To-do list for WikiProject Astronomy:  ·  history ·  watch ·  refresh · Updated 2011-09-13 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Create and develop a requested astronomy article. Copyedit : Check for proper usage of "equinox" vs. "epoch" when discussing the coordinates of astronomical objects. Equinox refers to the precession of the coordinate system used. Epoch refers to the timing of an event such as an observation. Verify : For a minor planet article, compare the infobox data to a JPL Small-Body Database Browser query. For a star article, compare the infobox data to a SIMBAD query.

	Astronomy Project‑class
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

WikiProject Astronomy was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 14 January 2013.

Archives

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, 37

Merged from old talk Old WikiProject Telescopes talk Topical archives Asteroid redirection 1 Category maintenance 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

PSR J1903+0327 says "A near-infrared companion, K_S = 18 (2.22 μ), is observed in Gemini North images at its radio position..." What do "K_S" 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) reply

I found a source [1] for the K_s value. According to this [2] article, K_s seems to be a line or band in the near-infrared. I'm not sure what μ is supposed to be; I assumed it was a different unit for magnitude but this pdf [3] uses the symbol for proper motion. Since it's a binary companion, that seems to be what the symbol stands for, but I can't be certain. ArkHyena ( talk) 04:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Aha! That means the "μ" is for micrometre, as a wavelength of 2.22 μm is in the infrared. Oh, and actually it's the center of the K band, according to that article. Based on the second source you found, 18 must be a magnitude. Excellent fact hunting! -- Beland ( talk) 07:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Good to hear that you've found out what μ meant! I spent a bit too long digging up proper motion figures for the pulsar and was quite confused as to why none of the figures matched the 2.22 figure from the article. ArkHyena ( talk) 08:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply

It should probably be listed as μm; I don't think I've ever seen just μ used. Primefac ( talk) 11:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I already changed it to "μm" because that's what MOS:UNITSYMBOLS requires. Across thousands of articles I've fixed recently, I've seen a few instances of just "μ" that I also changed. As micrometre says, that was the official symbol until 1967. -- Beland ( talk) 18:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply

"μ" alone should be micron, which is equivalent to micrometre -- 65.92.244.143 ( talk) 20:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Ks-band redirects to K band (infrared), but doesn't detail what Kx is -- 65.92.244.143 ( talk) 21:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

An explanation would certainly be welcome if you have any interest in researching it. -- Beland ( talk) 01:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The parenthetical Ks should just be deleted. If the ref does not explain it and we don't understand it, it's not verifiable content. Johnjbarton ( talk) 01:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I have added an explanation with citation. See also Photometric system. -- Beland ( talk) 06:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

I believe you have misunderstood; it isn't centred on the galactic centre, it is centred on Earth and 0° runs through it. Primefac ( talk) 11:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree with @ Marnanel The way I see it, the image is centered on center of the Milky Way with a faint overlay coordinate system centered on the Sun. The caption claims:

• Artist's depiction of the Milky Way Galaxy, showing the galactic longitude.

However, the image shows no longitude at all. Johnjbarton ( talk) 15:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Um... you say you see a faint overlay coordinate system centered on the Sun but that there is no longitude. That is the longitude. Primefac ( talk) 11:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The image shows the galactic longitude, and the caption in the article is correct about its orientation. It does not say "is measured from the galactic center" anywhere. Primefac has it right. How might we reword it to make it more clear? - Parejkoj ( talk) 21:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The longitude is not labeled and yet there are many labels in the diagram, including a coordinate system that does not match the topic. So it's fine if you already know what the galactic longitude is. The right fix is a different image. This image without the labels (which are cool) would be better. Johnjbarton ( talk) 22:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm confused: what do you think is incorrect about the diagram? It is labeled "Galactic Longitude" on top, and the coordinate system is the correct one: centered on the sun, 0º through the galactic center, right hand rule. The additional labels are not necessary, but I think they provide useful context. - Parejkoj ( talk) 05:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree, the overlaid coordinate system seems correct. It's just so finely ruled that it can't be viewed directly from the article. Praemonitus ( talk) 13:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Ok thanks for your patience. By magnifying the image and by reading your description carefully I can now indeed see the words "Galactic Longitude". If you don't know what it is, you don't know to look for the tiny letters at the top.

