Talk:List of astronomy acronyms

Definition of acronym

I found acronym defined on the web as "a word formed from the initial letters of a series of words". Using this definition, some of the items in this list as of 31 Aug 2006 are not acronyms, including Bl Lac and z (for metallicity). Maybe these should be placed in a separate list; z could go under a list of symbols, and Bl Lac could go in a list of abbreviations? GeorgeJBendo 12:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have metallicity in the symbols table, so, I'm going to just delete z completely. Thanks, CarpD 9/1/06

OK. What do we do with "neb"? It is not an technically an acronym, but it is a very common abbreviation. GeorgeJBendo 15:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Created a non-acronym in the deleted list. We'll decide afterwards. Thanks, CarpD 9/3/06

If we're to be accurate about it, aren't most of these actually initialisms and not acronyms? The definition (and the fact that "words" like XRF and 1RXH are inherently unpronounceable) would imply this. Therefore if these are, in fact, not acronyms then the number of inaccuracies mean that this is statistically the least accurate page on all of Wikipedia. --InvaderXan (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Original Conversation from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects

I think there should be a page on this. When reading astronomical papers, a few instances where the paper does not define the acronyms. A person would probably come to Wikipedia to search for it. I have a massive list, about 8 pages worth, of acronyms that I collected over the years. Unfortunately, I did not record the source paper. If interested, let me know. And I will submit the list. Thanks, CarpD (^_^; 8/25/2006

This is a good idea for a main Wikipedia article, and I think CarpD/Marasama should create the page. This could also be a useful guide for creating redirects or additions to disambiguation pages. Could someone who is familiar with Wikipedia naming conventions suggest a good article title? GeorgeJBendo 15:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Incase your wondering, here is what I have. http://marasama.googlepages.com/abbrev.html Thanks, CarpD (^_^; 8/25/2006 3:30pm

Maybe you can rewrite that webpage to improve its organization before Wikifying it? Some sections did not have headers, some links at the top of the page were broken, and the organization did not make sense. GeorgeJBendo 20:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Organize in 4 groups, Equipments/Vehicles/Telescopes, Celestial Objects, Math/Physics Terminology, Catalog Names. What do you think, Thanks, CarpD (^_^; 8/25/2006 5:30pm

Astronomy acronyms List of astronomy acronyms should be the name of the page, and it should be categorized under Category:Acronyms. It is possible, I checked out the page, that it may be necessary to create sub-pages, but probably would be best to put them all on one page for now and see how it looks. Try your 4 groups, see if it makes sense, and then re-organize from there. Let me know if you want any help with it. --Exodio 22:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

By convention the name for such pages is almost always "List of..." See for example List of government and military acronyms and List of acronyms and initialisms. A page named "Astronomy acronyms" would be expected to primarily a discussion page. If it is named "Astronomy acronyms", you can expect somebody at some point to rename it. :-) — RJH (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ack, sorry. Corrected. --Exodio 17:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, here is the first attempt, tell me if this setup seems good. Also, I was thinking of highlighting the letters that belong to the acronym. List of astronomy acronyms. I am unable to figure how to create a better content box. Thanks, CarpD (^_^) 8/26/06

I don't think it is necessary to highlight the letters - it seems like a lot of work for little reason. I checked some of the other acronym pages and at least the basic lists don't highlight. Ultimately, since you are the one donating the blood sweat and tears, do what you think looks best. But I for one vote for no highlighting. What do you mean you can't figure out how to create a better content box? Looks fine to me. --Exodio 04:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

As a second thought, do you feel it necessary to have 4 categories? Would one page serve as well, by Alpha? Because if you are looking for a particular acronym, you just need to search the particular letter it is under. Maybe each entry could have a tag explaining what type of acronym it is, but have one complete list for everything.

I cannot add a link of Astronomical Acronyms to the page, Category:Acronyms. When I click to edit the page, it does not list anything for me to add a link. I'm not sure how to write it in. As for the grouping, I'll probably change to alphanumeric and add a tag.

