Main | Talk |
Astronomical objects ( Talk) |
Eclipses ( Talk) | Article ratings | Image review | Popular pages | Members | Wikidata |
|
![]() | 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, 37 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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. [4] 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)
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)
a faint overlay coordinate system centered on the Sunbut that there is no longitude. That is the longitude. Primefac ( talk) 11:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I have proposed a change to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects). Your input would be welcome! Renerpho ( talk) 21:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
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)
Please see the Talk page topic: Are_voids_in_space_empty_or_consist_of_transparent_matter? Johnjbarton ( talk) 21:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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":
So it goes. Praemonitus ( talk) 01:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
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:
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:
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)
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)
@ 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). [5] 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. [6] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Main | Talk |
Astronomical objects ( Talk) |
Eclipses ( Talk) | Article ratings | Image review | Popular pages | Members | Wikidata |
|
![]() | 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, 37 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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. [4] 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)
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)
a faint overlay coordinate system centered on the Sunbut that there is no longitude. That is the longitude. Primefac ( talk) 11:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I have proposed a change to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects). Your input would be welcome! Renerpho ( talk) 21:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
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)
Please see the Talk page topic: Are_voids_in_space_empty_or_consist_of_transparent_matter? Johnjbarton ( talk) 21:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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":
So it goes. Praemonitus ( talk) 01:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
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:
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:
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)
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)
@ 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). [5] 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. [6] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)