I rewrote the caption. @ Marnanel does that help? Johnjbarton ( talk) 15:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes. Thank you (all) for your help! Marnanel ( talk) 15:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

There is a requested move at List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs to move the name to List of nearest stars. Discuss the move if you want, to help the creation of a consensus.

The discission is located at Talk:List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs#Requested move 31 May 2024. InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 13:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The result of the discussion was "moved". Praemonitus ( talk) 22:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I've just uploaded an image of a vial of presolar grains, and while I've added it to Orgueil, I don't want to overwrite the image of Stardust since that's both a great image and more dramatic. It doesn't actually show any presolar grains, however, so I thought I could help remedy that. It also may be pertinent for AGB stars. I don't want to start slapping one of my own images all over a whole host of related articles, so any input on where this may fit best would be appreciated.

I will try and get an SEM image directly of presolar grains wider than 200px up at some point! Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Time is a pretty important issue in cosmology, but I have not found a good article. I did some work on cosmic time but the reference point issue is not well referenced.

Some articles use the term "lookback time", but lookback time was a redirect to Before Present, an article about radiocarbon dating. I repointed it to cosmic time, but this is not sufficient. I am unsure if "lookback time" is really related to the more technical cosmic time. Please review. Johnjbarton ( talk) 17:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I have proposed a change to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects). Your input would be welcome! Renerpho ( talk) 21:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

We have {{ Cite Gaia DR2}} and {{ Cite Gaia EDR3}}, as well as the latest {{ Cite Gaia DR3}}.

Should their be an effort to modernize DR2/EDR3-based citations to DR3 when possible? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

That's already been happening to many star articles. However, it's not always possible, particularly for bright stars. Praemonitus ( talk) 21:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

It is currently occuring, but will take some years to update all articles. Many articles still use astrometric data (parallax, proper motion) from Hipparcos as well. InTheAstronomy32 ( talk) 16:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Please see the Talk page topic: Are_voids_in_space_empty_or_consist_of_transparent_matter? Johnjbarton ( talk) 21:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The redirect Smaismrmilmepoetaleumibunenugttauiras has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 13 § Smaismrmilmepoetaleumibunenugttauiras until a consensus is reached. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 14:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Great for trivia at parties, I'm sure. Thanks Galileo. Praemonitus ( talk) 14:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

It has been requested to move 90482 Orcus to Orcus (dwarf planet). Your input at the discussion (linked above) would be welcome. Renerpho ( talk) 11:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

User Mvargic has been adding a lot of exoplanet art to Wikipedia, each image comparing the sizes of exoplanets to Solar System planets. However many of these exoplanets don't have known sizes - only their (usually minimum) mass is known - and the images depict them with sizes "assuming Earth-like composition". This is misleading and I think these images should be removed. Any size comparison image for an exoplanet with an unknown size should be like Exoplanet Comparison Gliese 581 c.png, showing a range of possible sizes for different compositions.

At least two of these images, G 9-40 b.jpg & GJ 9827 System.jpg, are also in blatant contradiction of known features (cf. WP:ASTROART). The sizes of these planets are known so these have some informational value, but G 9-40 b & GJ 9827 d are depicted as rocky planets which is known to not be the case (their densities are too low). SevenSpheres ( talk) 21:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Some pictures (like those used in articles created by me, HD 63433/ d and GJ 3929/ b) decipts known features and seem to be true. I am not sure about other planets, most of these other planets have virtually nothing known about them except minimum mass and basic orbital parameters. 21 Andromedae ( talk) 21:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Those are planets with known sizes (except GJ 3929 c) so those images do have some informational value. They don't "depict known features" beyond size but at least don't contradict known features. SevenSpheres ( talk) 22:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Support in removing most, if not all of them; these seem to clearly fall under WP:FRINGE and/or WP:SYNTH. These images serve little, if any, educational purpose, and only serve to confuse and give the false impression that we know more about these planets than we actually do. ArkHyena ( talk) 15:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Some images can be helpful, but these artistic illustrations should be added with caution. 21 Andromedae ( talk) 17:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

