Main | Talk |
Astronomical objects ( Talk) |
Eclipses ( Talk) | Article ratings | Image review | Popular pages | Members | Wikidata |
To-do list for WikiProject Astronomy:
|
Astronomy Project‑class | |||||||
|
WikiProject Astronomy was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 14 January 2013. |
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Should imperial/U.S. customary units be present in the infobox of astronomical objects in general?
CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 04:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm opposed to imperial in general, but we need to keep it when citing values that are given in imperial. The reason is that when we convert to metric, not only may there be rounding errors, but we often change the number of significant digits. And when sources are in imperial, their source data was often in metric and there are already conversion errors involved. Often when we convert back, our figures differ from the original -- that's been a recurring problem with our data. Better to give it in imperial with our metric conversion following in parentheses. Editors will then be aware of the potential for error and try to find the original figures, which should be used instead. When our sources use metric, then we should use metric only, unless our source converted from imperial. In all cases, I think we should attempt to use the original figures, or as close to them as we can find. — kwami ( talk) 23:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
We should be using metric units for everything except for material which is specifically US material. Wikipdia is not owned by the US. It is world wide and vast majority of countries now use metric. Bduke ( talk) 01:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
As a month passes by and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Imperial/U.S._customary_units_in_the_infobox did not reach to a consensus, I think it is time to ask the wider community.
CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 16:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm inclined to rate astronomy museums, documentaries, and education programs as of bottom importance. Do you agree? Examples include: Kepler Museum, Our Heavenly Bodies, Category:Astronomy education television series, Category:Astronomy museums, Category:Documentary television series about astronomy. Category:Planetaria are already of bottom importance. Praemonitus ( talk) 17:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Here's a candidate Education block for the importance scale:
Will this work? Praemonitus ( talk) 14:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of July 16, 2186 (2nd nomination), which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Primefac ( talk) 05:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I am looking for a textbook or review to explain superluminal astronomical observations for Faster-than-light#Astronomical_observations. AFAICT astronomers use the term "superluminal" as an observational category and thus the reviews of "superluminal sources" are matter of fact. The non-physical nature of "superluminal" does not even come up since (I assume) "everyone" knows that the term is empirical and no one things the speed of light limit is really exceeded. But I've not found a source that explains the issue. Suggestions? Johnjbarton ( talk) 01:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I put together an early draft of a MoS guide for astronomy under Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Manual of Style. It is intended to embed what has thus far been tribal knowledge for this WikiProject and its associated task forces. For comparison, other such style guides can be viewed under the "By topic area" tab in the infobox. What do you think of this proposed guide? Do you disagree with what is stated? What else should it cover? I'm sure it can be significantly expanded. Thanks. Praemonitus ( talk) 05:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
A style question came up during a recent edit discussion: should infobox data entries preferentially use abbreviations or words? For example, 'Mly' or 'million light years'; 'AU' or 'astronomical unit'; 'Gyr' or 'billion years'; 'g/cm3' or 'grams per cubic centimetre'. In my mind the infobox should be kept compact by sticking to abbreviations, with the word usage being left for the article body. Is there a preference? Praemonitus ( talk) 20:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
It's probably not an issue yet, but should we mention AI-generated illustrations? For example, "AI-generated illustrations should be avoided unless their accuracy is confirmed by an astronomy expert. The AI system may have been trained using copyrighted material, so the legality of such use is unclear." Praemonitus ( talk) 17:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
The guide contained the following entry, which was removed with this edit:
with the comment "I disagree, it is better to directly cite SIMBAD or NED as sources for the infobox, as it makes it easier to verify the information."
I have seen cited data removed from these sources, so they should not be considered stable. An example of this is the coordinate information, which is subject to refinement over time, with the old data being replaced. Instead, in many cases they do provide stable references that can be used to directly cite the data. Hence, I'd caution against using SIMBAD or NED directly.