OK, I have 0-9,A,& B done. Tell me what you think. I tried to link the acronyms to the proper articles as much as possible. It also shows that we may have to create a few articles. Thanks, CarpD (^_^) 8/27/06 morning...

That looks good. The information in the parentheses after each acronym("celestial object", for example) is a useful addition to the list. If you do not mind, I may comb through the list later and either revise some of the entries or delete some of the genuinely obscure acronyms. GeorgeJBendo 07:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, but about delete obscure ones. Let me know, if you need citation. I'll look for it. Some of those obscure ones I find time-to-time and have a hard time looking up of what they are. Thanks, CarpD (^_^) 8/27/06 morning...

Oh, APM is a catalog, [[1]], APMM is a goof. I use Simbad to answer the catalogs. Also, the list is of acronyms that I have are when I come to it in astronomical research paper & news sites. So, I am not physically searching for them, they are the ones that I bump into. CarpD (^_^) 8/27/06 morning...

I suggest that we continue this discussion on the List of astronomy acronyms talk page. GeorgeJBendo 08:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Obscure Acronyms

Some of these acronyms look like they may have been used in only one or two scientific papers rather than commonly used. Perhaps the standard for inclusion in this list should be that the acronyms are used in six scientific papers or other references that do not copy each other.

Let's start with BLG (for Galactic Bulge) by CarpD. CarpD, can you name six references that use BLG? GeorgeJBendo 08:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Which one? The catalog, I'm assuming. BLG is part of the OGLE listing. CarpD

Found it, OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb, BLG is part of the OGLE survey. CarpD

The BLG (catalog) acronym looks OK. Now, can you name six references that use BLG for the Galactic Bulge (celestial object)? GeorgeJBendo 15:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I cannot find more than 2-3 papers. But, I have not looked at the OGLE survey papers. I'm sure it is in there, since they have the galactic bulge listings. But, maybe, BLG should move to OGLE. ie. OGLE-MOA, OGLE-BLG as the variations.

I would say that BLG should stay (in its current location) as part of the abbreviation to the OGLE catalog but that the second entry for BLG should be deleted. I will do so. GeorgeJBendo 21:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

For the BLG, I seen it refer to stars in the area. And OGLE uses it to list observation of that area. Two different things. I guess, I would say that BLG refers to the Milky Way's center, and also, OGLE uses OGLE-BLG-#### to refer to observation of microlensing events in the Milky Way's center.

Recommend to do the following:

B catagory

• BLG - (celestial object) Galactic Bulge, referring to the Milky Way's center region
• BLG - (catalog) see OGLE

O catagory

• OGLE - (...) ... //under the O catagory
  • also BLG - BLG refers to the microlensing event in the BLG region of the Milky Way
  • also MOA - MOA refers to ...

Just a thought, thanks CarpD 8/27/06 6pm central time

Categories

I added the list to Category:Acronyms. You were doing it backwords, CarpD. You add the category to the page on the bottom by add [[Category:Acronyms]] and it automatically shows up on the category page. As a sidenote, if you want to create a link to a category page from an article, you need to put a : before category in the link like so: [[:Category:Acronyms|Category:Acronyms]] . --Exodio 12:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Huge external source of acronyms

Before this page was created, I had found a huge list of acronyms on the web, although what I had found seemed out of date. On 27 Aug, I found a huge up-to-date list here. These should be copied over to this list (with an appropriate reference back to the page). GeorgeJBendo 15:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this acronym list also contains astronautical and rocketry acronyms (or acronyms related to sending rockets/astronauts into space). Please do not add the astronautical/rocketry terms. Also, do not add the "common" acronyms (such as AFAIK for "As Far As I Know"). GeorgeJBendo 16:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. But for the acronyms, they are the ones that I run into when reading research papers or news sites, (ie. spaceref.com, spaceflightnow.com, space.com, or newscientist.com). I am an amateur astronomer, if you call that. CarpD (^_^) 8/27/06

CarpD, so as to avoid confusion, I will add the contents of the list at tla.surly.org following your additions to each section. (I think a lot of the acronyms you found belong on the other website.) GeorgeJBendo 21:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Huge Thanks George

Well, I see that your editting a lot from me. I want to thank you for your time on my amatuer-ish. Thanks GeorgeJBendo, CarpD (^_^) 8/27/06 16:36 central time zone.