G 9-40 b & GJ 9827 d are not depicted as rocky but volatile-rich mini-neptunes with cloud decks and hazes of sulfur compounds Mvargic ( talk) 16:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Your help would be appreciated at Talk:List of Solar System objects by size#We never define "mean radius". Thank you! Renerpho ( talk) 10:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I am expressing concern about the list of brown dwarfs. This article is in a deplorable state, entire sections are almost unreferenced, objects refuted years ago are still in the list, many brown dwarfs are missing, tags like "more citations needed" have been in the list for over 8 years... In my opinion, this article should be rewritten from scratch. 21 Andromedae ( talk) 23:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

This may be of interest to this Wikiproject and I doubt either of the talk pages on those articles get too much traffic, but I've requested Lunar soil and Martian soil be moved to Lunar regolith and Martian regolith. I could be a little biased here as a regolith specialist, but I've basically never encountered consistent use of "soil" here outside of either much older papers or some more general public conversations, where regolith is still more common (and this seems to be backed up by google trends), and both articles accidentally distinguish the Lunar and Martian surfaces from the main regolith article. I would have just done it but there was a recent rename discussion on Lunar soil after someone renamed it Lunar dirt, so I didn't want to just plow ahead. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you for informing us of the move discussions. I don't know the literature well enough to make a call one way or another, so I'll leave that for more editors more experienced in the field. I added some comments regarding WP:CANVAS, because you go into detail on your argument here. I don't think that's a problem at all, I purely did this for transparency and clarity. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat) 08:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I think that's perfectly fair, I've added in the text from here into both of the requested moves so there's not extra information visible here that isn't visible to anyone coming to this wikiproject. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

At another English version of Wikipedia, there are a bunch of new articles of stars. Link,
simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/47.186.42.50
. Please say if I should not bring those over to English-wiki.--One of the sources used, is "Facts for Kids|url=... kids.kiddle.co/List_of_largest_known_stars|": would that be a source that one should steer clear of? Thanks, 2001:2020:301:A9E4:CD87:5740:719B:B2A7 ( talk) 19:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

No. That site places advertisements on top of free content from List of largest stars. Johnjbarton ( talk) 21:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Many of those stars probably aren't notable, and the sources used seem pretty random - some are reliable sources, some not. The "Facts for Kids" site you mention is clearly a Wikipedia mirror, so not a reliable source. SevenSpheres ( talk) 22:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Most of (if not all) these stars would fail our notability guidelines for astronomical bodies, so it's better to don't create them. Also, most of these articles use unreliable sources e.g. Universe Guide. 21 Andromedae ( talk) 23:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

This will be a review of this supposed structure. The only extant papers mentioning this are by R. Brent Tully dating back to 1986 and 1987. The conclusions of his papers have been challenged in recent years, for instance this 1989 as well as another 1992 paper by Postman et al. suggesting that there is no statistical significance of the supposed complexes from clumps in random simulations. After that there doesn't seem to be any explicit papers supporting its existence, and Tully just ended up in 2014 by having Laniakea.