Are there any concerns about this? Praemonitus ( talk) 12:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
A few suggestions:
-- Beland ( talk) 03:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
There is this List of missions to Mars, and there are three lists that are mostly duplicates, List of Mars landers, List of Mars orbiters, and List of artificial objects on Mars. I think both can be safely redirected to the main list without any loss of content, with a little merge from the third article (section on garbage on Mars). What do you all think? Artem.G ( talk) 12:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
This is approaching a state in which the featured article review can be closed as kept, but could use some more attention. I recently left some review comments and was requested to leave a note here. Hog Farm Talk 02:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I have heard rumors that wiki-sky, a.k.a. Sky-Map.org, have shut down permanently. The page has long been used by a number of templates, used in thousands of astronomy articles on Wikipedia, in the form of links to a sky map (see Messier 94 and Alpha Centauri as examples; the link to the "coordinates" is at the top of the page). The page is currently offline, and has been for a few days. If this is indeed permanent, as I suspect, then we need a replacement, and some rather high-profile templates have to be edited quickly. Renerpho ( talk) 15:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Currently, there is no C:COM:WikiProject Astronomy, but there is alot of astronomical files and needs for categorization, file description, file name corrections, and perhaps building galleries. There are such wikiprojects on Commons, such as C:COM:WikiProject Aviation. The 2024 Great North American Eclipse talkpage has also been having debates on galleries lately, so building galleries on Commons can alleviate that -- 65.92.247.66 ( talk) 21:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
So I just checked the “Did you know...” section on the front page of Wikipedia. And there is this interesting article: G299.2-2.9
The article says the object is 4,500 years old and 16,000 light years away from us. This doesn't make sense to me. Doesn't that mean its light has a speed of at least 3.6 times the speed of light? Nightwatcher773 ( talk) 11:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
We currently have templates for citing catalogs, such as exoplanet.eu {{ Cite EPE}}, Gaia DR2 {{ Cite Gaia DR2}}, SIMBAD {{ Cite simbad}}, among others. However, I miss a template to cite the NASA Exoplanet Archive, which is also a large catalog of exoplanets. The template name could be {{ Cite NEC}} or {{ Cite Exoplanet Archive}} and the style could be like this:
HIP 39017 Overview. NASA Exoplanet Archive. Acessed on 2024-04-30.
I don't know how to make templates, so anyone experienced could make this. InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 12:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Template links fixed, no content change. Primefac ( talk) 12:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
{{cite web |title={{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}} Overview |url=https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/overview/{{urlencode:{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}} |publisher = [[NASA Exoplanet Archive]] | access-date={{{access-date|}}} }}
{{Cite Exoplanet Archive|HIP 39017|access-date=30 April 2024}}
you would get out
"HIP 39017 Overview".
NASA Exoplanet Archive. Retrieved 30 April 2024.
Seeing that, NED should get a template. NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database -- {{ Cite NED}} to go along with {{ NED DB}} and {{ NED link}} -- 65.92.247.66 ( talk) 03:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
I think you guys might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/IAU list of deceased members. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 06:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Sun may require an FAR if the concerns on its talk page are not addressed soon. 750 h+ 10:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2MASX J22550681+0058396 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 until the discussion has finished.Parejkoj ( talk) 17:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I've also nominated many other articles created by User_talk:Galaxybeing, and there are more yet to delete. If someone has a more automated way to go through these, that would be great: I've been adding them to the deletion list one at a time, and that's getting tedious. It may be more worthwhile to see if any of these new articles are notable enough to keep and just delete them all otherwise. We'll see if the author responds. - Parejkoj ( talk) 17:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a move discussion at List of largest stars for changing the name to List of largest known stars. InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 21:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
PSR J1903+0327 says "A near-infrared companion, KS = 18 (2.22 μ), is observed in Gemini North images at its radio position..." What do "KS" and "μ" mean in this context? I see "μ" used in Reduced mass and Standard gravitational parameter but if it's one of those, I'm not exactly sure how that relates. This notation was in the first draft of the article added by Wwheaton, but they have not been an active editor for a few years, so I thought I'd ask here. Thanks! -- Beland ( talk) 03:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I've been finding some NGC object topics that were redirected to a list, but the list had no entry for that subject. Examples include NGC 6237 and NGC 6245. There are also redirects to pages with no information on the subject. An example of that is NGC 6057. I think the reader would expect to find something about the subject on the target page. Praemonitus ( talk) 14:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a contradiction between the content of the article and the talk page. While the article explicitly says that HR 5171 is contact binary, the latest talk page discussion says that it isn't based on a newer publication from 2019. [6] This needs to be fixed in the article. InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 14:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
RX Telescopii ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RX Telescopii. Please post your comment there and help deciding the fate of the article. InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 00:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I have nominated Sun for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 750 h+ 01:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Template:Argo Navis (compact) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- 65.92.244.237 ( talk) 14:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I've started a discussion proposing some changes to the aforementioned template. Although this template is primarily concerned with planetary geology and Solar System-related topics, I invite you all to join the discussion and give your comments. ArkHyena ( talk) 19:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
The page Galactic coordinate system contains this picture:
with a caption saying it shows the galactic longitude. The article says that this is measured from the galactic centre. Doesn't the picture show coordinates centred on our Sun, though? Or have I misunderstood? Marnanel ( talk) 10:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Main | Talk |
Astronomical objects ( Talk) |
Eclipses ( Talk) | Article ratings | Image review | Popular pages | Members | Wikidata |
To-do list for WikiProject Astronomy:
|
Astronomy Project‑class | |||||||
|
WikiProject Astronomy was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 14 January 2013. |
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Should imperial/U.S. customary units be present in the infobox of astronomical objects in general?
CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 04:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm opposed to imperial in general, but we need to keep it when citing values that are given in imperial. The reason is that when we convert to metric, not only may there be rounding errors, but we often change the number of significant digits. And when sources are in imperial, their source data was often in metric and there are already conversion errors involved. Often when we convert back, our figures differ from the original -- that's been a recurring problem with our data. Better to give it in imperial with our metric conversion following in parentheses. Editors will then be aware of the potential for error and try to find the original figures, which should be used instead. When our sources use metric, then we should use metric only, unless our source converted from imperial. In all cases, I think we should attempt to use the original figures, or as close to them as we can find. — kwami ( talk) 23:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
We should be using metric units for everything except for material which is specifically US material. Wikipdia is not owned by the US. It is world wide and vast majority of countries now use metric. Bduke ( talk) 01:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
As a month passes by and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Imperial/U.S._customary_units_in_the_infobox did not reach to a consensus, I think it is time to ask the wider community.
CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 16:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm inclined to rate astronomy museums, documentaries, and education programs as of bottom importance. Do you agree? Examples include: Kepler Museum, Our Heavenly Bodies, Category:Astronomy education television series, Category:Astronomy museums, Category:Documentary television series about astronomy. Category:Planetaria are already of bottom importance. Praemonitus ( talk) 17:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Here's a candidate Education block for the importance scale:
Will this work? Praemonitus ( talk) 14:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of July 16, 2186 (2nd nomination), which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Primefac ( talk) 05:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I am looking for a textbook or review to explain superluminal astronomical observations for Faster-than-light#Astronomical_observations. AFAICT astronomers use the term "superluminal" as an observational category and thus the reviews of "superluminal sources" are matter of fact. The non-physical nature of "superluminal" does not even come up since (I assume) "everyone" knows that the term is empirical and no one things the speed of light limit is really exceeded. But I've not found a source that explains the issue. Suggestions? Johnjbarton ( talk) 01:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I put together an early draft of a MoS guide for astronomy under Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Manual of Style. It is intended to embed what has thus far been tribal knowledge for this WikiProject and its associated task forces. For comparison, other such style guides can be viewed under the "By topic area" tab in the infobox. What do you think of this proposed guide? Do you disagree with what is stated? What else should it cover? I'm sure it can be significantly expanded. Thanks. Praemonitus ( talk) 05:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
A style question came up during a recent edit discussion: should infobox data entries preferentially use abbreviations or words? For example, 'Mly' or 'million light years'; 'AU' or 'astronomical unit'; 'Gyr' or 'billion years'; 'g/cm3' or 'grams per cubic centimetre'. In my mind the infobox should be kept compact by sticking to abbreviations, with the word usage being left for the article body. Is there a preference? Praemonitus ( talk) 20:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
It's probably not an issue yet, but should we mention AI-generated illustrations? For example, "AI-generated illustrations should be avoided unless their accuracy is confirmed by an astronomy expert. The AI system may have been trained using copyrighted material, so the legality of such use is unclear." Praemonitus ( talk) 17:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
The guide contained the following entry, which was removed with this edit:
with the comment "I disagree, it is better to directly cite SIMBAD or NED as sources for the infobox, as it makes it easier to verify the information."
I have seen cited data removed from these sources, so they should not be considered stable. An example of this is the coordinate information, which is subject to refinement over time, with the old data being replaced. Instead, in many cases they do provide stable references that can be used to directly cite the data. Hence, I'd caution against using SIMBAD or NED directly.