I do not think of you as very "amateur-ish" because you obviously have spent a lot of time reading professional astronomy articles. I just want to see things done well. Besides, I think your original list is better than the lists maintained by astronomers on the web. GeorgeJBendo 08:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

More acronyms for deletion

CarpD, I think the CE, CGP, and CSPNe acronyms are rare enough that they could be deleted from this list. Would that be OK? Also, would you consider the deletion of some of the symbols (such as the one for solar luminosity), which may be more appropriate for a "List of astronomy symbols" page? GeorgeJBendo 09:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I just did the D section. DS also appears to be rarely used. Can that one be deleted? GeorgeJBendo 09:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

DDO looks like it is used once in the literature. Can that one be deleted, too? GeorgeJBendo 17:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, let me see.

• CE - I am uncertain what that means.
• CGP - I say, keep it, due to extrasolar planet discovery
• CSPNe - this one took me 2 papers to verify what the "e" stood for, I assumed it was emission, but had a heck of a time looking for it. Also, when I get to the P's, there is a PN and a PNe, so, I would say probably keep it. Maybe we could be CSPN and also CSPNe next to it.
• DDO - I thought it was not important, until the paper I read it. I stated that the 2 DDO discovered could be caused by a Neptune or Jupiter mass planet that has not been discovered yet. At 2000 or 5000AU. That is the only reason I kept DDO.

Thanks, CarpD 8/28/06

As for the symbols, ie. Luminosity, Mass, etc. Deffinately keep, but maybe put it somewhere else, "List of astronomy symbols" is not a bad idea, probably link the two together. Thanks, CarpD 8/28/06

I am going to delete CE. I'll leave CSPNe for now. However, the CGP and DDO acronyms appear to only be used in your context in one or two scientific papers; a Google search on the terms brings up almost nothing (although a search in ADS abstracts reveals that other terms abbreviated as CGP and DDO may be more common). Including them here really is not helpful. You should provide some references (more than one paper or one set of papers by one research group) to demonstrate that these are common acronyms.

(By your logic, the abbreviation LD01 for "Li & Draine 2001", a paper on the physics of interstellar dust absorption and emission, should be included in the list. "LD01" is probably used far more often than your versions of CGP and DDO. However, outside of a few scientific papers, "LD01" is not widely recognized, and it is recognized as an abbreviation used only for a few scientific papers, not the scientific community as a whole. Therefore, including "LD01" in the list is not worthwhile.) GeorgeJBendo 21:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to delete them, I'm not going to stop you. I thought they were something of interest. Also, on the SDO page, it mentions DDO, but in only one section. I suppose, if more are found, then DDO will hold weight, otherwise; only 2 objects are gouped as DDO.CarpD 8/28/06

OK, I will delete CGP and DDO. (DDO will actually be replaced with the name for the DDO catalog, which is probably more commonly used.) I would also like to delete ESDO and ESD, which I cannot find used in this context anywhere on the web. Would that be OK? (I am sorry if I seem abrasive. It's hard to interpret how other people interpret written language sometimes.) GeorgeJBendo 22:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Catalog Links

Are we not keeping the catalog link. If it is too cluttered, then a master list should be at the top to link each item, ie. telescope, organization, catalog, etc. Thanks, CarpD 8/28/06

I thought that keeping the catalog link would not be useful. A key at the top with links to appropriate articles (for telescopes, catalogs, instrumentation, etc.) would be more appropriate. GeorgeJBendo 22:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Acronymns

To make it simple, GeorgeJBendo, if you feel like deleting an object, place it in this list, and we'll discuss this after the page is completed. Make life easier. Plus, I can keep track of what have been removed, if we decide in the future to add it, we can simply copy and paste with ease. Thanks, CarpD 8/28/06