We should review once more if this warrants an article on its own, or even at least be updated to conform to newer papers. It might as well just be a memoriam article of a pseudo-supercluster complex that was subsequently dismissed. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 22:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Well these folks seem to disagree:

• Scott C. Porter, Somak Raychaudhury, The Pisces-Cetus supercluster: a remarkable filament of galaxies in the 2dF Galaxy Redshift and Sloan Digital Sky surveys, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 364, Issue 4, December 2005, Pages 1387–1396, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09688.x

And this review mentions Portman's work as not definitive I would say:

• Stefano Borgani, "Scaling in the Universe," Physics Reports, Volume 251, Issues 1–2, 1995, Pages 1-152,

Johnjbarton ( talk) 01:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The paper by Porter and Raychaudhury refers to the Pisces–Cetus Supercluster, which is different from the much larger supercluster complex. The supercluster complex consists of this Pisces–Cetus Supercluster + Perseus-Pegasus and Pegasus-Pisces Chains + Sculptor Wall + Aquarius-Capricornus + the Virgo–Hydra–Centaurus region, and extends for about a billion light-years. There is only a brief mention of Tully's 1987 paper on the introduction and noted it as "speculated."

I can't seem to access the Borgani paper due to a paywall, but looking on what is available information he did not seem to cite Postman's (not Portman, btw) two papers. Regardless if even Borgani dismissed Postman or not, Tully himself in a 1992 paper did show some ample evidence but then retracted his claims a little bit and said that the present evidence for the Pisces-Cetus SCC (or any structure within the supergalactic plane on the scale of 300 h/Mpc) is "far from conclusive", with further statements on the summary stating that it was "unsatisfactory" with "predictions which must be tested by more rigorously defined samples", which never fully materialized.

This is evidenced by the fact that Tully no longer cited any of the aforementioned papers mentioning the Pisces-Cetus SCC in any of the 26 references of the 2014 paper on Laniakea, further strengthening the conclusion that he may have given up in supporting the existence of the Pisces-Cetus SCC. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 14:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Ok but to me this all makes the case for clarifying the article. The topic is even more notable. (However the lack of citation is not a verifiable source as this may be for many reasons).

The Borgani review is available via the Wikipedia library > Science Direct (Elsevier) > Advanced search > Show all fields > Title. Johnjbarton ( talk) 15:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I tried to go for the Wikipedia library version of the article, but I cannot view it due to software limitations, and any attempts to download it also failed (I am using a mobile phone). But I did see the three papers by Postman in the references, so I will nonetheless give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it did cite the works by Postman as not definitive.

It still doesn't invalidate the claims from Tully himself that the evidence present did not constitute firm evidence for the existence of the Pisces–Cetus SCC.

"Ok but to me this all makes the case for clarifying the article. The topic is even more notable."'

I think you missed my emphasis that the only existing literature mentioning this structure came from the late 80s and early 90s, and even so that calls its existence into question. With no subsequent mentions in the literature, and the subsuming of a new definition of a supercluster in 2014, the Pisces-Cetus SCC fails to meet WP:NASTRO. I suggest instead to have it relegated as a section in the Galaxy filament article, as the current article is too short, anyway, coupled with information from the papers that question its existence. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 16:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The following articles went through AfD with the result being deletion. They have since been restored with the comment, "I brought back this page for consistency. This was the only eclipse from ####-#### to not have its own page. I'm not sure why it was deleted, but it should not have":

Solar eclipse of December 24, 1916

Solar eclipse of January 5, 1935

Solar eclipse of July 19, 1917

Solar eclipse of July 30, 1935

Solar eclipse of June 13, 2094

So it goes. Praemonitus ( talk) 01:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I think you revert with summary "AfD had WP:CONSENSUS". No need to discuss. (Any discussion should have occurred before restoration.) Johnjbarton ( talk) 01:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Somebody else is welcome to do that; I've had enough of these tiresome battle of late. Thanks. Praemonitus ( talk) 23:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Hah, so I see.

If anyone is having a bad day and needs a laugh, type "Solar eclipse of" in to the search bar. Johnjbarton ( talk) 01:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I have a question about the notion of metals and nonmetals in astronomy, and the exclusion of a reliable source in this regard.

The context for my question follows.

So, the start of the Nonmetals in astronomy section of Nonmetallic material reads:

A quite different approach is used in astronomy where the term metallicity is used for all elements heavier than helium, so the only nonmetals are hydrogen and helium.

