperature for component A (not Aa) of 6461 ± 124 K, and later papers from the same team give slightly different values but within that uncertainty. That temperature is equivalent to a late F-type, but technically not quite the same thing. I would expect A to be slightly earlier type than F8, given that B is cooler.
So F8 is the correct classification of the whole system, but spectral types of the separate components fail verification. Some word-smithing is required. Modest Genius talk 12:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal :Astronomy

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Proposal to delete all portals. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to delete Portal space. Voceditenore (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Irregular moon diagrams.

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

On articles such as those for Jupiter and Saturn's irregular moons (and their groups), there are diagrams comparing the eccentricity and the inclination of the irregular moons, demonstrating how they fall into several distinct orbital families.

However, these diagrams are perhaps a decade old (!) at this point (I think 2007 or 2008) and haven't been updated to reflect new discoveries and orbital refinements since then. I'd appreciate it if someone could make newer versions of these files reflecting current knowledge. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 01:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

A request to create or update an illustration can be made at the Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Illustration_workshop. --46.242.12.78 (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and sent in a request. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 22:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@Дрейгорич: You must click the "New request" button and fill in the required fields. You must also provide a detailed description of the illustration you are requesting. Illustrators are not astronomers, they know nothing about inclinations, eccentricities, etc. Upload a file with a crude sketch of what you want (use some free drawing app). Use language like "modify this image (show the current image) with the following changes (show your sketch)". — UnladenSwallow (talk) 11:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
@UnladenSwallow: Unfortunately, I am not sure how to explain the technical jargon to someone not familiar with these plots. I would make my own plots and upload them, but I have neither have the programs nor the knowledge to do so. Thus, I must request. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 11:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
@Дрейгорич: Looking at the image in question, I think it's best that you create the plot yourself. It's not that hard.
  1. Download and install computer algebra system Maxima (it's free): http://maxima.sourceforge.net/download.html.
  2. Follow this simple guide to create the plot: http://www.austromath.at/daten/maxima/zusatz/Graphics_with_Maxima.pdf.
  3. Follow the instructions at Wikipedia:How to create charts for Wikipedia articles § Maxima to output the plot to an SVG file.
  4. Upload the SVG file to Wikipedia.
— UnladenSwallow (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
@UnladenSwallow: When/If I have time, I'll likely do that. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 16:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
 

Hello,
Please note that Satellite galaxy, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Frankly that page is already well developed. Perhaps a better target would be: Warm–hot intergalactic medium. It's a stub article with a high importance rating. Praemonitus (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
It seems being selected led to no improvement anyway. Modest Genius talk 12:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Geophysical Planet Definition

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geophysical Planet Definition Fdfexoex (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Geophysical planet definition was spared deletion but it could really do with attention from more members of this project. Physdragon (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Source for Messier object data

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I'm considering working on bringing Messier object to FL class. In a previous failed FL nomination the reliability of the main source http://www.messier.seds.org/m/m001.html was questioned and I'm now wondering what could be used instead. This is both my first astronomy article so I'm a bit shakey on what's usually used and what's considered reliable. Thanks! --Trialpears (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

You could look at a book, eg Observing Handbook and Catalogue of Deep-Sky Objects by Christian B. Luginbuhl, Brian A. Skiff or 3,000 Deep-Sky Objects: An Annotated Catalogue by Ted Aranda Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Books in general make more reliable sources than the internet. Apart from the verification and checks before publication (of a real book), they are likely to still be around in ten years time. An obvious start for general texts would be The Messier Objects, but also The Atlas of Messier Objects. Going back further Burnham's Hanbook could be helpful. For supporting specific claims, searching Google Books will usually turn up something. For an article like this, if it isn't in a book it very probably shouldn't be in the article. For specific recent research, you can search Google Scholar for journal papers, or go to Simbad for a list of scientific research for each Messier object. 13:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Lithopsian (talk)
Thanks! I've been looking at all of them through various previews and The Messier Objects seems to be just what I was looking for. Currently I'm looking at getting it from my local university library which seems to have access to it. --Trialpears (talk) 06:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Subsolar point

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An editor has been continuing to add unsourced (and confusingly written) information to the Subsolar point article despite being reverted for a lack of one (and pointed to WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD). This isn't really my area, so some extra eyes would be appreciated to see if I'm being too harsh. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Our/the Solar System

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There are hundreds of occurences of "our solar system" in wikipedia. Should these be changed to "the solar system". Fdfexoex (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

They should be changed to 'the Solar System'. The Solar System is a proper noun, so capitalised and takes the definite article. See MOS:CELESTIALBODIES. Lowercase 'solar system' can be used for those around other stars, though in that case saying 'planetary system' is usually clearer. Modest Genius talk 13:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree, especially since Solar System refers to Sol, one of the Sun's proper names. Reyk YO! 14:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Transit of Mercury#More citations needed

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could someone look at the issue I raised on 13 November 2019 in the link above, regarding the timing of the transits of Mercury in this table, according to this source? There are inconsistencies in how the source is being used. I'm not knowledgeable in this area, and need your guidance. Please ping me if you do know how to solve this. Thanks. starship.paint (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Help needed

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a requested move at Talk:Large UV Optical Infrared Surveyor that would benefit from your input. Please come and help! P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 11:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Notification of merge discussion

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A proposal to merge List of surface features of Mars imaged by Spirit and List of surface features of Mars imaged by Opportunity can be found here. Feel free to share your thoughts on the matter! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 05:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Those are part of WP:SOLAR and WP:MARS, not astronomy. Modest Genius talk 13:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

name of a star

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Yonmara is about a star, but I can find no reputable reference to it being called this name.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

No way the name ref is reliable, it's from a site that is a persistent science fiction sandbox strategyMMO set on Vieneo, a vast moon orbiting the planet Iomere. I'll move it to 186 G. Sagittarii. Primefac (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
The article was almost entirely faked using random numbers and pieces chopped out of other Wikipedia star articles. It should have been deleted. I have hopefully fixed most of it and renamed again to HD 182681. Possibly isn't even notable, but there was enough information out there for a basic article, so now there is one. Lithopsian (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I didn't even think to check the accuracy of the article itself. Primefac (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. Normally the fans just slip a little bit of nonsense into an article that's otherwise mostly correct; they don't write an entire fictional article. Reyk YO! 13:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Dark matter as a controversial theory or proposed form of matter

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's a dispute at Talk:Dark_matter on whether to call dark matter a controversial theory or a proposed form of matter. Would appreciate some extra opinions there. Banedon (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

VizieR catalogues

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

WP:JCW/Publisher7#VizieR reveals several catalogues with bibcode 'journal' entries that don't redirect to article.

It's likely not all of those have corresponding targets, but it would be good to check if some of those couldn't be redirected to useful articles. In partiular

Help creating those redirects would be great. Or you could also cleanup the articles that cite them too (many can easily be found via the JCW link above). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Going to ping @Lithopsian, Praemonitus, Modest Genius, Psyluke, and K Lepo: since you have helped with this in the past. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
B/Mk. Originally Published in: Lowell Observatory (October 2014) is Bibcode:2014yCat....1.2023S. Lithopsian (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Seems we don't have an article on the Catalogue of Stellar Spectral Classifications. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

New bot to remove completed infobox requests

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Astronomy since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!

Sent on behalf of Trialpears (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy/Archive_30&oldid=985017550"