Good idea. I will do that as I edit the page. GeorgeJBendo 08:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Rarely-used acronyms (or redundant acronyms)

• BHG - (celestial object) Blue Hypergiant
• BLG - (celectial object) BLG, the center of the Milky Way
• BSS - (catalog) Bolton, Stanley, & Slee
• BU - (catalog) S.W.Burnham
• BWP - (celectial object) Black Widow Pulsar, a pulsar that spins due to devouring the companion body
• cD - (celestial object) luminous Diffuse, used to describe bright elliptical galaxies
• CE - (astrophysics terminology) Common Evolution
• CGP - (celestial object) Close in Giant Planet
• DDO - (celestial object) Distant Detached Object, a detached TNO/SDO
• DWD - (celestial object) Dead White Dwarf, probably a dated term, [2]
• DWD - (celestial object) Double White Dwarf, new term, [3]
• esd - (celestial object) Extreme Subdwarf star
• ESDO - (celestial object) Extended Scattered Disk Object
  • also E-SDO
• HFC - (celestial object) Halley-Family Comet
  • also IC medium (varient of ICM)
• ILSE - (equipment) IRS Labor Satellit Entwicklung
  • webpage = http://www.kleinsatelliten.de/ilse/index.en.php
• IPMO - (celestial object) Isolated Planetary Mass Objects, another name for isolated planemos or sub-brown dwarfs
• JFC - (celestial object) Jupiter-Family Comet
• KUI - (catalog) Kuiper
  • LMC MACHO - (catalog) Large Magellanic Cloud MACHO, the catalog for MACHOs detected in front of the Large Magellanic Cloud
  • SMC MACHO - (catalog) Small Magellanic Cloud MACHO, the catalog for MACHOs detected in front of the Small Magellanic Cloud
• MBC - (celestial object) Main-Belt Comet, comets that reside in the Asteroid Belt
• McC - (catalog) McCormick Observatory Catalog
• MW - (catalog) Mandel-Wilson, a catalog of unexplored nebulae in high galactic latitude
• OGLE
  • LMC - Large Magellanic Cloud, used to desginate a microlensing event in the direction of the [[Large Magellanic Cloud
  • SMC - OGLE catalog of the SMC
  • also PMO - Planetary Mass Object
  • also PMC - Planetary Mass Candidate
• PSR - (catalog) Pulsar
• sd (subdwarf items) - probably more of spectra code than abbreviation.
  • sdB - (celestial object) Subdwarf B star
  • sdO - (celestial object) Subdwarf O star
  • sdOB - (celestial object) Subdwarf OB star
• SMO - (celestial object) Substellar Mass Object or Stellar Mass Object
• SPC - (astrophyics terminology) Spontaneous Pair Creation, where stars form into binary systems
• STF - (catalog) Struve
• STT - (catalog) O.Struve
• TVLM - (catalog) Tinney, Very Low Mass, a catalog of low mass stars and brown dwarfs
• TZO RSG - (celestial object) Thorne-Żytkow Object Red Super Giant star
• VBL - (celestial object) Very Blue Luminous object
• VeLLO - (celestial object) Very Low Luminosity Object
• VLMO - (celestial object) Very Low Mass Object
• Wo - (catalog) Wolley
• YHG - (celectial object) Yellow Hypergiant
• Ys - (celestial object) Yellow Straggler
• YSG - (celestial object) Yellow Super Giant star
  • YSO ordering, [YSO I, YSO II, YSO III, & ZAMS]
  • YSO I - Protostar, experiences gravitational collapse and beginning to spin
  • YSO II - Classical T-Tauri Star [CTTS], contains a disk accretion and jets
  • YSO III - Weak Line T-Tauri Star [WTTS], disintegration of disk, beginning of fusion

Non-Acronyms used as common abbreviations

• neb = nebula
• Lac I - (catalog) Lacaille Nebulae, a historic catalog created by Nicolas Louis de Lacaille in the eighteenth century
• Lac II - (catalog) Lacaille Nebulous Star Cluster, a historic catalog created by Nicolas Louis de Lacaille in the eighteenth century
• Lac III - (catalog) Lacaille Nebulous Star, a historic catalog created by Nicolas Louis de Lacaille in the eighteenth century
• Ross - (catalog) Ross
• Wolf - (catalog) Wolf