After the second paragraph, which starts, "About 45 years later, Gustav Kirchhoff and Robert Bunsen noticed that several Fraunhofer lines...", there used to be a third paragraph, as added by me:

"The astrophysicst Carlos Jaschek, and the stellar astronomer and spectroscopist Mercedes Jaschek, in their book The Classification of Stars, observed that:

'Metals' (a term which is used very equivocally). Stellar interior specialists use 'metals' to designate any element other than hydrogen and helium, and in consequence ‘metal abundance’ implies all elements other than the first two. For spectroscopists this is very misleading, because they use the word in the chemical sense. On the other hand photometrists, who observe combined effects of all lines (i.e. without distinguishing the different elements) often use this word 'metal abundance', in which case it may also include the effect of the hydrogen lines. It is important to make sure in each particular case what the author really meant."

See: Jaschek C & Jascheck M 1990, The Classification of Stars, Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, p. 22, ISBN  978-0-521-26773-1.

Ldm1954, who will no doubt speak for himself, has removed the paragraph on the grounds that, in his view, "This is editorializing, and shouldn't be done", and "original research and verging on academic dishonesty" and that, "It adds nothing".

This seems like a case of unjustified censorship to me, even if done with good intent. Editorialising is a WP concept, referring to editorializing by WP editors. It does not apply to reliable sources. In this context, asserting that J & J are editorialising "which is definite [and] not appropriate", is meaningless.

J & J are matter-of-factly laying out the situation when it comes to the conception of what a metal is in their respective fields. The knock-on consequences are which elements are regarded as nonmetals in astronomy, as per the first sentence at the start of the Nonmetals in astronomy section of Nonmetallic material.

The J & J extract adds useful information by nuancing the understanding of metals in astronomy and related fields

How do WP:ASTRONOMY members view this? Thank you. --- Sandbh ( talk) 02:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

This seems like a reasonable inclusion, though I wouldn't be able to make a call on this. However, shouldn't this information be in Metallicity itself? ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat) 08:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

For rigor, the above statements by Sandbh contain significant factual errors:

1. @ Ldm1954 never removed the paragraph.
2. The main paragraph without the first and last sentence was added by @ Sandbh on June 27 in this edit
3. @ Sandbh added the first and last sentences in this edit
4. @ Headbomb reverted this addition as editorialized here
5. There was then an edit skirmish with @ Sandbh reverting @ Headbomb, and my reverting in turn.
6. There followed a brief discussion in talk where @Ldm1954 and @ Headbomb commented that this paragraph added little, and I also mentioned that J & J were editorializing.

N.B. Metallicity already has more information and is already pointed to as the main. In Nonmetallic materials I have added a little about the history of how the term metallic originated with Kirchhoff & Bunsen interpreting Fraunhofer lines using metals in their lab, which I was going to suggest have suggested be added to Metallicity Ldm1954 ( talk) 08:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Ldm1954: I apologise for my error of fact concerning item 1, and appreciate your setting the record straight, as to the sequence of events. — Sandbh ( talk) 05:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I think that paragraph does provide some interesting historical perspective. It doesn't feel like editorializing to me: Jaschek is saying how the various fields used the term differently. Could those claiming it's editorializing say more about why they think that? I think in modern astronomy, that distinction has mostly melted away (spectroscopists have shifted to the astronomy "metals as all Z>2 elements), but that last sentence is a good reminder that terms are different in different fields. I feel like the paragraph is slightly more appropriate for Metallicity, but a random reader would probably end up at Nonmetalic Materials first, I'd expect? - Parejkoj ( talk) 16:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I can't speak for @ Headbomb. My reservation is that the lede to Nonmetallic materials already has as it's second sentence Depending upon context it is used in slightly different ways, so the whole page is an attempt at a WP:NPOV presentation about the assorted science uses (with hopefully none missed). If card carrying astronomers are happy to vouch that J & J are not going too far with their statements about "the field", I am OK with it. Statements here can be used if it is challenged. Ldm1954 ( talk) 17:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