Are there any concerns about this? Praemonitus ( talk) 12:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
A few suggestions:
-- Beland ( talk) 03:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
There is this List of missions to Mars, and there are three lists that are mostly duplicates, List of Mars landers, List of Mars orbiters, and List of artificial objects on Mars. I think both can be safely redirected to the main list without any loss of content, with a little merge from the third article (section on garbage on Mars). What do you all think? Artem.G ( talk) 12:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
This is approaching a state in which the featured article review can be closed as kept, but could use some more attention. I recently left some review comments and was requested to leave a note here. Hog Farm Talk 02:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I have heard rumors that wiki-sky, a.k.a. Sky-Map.org, have shut down permanently. The page has long been used by a number of templates, used in thousands of astronomy articles on Wikipedia, in the form of links to a sky map (see Messier 94 and Alpha Centauri as examples; the link to the "coordinates" is at the top of the page). The page is currently offline, and has been for a few days. If this is indeed permanent, as I suspect, then we need a replacement, and some rather high-profile templates have to be edited quickly. Renerpho ( talk) 15:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Currently, there is no C:COM:WikiProject Astronomy, but there is alot of astronomical files and needs for categorization, file description, file name corrections, and perhaps building galleries. There are such wikiprojects on Commons, such as C:COM:WikiProject Aviation. The 2024 Great North American Eclipse talkpage has also been having debates on galleries lately, so building galleries on Commons can alleviate that -- 65.92.247.66 ( talk) 21:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
So I just checked the “Did you know...” section on the front page of Wikipedia. And there is this interesting article: G299.2-2.9
The article says the object is 4,500 years old and 16,000 light years away from us. This doesn't make sense to me. Doesn't that mean its light has a speed of at least 3.6 times the speed of light? Nightwatcher773 ( talk) 11:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
We currently have templates for citing catalogs, such as exoplanet.eu {{ Cite EPE}}, Gaia DR2 {{ Cite Gaia DR2}}, SIMBAD {{ Cite simbad}}, among others. However, I miss a template to cite the NASA Exoplanet Archive, which is also a large catalog of exoplanets. The template name could be {{ Cite NEC}} or {{ Cite Exoplanet Archive}} and the style could be like this:
HIP 39017 Overview. NASA Exoplanet Archive. Acessed on 2024-04-30.
I don't know how to make templates, so anyone experienced could make this. InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 12:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Template links fixed, no content change. Primefac ( talk) 12:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
{{cite web |title={{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}} Overview |url=https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/overview/{{urlencode:{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}} |publisher = [[NASA Exoplanet Archive]] | access-date={{{access-date|}}} }}
{{Cite Exoplanet Archive|HIP 39017|access-date=30 April 2024}}
you would get out
"HIP 39017 Overview".
NASA Exoplanet Archive. Retrieved 30 April 2024.
Seeing that, NED should get a template. NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database -- {{ Cite NED}} to go along with {{ NED DB}} and {{ NED link}} -- 65.92.247.66 ( talk) 03:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
I think you guys might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/IAU list of deceased members. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 06:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Sun may require an FAR if the concerns on its talk page are not addressed soon. 750 h+ 10:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2MASX J22550681+0058396 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 until the discussion has finished.Parejkoj ( talk) 17:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I've also nominated many other articles created by User_talk:Galaxybeing, and there are more yet to delete. If someone has a more automated way to go through these, that would be great: I've been adding them to the deletion list one at a time, and that's getting tedious. It may be more worthwhile to see if any of these new articles are notable enough to keep and just delete them all otherwise. We'll see if the author responds. - Parejkoj ( talk) 17:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a move discussion at List of largest stars for changing the name to List of largest known stars. InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 21:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
PSR J1903+0327 says "A near-infrared companion, KS = 18 (2.22 μ), is observed in Gemini North images at its radio position..." What do "KS" and "μ" mean in this context? I see "μ" used in Reduced mass and Standard gravitational parameter but if it's one of those, I'm not exactly sure how that relates. This notation was in the first draft of the article added by Wwheaton, but they have not been an active editor for a few years, so I thought I'd ask here. Thanks! -- Beland ( talk) 03:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I've been finding some NGC object topics that were redirected to a list, but the list had no entry for that subject. Examples include NGC 6237 and NGC 6245. There are also redirects to pages with no information on the subject. An example of that is NGC 6057. I think the reader would expect to find something about the subject on the target page. Praemonitus ( talk) 14:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a contradiction between the content of the article and the talk page. While the article explicitly says that HR 5171 is contact binary, the latest talk page discussion says that it isn't based on a newer publication from 2019. [6] This needs to be fixed in the article. InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 14:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
RX Telescopii ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RX Telescopii. Please post your comment there and help deciding the fate of the article. InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 00:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I have nominated Sun for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 750 h+ 01:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Template:Argo Navis (compact) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- 65.92.244.237 ( talk) 14:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I've started a discussion proposing some changes to the aforementioned template. Although this template is primarily concerned with planetary geology and Solar System-related topics, I invite you all to join the discussion and give your comments. ArkHyena ( talk) 19:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
The page Galactic coordinate system contains this picture:
with a caption saying it shows the galactic longitude. The article says that this is measured from the galactic centre. Doesn't the picture show coordinates centred on our Sun, though? Or have I misunderstood? Marnanel ( talk) 10:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)