Great job

Wow - list looks great. I think it will be a huge help. You should add a link to it from the main Astro Objects project page when you think it's "done". This should probably go into a box that can be attached to any WikiProject relating to Space - maybe a meta-link page. --Exodio 08:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Spacecraft vs Space Probe

Is there a difference? CarpD 9/4/06

I was wondering about this myself. I have switched back and forth between the two as I have expanded the list. The list should be consistent in the end.

My personal preference is for spacecraft since it sounds more formal. A few NASA websites (this one, this one, and this one) generally refer to things like Cassini, Stardust, and Galileo as spacecraft. (Huygens is called a probe, but it is functionally different.) It seems like spacecraft is generally used for something that flies through space while probe is used to describe something that penetrate's an object's surface or atmosphere. What are your thoughts? GeorgeJBendo 07:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like, all space probes are spacecrafts, but not all spacecrafts are space probes. lol

I will say that spacecraft is more recognized, I'll set everything to spacecrafts. I think space probe still counts, but more sites seem to use spacecraft. Thanks, CarpD 9/5/06

The "c" in "cD" for cD galaxies

I found out what the c stands for. It means "luminous" for "archaic reasons". (My guess at "central" was incorrect and should be removed.)

It is not exactly an acronym, but it will confuse anyone who tries to explain what the definition stands for, including most professional astronomers. Any suggestions on what to do with the thing? GeorgeJBendo 14:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I came to the realization that "cD" is as much of an acronym as "SABbc(rs)" (i.e. it is nt an acronym but a symbolic designation), so I removed it. GeorgeJBendo 22:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I was wondering about that one... Thanks, CarpD 9/5/06

Symbols on separate page

I think the symbols should go on a List of common astronomy symbols. They sort of seem out of place in a list of acronyms; many of them technically are not acronyms but are instead symbols and abbreviations. However, they would still be useful to include on Wikipedia. CarpD, what are your thoughts? GeorgeJBendo 21:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about that. But the question is, is it easier for a person to find the symbols? I think I'm going to have to deferr the answer on this til this page is finalized (or something on that line). The only thing is that the page would be very small. Thanks, CarpD 9/9/06

I think it would be easier for a user to find a list of symbols on a page labeled "list of symbols" or something similar. Wikipedia users are going to find the astronomical symbols page before they find this one. Moreover, people are not going to be interested in the symbols when they are looking up acronyms on this page. Also, most of the other lists of astronomy acronyms on the web do not contain the symbols that you have attached to this page. I therefore think that keeping the symbols on the page is not useful and that they should be shifted to a separate page. GeorgeJBendo 07:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

So much for the deferred decision? List of common astronomy symbols, thanks, CarpD 9/9/06

Done with first revision

I have completed reviewing and revising everything on the list. I plan on editing more entries over time. I will also edit the introduction.

Note that I did not include all of the acronyms from the pages under references. The sulry.org reference included many non-astronomy NASA terms that did not seem appropriate for this list. The Japanese reference included multiple rare astronomy acronyms that did not seem useful to include here. The AAVSO list included some things that looked too much like symbols (things that were no longer abbreviations of words but letters to represent other things).

I also plan on adding more acronyms from a website named DOOFAAS, although I am going to check that the acronyms are actually in use. The author of DOOFAAS did make some mistakes; for example, the "Super Huge Interferometric Telescope" is actually a spoof proposal created for an AAS meeting and not a real telescope. GeorgeJBendo 14:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool, I will look it over. Also, I will add new ones if I come across it on the astro-papers. The only question that comes to mind is, PSR is also a catalog. The extrasolar planets, as well as other pulsars, are under PSR J####.##. Would this not constitute as a catalog? Thanks, CarpD 9/12/06