There is a discussion at Talk:Sirius to split the page into a new page called Sirius B. This discussion might be relevant for some people of this wikiproject, so help to gather consensus for split or not split this article! 21 Andromedae ( talk) 21:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Warrenmck and XOR'easter: Due to the recently closed Drbogdan discussion on ANI which centered around, in part, using press releases as sources, I am posting this query here about the use of ScienceDaily press releases in our articles to establish best practices. Recently, User:Galilean-moons added ScienceDaily to the article Syntrichia caninervis regarding its potential use for establishing life on Mars (assuming some form of it doesn't already exist). [4] Because this use of press releases was recently discouraged, I am wondering how these recent edits fit into the larger discussion about this kind of reporting. The Guardian has also reported on the subject. [5] Moving forward, is this an acceptable use of ScienceDaily? Should The Guardian be used instead? Or are there other guidelines that you recommend for editing this page? Thank you. Viriditas ( talk) 01:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't think of ScienceDaily as press releases in the sense of an organization public relations output. Rather these are uncritical summaries of primary publications for the purpose of generating ad revenue. The primary publications may or may not have been peer reviewed and almost certainly are not cited. The only sense in which ScienceDaily is a secondary source is that they filter for interest. (Our page on ScienceDaily says they are primarily press releases).

I think these cases need to evaluate the primary reference and not the ScienceDaily summary per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PSTS Almost always the primary ref will be WP:TOONEW and have no citations. Similarly for the Guardian. In this case it's not clear the paper was peer reviewed.

To put it another way: readers can get this kind of info from ScienceDaily. This is an ecyclopedia. Johnjbarton ( talk) 01:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Let me reformulate my question: instead of using ScienceDaily, can a citation to the following source be used instead: Li X., Bai W., Yang Q., et al., (2024). The extremotolerant desert moss Syntrichia caninervis is a promising pioneer plant for colonizing extraterrestrial environments. The Innovation. 5 (4). The article appears to be peer reviewed. Viriditas ( talk) 01:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Depends upon the content being referenced, see WP:PRIMARY. This seems like a case that might pass many of the tests, esp. the reference is open access and not narrowly technical. Johnjbarton ( talk) 02:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

You all might want to see [6] - or even raise the issue again. Doug Weller talk 14:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Might be important considering that what links here shows it is presumably used more than 350 times as a citation. Viriditas ( talk) 21:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Johnjbarton: I've made these changes. I realize that you said you don't like The Guardian, but I think it's acceptable to use it like this. I'm also fond of citing the primary and the secondary together. Viriditas ( talk) 20:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Viriditas Thanks! Your edits are clearly an improvement. I believe the previous content is inappropriate without secondary refs. For examples

• "S. caninervis is well-known for its ability to tolerate drought conditions,..."
  • An uncited primary ref can't verify "well-known"
    • Except it does in the paper, citing two papers? Viriditas ( talk) 22:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• "Research has shown that S. caninervis can ..."
  • One paper is not "research has shown"
    • The "research" refers to multiple cited papers. Viriditas ( talk) 22:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• "Some studies have even suggested..."
  • One study is not "some".
    • Multiple studies are cited. Viriditas ( talk) 22:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

And so on. It is this kind of extrapolation that the page WP:PRIMARY is trying to avoid. To put it another way, the content if correct, could easily be refed correctly. Johnjbarton ( talk) 22:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Johnjbarton: I don't know what your time constraints are like, but I not only appreciate your help with this, but I would also like to ask you for additional reviewing. User:Dcotos hasn't submitted this to DYK and I would like to nominate a hook, but we are up against a deadline. If you could take a quick glance at the article and wield your axe to its benefit, that would be helpful. Viriditas ( talk) 22:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I should note that there is additional research in the literature that supports its status as an extremophile. I just added another one. Viriditas ( talk) 22:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Viriditas Sorry I'm sure what you are asking here. DYK? hook? deadline? Johnjbarton ( talk) 22:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm asking if you think the current version of the article, as it stands right now, is problematic. Viriditas ( talk) 22:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I think I just answered my own question. The primary author did not paraphrase and quote correctly, and much of the article is written far too close to the sources. It needs to be rewritten. Viriditas ( talk) 22:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Let's follow up on that articles Talk page. Johnjbarton ( talk) 22:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Auriga (constellation)#Requested move 1 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe ^{Edits! Talk!} 03:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Article was moved. Praemonitus ( talk) 16:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

For the interested, Wikipedia:Teahouse#Please_help_me_with_an_article. New editor wishes help for article about Andrzej (Andrew) Pohorille, astrobiologist, who no longer falls under WP:BLP (well fine, he died recently). Draft at Draft:Andrew Pohorille. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 14:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Hey guys. I wish to work on Orion Belt, but I'm not sure what is needed to be on the page, nor do I know of adequate reference pages to expand the article. For now, a chunk of it is dedicated to cultural depictions.-- ZKang123 ( talk) 04:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

ZKang123, glad to hear you're looking to improve the page. Unfortunately, the primary steps for improving a page are a) determining what needs to be added, and b) finding references that will allow you to add that content. Once you figure that out, it's just a matter of editing the page and adding the content. Primefac ( talk) 19:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

You're right that it's appallingly written in places. I have made a start at improvement but please carry on if you wish. Skeptic2 ( talk) 09:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lunar soil#Requested move 27 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe ^{Edits! Talk!} 23:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I migrated the list of requested astronomy and cosmology articles to a separate page so it is easier to watch. The separate astronomers list from the "Scientists and people in science" section has been migrated to the same page. Praemonitus ( talk) 15:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi, all. Praemonitus asked me to take this question here from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Manual of Style. I actually already raised this point on this page, but that discussion was closed before anyone could reply.

Anyway, the question was whether the new guidelines for astronomy articles should discourage multiple conversions of the same quantity into two different metric expressions. For example, the equatorial rotation velocity of Mars is given as both 241 m/s and 870 km/h. If I had to pick one, people are familiar with km/h speeds from driving, so that seems like a good choice of units for this field across all planetary infoboxes. If someone needs m/s it's easy to get that without having to look up any conversion factors. But regardless of which is preferred, having both seems like overkill in an already-number-heavy infobox.

Any thoughts? -- Beland ( talk) 08:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I think astronomy articles should present unit scales that most readers will be familiar with; hence km, kg, cm, and so forth. It should also preferentially use units that astronomers conventionally use in their peer-reviewed papers; thus AU, pc, kpc, Mpc, Myr, and so forth. Adding less familiar units as additional conversions just generally increases clutter. In the case of widely popular Astronomy topics such as the planet articles, old English unit conversions may make some sense, but otherwise the MOS:CONVERSIONS guideline usually applies: "in science-related articles, supplying such conversion is not required unless there is some special reason to do so". Praemonitus ( talk) 12:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Just to clarify: if, for example, km and cm are both familiar to readers because they are part of the metric system, are you in favor of only converting a given quantity into one of those? -- Beland ( talk) 17:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Just those two? Nope. Praemonitus ( talk) 19:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply

What's the benefit of expressing a quantity in both km and cm when everyone can easily convert between them just by moving the decimal place? -- Beland ( talk) 19:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Huh? How did we get there? I never said anything like that. Praemonitus ( talk) 02:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I read your above reply "nope" to mean no, you would not support only converting into one of km or cm, but that you would want the quantity converted into both. If that's not what you meant, then I apologize for misunderstanding. Could you clarify your position on multiple metric conversions? For example, converting into both m/s and km/h instead of just one or the other. -- Beland ( talk) 06:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