I thought about this. Ultimately, I decided to label it and WD and WR as celestial objects. The catalog names were ultimately taken from the acronyms for the sources, so I don't think that also labeling them as catalogs is useful. However, I suppose that mentioning the catalog as well would not be bad. Can I brood on this for a while? GeorgeJBendo 15:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean. I am thinking about a list of Catalogs, since the Star catalogue does a poor job on listing all the ones that exist. Granted there are a few off-the-wall, ie. GAT, OTS, BBS, APMM, etc. But, those catalogs have those one or two objects that are seemingly not labeled in any other catalogs. If this happens, I will put a 'See also' on catalog names. What do you think? Thanks, CarpD

I was also thinking that a list of astronomical catalogs would be useful. I would recommend trying a tabular format rather than a list format. By the way, you may want to use VizieR, the CDS Service for Astronomical Catalogues, and the Dictionary of Nomenclature of Celestial Objects maintained by CDS. I use VizieR myself to frequently look-up catalog information. GeorgeJBendo 21:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Page created, List of Star catalogue, thanks, CarpD 9/12/06

Adding M31V acronym

According to the IAU recommendations, the identifier was built from the object position and taking into account the observational angular resolution. The resulting format is M31 JHHMMSSss+DDMMSSs. For the variable stars, the acronym was changed to M31V to indicate that they are also in the variable star catalog

, page 6 on the paper. [4], thanks, CarpD 9/13/06

We should wait to see if it becomes commonly used. I see no reason to include an acronym that is not even published yet. GeorgeJBendo 20:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Errors

XRF is linked to a page on X-ray Fluorescence. This needs to be corrected. THIS XRF an astronomy acronym for X-ray Flash, with a softer spectrum than a GRB (e.g. http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/697/1/758/pdf/0004-637X_697_1_758.pdf is not a great reference, but you can see some references here and he uses the words, "Softer XRF". -BTP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.243.51.46 (talk) 00:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

   Huh! I read this via Google News, wanted to know why an XRF unit might be a neat thing to have on your phone, and found that XRF (while not the worst Dab i've seen lately) did have the accompanying list as the target of one of the Dab entries, and worse yet, said list pointed to an idiotic Rdr at X-ray flash that not only ignored the need for Dab'n of the phrase, but also had a target that doesn't even mention the phrase.
   I've changed the Rdr to a Dab, and written a stub for X-ray flash (astronomy). It may turn out to be a crap stub, and i hope someone will pay more attention to it than seems to have been paid to the preceding talk contrib.
--Jerzy•t 02:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

XMM

   The entry

* XMM – (telescope) X-ray Multi Mirror, part of the name of the XMM-Newton X-ray space telescope

seems to be trying to respect the page's convention of linking the abbreviation to the article, in the same breath with making an over-scrupulous sense/reference distinction, and thoroly overloaded the entry even before it linked twice to the same page. I'm not prepared to tackle the question of whether the implicit MoS of this particular page is wisely chosen, but i'm satisfied it is pointlessly overloaded in this particular entry. IMO

* XMM – (telescope) X-ray Multi-Mirror, the XMM-Newton earth-orbiting X-ray-sensitive telescope

does the job significantly better.
   YMMV (and if so, verbum sap.: others can work that out).
--Jerzy•t 04:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

It appears that the slightly smaller page, Astronomical acronyms, covers a very similar topic, and contains much of the same content as this one, so I suggest merging the article later. To give fair warning, I will wait until Wednesday (the 18th) to actually merge them, to wait for possible discussion/input on this. 107.184.134.64 (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Klbrain (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of astronomy acronyms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060823220715/http://www.aavso.org/typelist.txt to http://www.aavso.org/typelist.txt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607051424/http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~se2k-sgwr/comet_p/ryakugo.html to http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~se2k-sgwr/comet_p/ryakugo.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090429133735/http://www.astro.umd.edu/~marshall/ast_acro.html to http://www.astro.umd.edu/~marshall/ast_acro.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Overitalicization

This page has extreme overuse of italics. Chipping away at that could be a project for someone. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)