My position is that I prefer less of the data clutter that distracts from the information being presented. In most cases a single conversion should suffice. It would be even cleaner if there were none, but I know that's rarely possible. We have many data "wonks" here that like a lot of numbers, and I understand that, but that isn't necessarily the case for the target audience. Just present enough information for the reader to get a picture of what's going on, then leave it at that. They don't, for example, need a distance in km, miles, AU, and light seconds, as I've seen in some cases. (Or a temperature in Centigrade, Fahrenheit, and Kelvin.) Just use the unit that's most widely recognized and appropriate for the scale. Praemonitus ( talk) 14:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I disagree. Anybody looking up rotation velocity, escape speed, etc., is interested in doing calculations with them. m/s is the useful one. km/h is neither SI not useful for anything. I don't think familiarity with driving helps here, because the numbers are almost never in the same order of magnitude as car speeds. Tercer ( talk) 18:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply

OK, so if we settle on m/s, would you favor not converting into km/h or any other metric units? -- Beland ( talk) 19:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I would. Tercer ( talk) 11:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Same. I think m/s is the most useful unit. -- mfb ( talk) 11:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

OK, I'll update the proposed MOS. Thanks for weighing in! -- Beland ( talk) 16:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Agreed, except in the case of a direct comparison with vehicle velocities. Praemonitus ( talk) 14:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

FYI, there's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Conversion of light years and parsecs where editors are considering whether to require conversion of light-years to kilometers instead of parsecs. Please reply there if you have an opinion so we don't have to revisit this later. -- Beland ( talk) 16:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Praemonitus, Tercer, and Mfb:, you all expressed support above for using m/s for speed in astronomical contexts (outside of direct comparison to driving speeds). Looking at orbital speed, all the orbital velocities there are in km/s. (Pinging JohnOwnes as top authors of that article.) To clarify, are m/s preferred over km/s, or are they both equally OK and should be used according to the magnitude of the speed? -- Beland ( talk) 18:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I see m/s and km/s as equivalent, use whatever is appropriate for the size of the number. 0.01 km/s is silly, 100,000 m/s is not ideal either. Orbital velocities are usually several kilometers per second so km/s makes sense there. -- mfb ( talk) 19:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Sorry, meant to @ Kheider, JohnOwens, and Deuar:. I've added km/s as an acceptable option in the draft MOS, but feel free to continue the discussion and agree or disagree with that. -- Beland ( talk) 21:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes, km/s is also fine. Tercer ( talk) 22:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Agreed, km/s (or m/s) is suitable for astronomy. Radial velocities are typically given in km/s, for example. Use of km/h would require an extra conversion step when calculating with SI, so it doesn't seem of much use in astronomy/physics. Praemonitus ( talk) 23:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The Venus article includes the sentence, "Strong 300 km/h (185 mph) winds at the cloud tops go around Venus about every four to five Earth days." I think that is a case where using "km/h" makes sense. Atmospheric motion should be an exception to the criteria. Praemonitus ( talk) 19:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

It seems generally agreed upon that atmospheric motion should be in km/h; this is standard for most weather articles from what I've seen. Could be worth an MOS mention. ArkHyena ( talk) 19:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Well spotted; I will add a note about that. -- Beland ( talk) 19:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

km/s is generally the relevant unit for speed in astronomy; I sometimes see others in use but they're either straightforward SI multiples (e.g. cm/s) or should give a conversion to km/s. The recession of distant galaxies should be expressed as redshift, which is directly related to speed but is not technically a unit. Wind speeds within the atmosphere of a planet is meteorology, not astronomy, so should follow those guidelines instead. Modest Genius ^talk 15:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Although they include their WP rating template on articles such as Atmosphere of Venus, WP:WEATHER currently lacks a MoS supplement, so for now we won't be able to redirect to there. Praemonitus ( talk) 20:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi everyone, I've recently expanded the V1400 Centauri article. I am proposing splitting a portion of the V1400 Centauri article into a new article titled J1407b. Please join the split discussion in the article's talk page. Thanks! Nrco0e ( talk) 19:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply