This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
We have a redirect, V4641, which redirects to the binary star V4641 Sgr; it strikes me as not a wholly appropriate redirect. Any thoughts on it? 76.66.193.119 ( talk) 22:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The following suggestion was made at Talk:Earth#Template:Infobox_Earth.3F by User:Cybercobra:
To me doing something like this would make a certain amount of sense, but I think we should apply the approach consistently across all of the Solar System planet articles. What do you think?— RJH ( talk) 18:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
template:Trans-Neptunian objects survived deletion by TfD. The outcome was to rewrite the template. What should be included in the new version of the template? 76.66.193.119 ( talk) 04:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
An example of the new template might be:
76.66.193.119 ( talk) 04:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The fair use status of File:Charon plutoface.png is being debated. -- Kheider ( talk) 19:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I've recently revamped the decaying Portal:Human spaceflight so that it now includes Random Portal Components, and therefore there is no need to regularly choose new articles, pictures, etc. At the moment Portal:Astronomy doesn't have a Picture of the Week. If there's interest, I could do a similar thing and install Random Portal Components in Portal:Astronomy, and therefore lessen (indeed eliminate) the burden of always finding new pictures, articles, etc? The portal would look identical.. but the pictures, articles, etc would change everytime you reload the page.
Also, I got Wikinews to add an Astronomy Category, so the Astronomy News section now automatically updates. Mlm42 ( talk) 20:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
The article List of extrasolar planet extremes is unreferenced and some of the records appear to be quite suspect - apparently this list is not well maintained. I'm inclined to regard the page as an article-sized trivia section. Icalanise ( talk) 20:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
According to the article Vanth (moon), the name of (90482) Orcus I Vanth was assigned in April 2010, but the reference is a blank page. However the name appears to be assigned in Minor Planet Circular 69495, available in a batch dated 2010/03/30 [2] [3]. I'd update the article but I'm not particularly well-versed in the naming procedures, so I might be missing something here. Icalanise ( talk) 00:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
FYI, File:Pluto.jpg has been nominated for deletion at WP:FFD. 76.66.193.119 ( talk) 05:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Article Astronomical bodies in pseudoscience and the paranormal (sigh) has multiple issues and has been PROD'd. FYI.— RJH ( talk) 19:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Moved to WikiProject Solar System. Icalanise ( talk) 19:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I've made some edits of a few of the starbox templates, converting them from Wiki tables to HTML tables, and commenting out the end of lines. As far as I can tell, this helps avoid the extra newlines that sometimes get generated at the top of the articles. Icalanise ( talk) 22:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Now making its way through the turgid FAC process here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#90377 Sedna. =) — RJH ( talk) 17:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated the articles Cold Neptune and Cold Jupiter for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold Neptune. Icalanise ( talk) 23:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
In the Astrometry and Details sections of the starbox template, the inline references come before the units of measurement. I think I prefer them to come after, how do other folks feel about this? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 19:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
| mass = 1.100<ref name="eso">{{cite web | author=Kervella | first=Pierre | coauthors=Thevenin, Frederic | date=March 15, 2003 | url=http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-2003/pr-05-03.html | title=A Family Portrait of the Alpha Centauri System | publisher=ESO | accessdate=2008-06-06 }}</ref>
{{Infobox settlement}}
for example.
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk)
14:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Supposedly new user Metebelis has been renaming a number of star articles to use Gould's Uranometria Argentina designation (with a "G"). While technically correct, in many of the cases I don't believe the new name is the most common. In many cases it is very obscure. For example: HR 5568 (or Gliese 570) is now 33 G. Librae. What do you think? I suspect this account is a sock puppet because the editor looks experienced.— RJH ( talk) 19:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Comments/Assistance incorporating the information into the article would be welcome. NW ( Talk) 01:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Please take a look at the following discussion about a proposed merge of Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects into Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy:
Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 18:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
NGC 3603 is an open cluster of stars which it is claimed was discovered by John Frederick William Herschel in 1834. Does any know how this can be verfied (or not)? -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 11:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
There is a request to split List of extrasolar planets with two sections suggested as becoming standalone lists. 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 05:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Category:Cold Neptunes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Category:Cold Jupiters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) have been nominated for deletion. 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 04:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
An anonymous user ( 72.254.128.201 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)) has been making a very large number of changes to astronomy-related articles ( neutron star, active galactic nucleus, quasar, and several fusion process articles, to name a few). At best these are benign but not very useful typesetting changes. More often, they're problematic (replacing words with less-appropriate or outright wrong synonyms throughout the article). In several cases, the anon changed temperature values in the fusion process articles, without citing a source to back up their claimed values.
I've cleaned up the damage down to their 19:2x 25 Sept. edits to carbon burning process, but there's a lot more to be vetted (and possibly reverted). Help would be appreciated. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 22:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
An IP editor just added a couple of "citation needed" tags to Quasar. If anyone would be willing to dig up appropriate references, that would be handy, as the requests were attached to statements about a topic that's turned ugly in the past (evaluating quasar distance and Hubble's Law). -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 00:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I've ended up with a disagreement with User:SchuminWeb about ESO image credits on the Beta Pictoris article. The image license for ESO images [4] states that the image credit must be clearly visible. I interpret this to mean that the image credit should be placed in the image caption in the article. User:SchuminWeb disagrees and has removed the credit, stating that it is enough to put the image credit on the file page and that such image credits should not appear in articles. Any advice on this matter would be appreciated. Thanks. Icalanise ( talk) 08:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I propose integrating in to starbox a detail area describing its planetary system. Can be as simple as
Planets WhateverStar A, WhateverStar B, WhateverStar C
roughly speaking. It is increasingly clear that it will be more a rarity to find stars without planets rather than vice versa, and as the planet hunt progresses it is likely that more stars will become worthy of articles.
If there are no objections I'll begin work on the template to add in such a feature soon. It should be easy to implement and will be designed to follow standard lettered nomenclature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockatship ( talk • contribs) 00:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
It looks like there are more than a couple of hundred star articles that don't have a completed {{ WikiProject Astronomy}} appraisal template yet. Many of the articles are stubs from our old friend CarloscomB that are in need of cleanup (including an unnecessary image entry in the infobox, the use of periods instead of commas for the stellar properties, overly long name lists, and confusion about double vs. binary stars). I'm still slowly working my way through the star articles list, and I'm sure there are probably other astronomy sub-categories with articles that are missing wikiproject templates.— RJH ( talk) 20:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
FYI Image:Gliese 581GG.PNG has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 05:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I guess I've only noticed this because I have been browsing with JavaScript turned off, but the {{ nearest systems}} and {{ nearest bright star systems}} templates are really really big. They're also full of redlinks. (It isn't entirely clear what the "bright" criterion is, there are a lot of awfully dim red dwarf stars listed there). Not sure what to do about them really. Icalanise ( talk) 18:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
After this article came to the front page (which I always dislike) it underwent a few useful changes and one I had a concern about by a WP Administrator. This edit removed some content from the Possible Companions section that had been contributed by other authors. This material was fully cited and it concerned the topic; therefore it satisfied WP:TOPIC. Out of respect for the authors of the material, I restored the content and left a discussion topic on the article's talk page. I would appreciate it if you could contribute your thoughts on whether to keep the material or let it be deleted. Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 20:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm by no means an expert, but I noticed that a couple articles ( Tarvos and Thrymr) have recently had photos added... sourced from Cassini's raw image site. However, when I've browsed that site in the past, I've found that small objects can easily be completely lost among cosmic ray hits and stars, even for the inner small moons. Considering that these moons are much more distant, I doubt that the photos really contain the moons they claim to be photos of at all. Can anyone help confirm or deny this? -- Patteroast ( talk) 04:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I nominated this article for Featured List status. The review page is here. Ruslik_ Zero 18:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello members of Project Astronomical objects. I am helping prepare a new article to be submitted for DYK. The article is about the Earth's shadow as it is visible from Earth at sunset and sunrise. I am checking to see when in this article we should use "Sun" meaning the astronomical body, and when to use "sun" meaning the everyday use of the term. If someone has a moment can they please take a look, please feel free to change the usage or tweak the content as seems appropriate. Many thanks, Invertzoo ( talk) 14:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Abell 2218 needs cleanup, it seems to use out of date science to claim that the most distant galaxy occurs in a gravitation lens image created by the cluster. However later galaxy discoveries with lower redshift claims have been acclaimed the most distant galaxy known. 76.66.198.128 ( talk) 05:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
On Talk:Gliese 581 g, User:Viriditas is claiming that citing the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia note on the Gliese 581 system that the HARPS new data does not detect planet g [6] violates WP:BLP because we cannot absolutely verify that is what exactly was said at the conference. Is this correct? Extra opinions would be useful. Icalanise ( talk) 12:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI, SAO 138238 has been requested to be renamed. 76.66.203.138 ( talk) 06:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Can someone clean up JKCS 041? Someone turned it into a {{ quotefarm}} back in May 2010. I'd personally delete the entire quote section, but I'd get cited for vandalism, since edit patrollers seem to do that whenever massive amounts of text are removed by IP editors. 76.66.198.128 ( talk) 04:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know of a star inside of the Milky Way further than UDF 2457 @ ~59,000 ly? -- Kheider ( talk) 18:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Astronomical Objects articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 00:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
FYI List of most luminous stars in the local area was recently created. However it seems highly inaccurate. The local area is undefined in the article, and several stars on the list are thousands of light years away, one not even residing in the Milky Way. 76.66.203.138 ( talk) 09:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that List of brown dwarfs doesn't actually list the spectral type or apparent magnitude of the brown dwarf, rather it lists the spectral type and apparent magnitude of the primary star of the star system the brown dwarf is part of. This seems misleading, and less useful than having data on the brown dwarf itself being listed (both could be listed, but that is not currently done; though this is supposed to be a list of brown dwarfs)
76.66.203.138 ( talk) 11:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
anyone notice that planemo was renamed to planetary mass object and then disappeared back in April? For some reason the planemo type was merged into its subset, the planet type. 76.66.203.138 ( talk) 08:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps a renewed planetary mass object should include the material on planetary mass moons, and distinctions between planemos, substars, subbrowndwarfs, etc ? 76.66.203.138 ( talk) 14:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI, 4 Sagittarii has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.203.138 ( talk) 07:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
At WT:WikiProject Space, it has been proposed that WikiProject Astronomy and WikiProject Astronomical objects be abolished; and merged into WPSpace. 76.66.194.212 ( talk) 06:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Cepheid variable was rewritten yesterday. This is rated as a top importance article for us. Also, Type II Cepheids was created yesterday. Cepheid variable has also been requested to be renamed as Classical Cepheid variables. This was all done by 99.192.66.42 ( talk · contribs); We should consider whether it is better to split off an article on classical Cepheids, versus moving the page history to classical, and building a new overview page. 76.66.194.212 ( talk) 06:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space/2010 Reorganisation regarding the future of WikiProject Space and its child projects. The discussion is aimed at defining the roles of projects, and improving the activity and coordination of the projects. The input of members of this project is requested as it is one which may be affected by the issue. -- G W … 22:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
i think there is a big need for a list of brightest nebulae on Wikipedia. i wanted many times such a list for observing and i think that many others did, it would be very useful. but there is problem in references, i tried to search in websites and books for something useful to create this list but i could not find anything. anyone knows a useful links, books or articles? -- aad_Dira ( talk) 16:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC).
I've been doing some updates to the Messier 87 article. One of the items I wanted to pin down is the distance estimate. The current estimate cites Tonry et al. (2001), who gives a distance modulus of 31.03 ± 0.16 in Table 1. I'm assuming this was converted by somebody to the current distance estimate listed in the article (17 ± 0.31) Mpc. In searching further, I came across Bird et al. (2010) who gives a weighted mean distance modulus of 31.08 ± 0.06 based upon multiple measurement techniques, which they then convert to (16.4 ± 0.5) Mpc. It's perhaps a bit odd that the latter references the former, yet gives a weighted mean with a greater variance than the value listed in the Wikipedia article. I'm tempted to just go with the Bird et al. (2010) value since that article is focused on M87 rather than being a general survey.
Do you have a recommendation? Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 21:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The Epsilon Eridani page has reached GA class status. My understanding is that the next stage is to become an A class article. Might I ask for some input on what needs to be done to reach that level? Thank you.
Regards, RJH ( talk) 00:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Recently, a number of edits have been made regarding our categorization system for small groups of stars. This system has to do with stars that (a) appear to be part of a group of n stars, where n = 2, 3, ..., and where the group is either (b.1) known to be a physical, gravitationally bound system or (b.2) known not to be physical, or not known either to be physical or not physical. The categorization at present is as follows:
Description | Categorization |
n = 2 (a), physical (b.1) | Category:Binary stars |
n = 2 (a), not known physical (b.2) | Category:Double stars |
n = 3 (a), physical (b.1) | Category:Triple star systems |
n = 3 (a), not known physical (b.2) | Category:Triple stars |
n ≥ 4 (a), physical (b.1) | Category:Multiple star systems |
n ≥ 4 (a), not known physical (b.2) | Category:Multiple stars |
The question is when to categorize stars into the last category ( Category:Multiple stars). You are invited to comment at Category talk:Multiple stars. Spacepotato ( talk) 02:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to give a quick heads-up that new user Obiwan42 has been making a number of " contributions" to astronomy articles, at least some of which appear inappropriate. For example, he has been changing the values of some infobox parameters so that they do not match the sources. We might want to keep an eye on the user's activities. Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 19:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately he's back at it, and he hasn't been including a source for his data. I reverted several of his contributions on the grounds that they were arbitrary changes with no sources given, and he has a history of overwriting values with incorrect data.— RJH ( talk) 16:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I'm going to update the dwarf planet candidates larger than 500 km across whose orbital parameters in the infobox use old data. I will update the data using the latest numbers from here and here. However I will wait for discussion prior to updating any official dwarf planets (some of which use Epoch 1950??). Thanks. ~ A H 1( T C U) 20:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I propose to merge Vega as an X-ray source with Vega, as I do not see the purpose of having a separate article to mention the X-ray properties of the star. Opinions? Comments? CielProfond ( talk) 01:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The dictionary definition of star cluster at Wiktionary has been nominated for deletion. It is being claimed that a star cluster is nothing more than a "cluster" of "stars", hence is not an independent term, but two words mashed together with no other meaning. 65.93.14.196 ( talk) 12:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I've just put an article up for AfD because the subject discusses a Kepler Object of Interest, basically a planet candidate. We are not talking about any of the 500 or so officially announced planets like those of the Kepler-11 system (note those actual planets don't even have articles yet!), we are talking about points of data no one knows yet are even real phenomena. The statistics of the candidates from the released paper are mentioned already in the Kepler article but does each candidate really deserve its own article? This seems to ridiculously defy notability standards. All sorts of scientific data are released to the public every day, is every datum verified or not notable enough for its own article? ChiZeroOne ( talk) 19:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
There's an ongoing discussion about cleaning up bibcodes in citations. Feedback is welcome. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure everyone's still sick of this from the last time it happened, but an IP editor has just posted a long essay at Talk:Quasar advocating for red-shift quantization, claiming that the evidence for cosmological red-shifts for quasars is weak, and so on. I'm on semi-sabbatical, so I'm not going to touch this for now. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 20:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
KOI-730, another unconfirmed candidate planetary system, has been nominated for deletion. 65.95.15.144 ( talk) 21:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
There's a discussion on the Mars talk page about what units should be used when listing atmospheric abundances in the infobox. Your input would be appreciated. Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 18:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
@Xsession: Like you, probably many readers are more accustomed to ppm than to the correct units. However, do you really know what is meant by that? 1E-6 kg/kg or 1E-6 mol/mol? This is not the same! I think unambiguity is more important than sticking to commonly used but ambiguous units.
Since I started this topic, I'd like to add some background information: I propose to get rid of the old and ambiguous units ppm, ppb, and ppt. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) says: "Only in the rarest of instances should ambiguous units be used, such as in direct quotations". I can see at least 3 ambiguities with these old units:
Consistent with IUPAC recommendations (see IUPAC Green Book http://old.iupac.org/publications/books/gbook/green_book_2ed.pdf and also page 1387-1388 of http://www.iupac.org/publications/pac/67/8/1377/pdf), I suggest to make the following replacements:
old unit | ppt | ppm | ppb | ppt |
definition | 1E-3 | 1E-6 | 1E-9 | 1E-12 |
new unit (if mass fraction) | g/kg | mg/kg | μg/kg | ng/kg |
new unit (if mole fraction) | mmol/mol | μmol/mol | nmol/mol | pmol/mol |
RolfSander ( talk) 18:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Could we please keep the discussion at Talk:Mars#Original units were clearer?, rather than having it spread over multiple talk pages? Modest Genius talk 18:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree not to split the discussion. However, I prefer to have it here because the question is not specific to Mars. RolfSander ( talk) 19:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{
citation}}, {{
cite journal}}, {{
cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id=
(or worse {{
arxiv|0123.4567}}
|url=
http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567
), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567
, likewise for |id=
and {{
JSTOR|0123456789}}
|url=
http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789
→ |jstor=0123456789
.
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Hot companion has been re-nominated as an AfD. Nstock ( talk) 04:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The article on the supernova was expanded from French wikipedia. I am doing some post-translation clean-up, but it really needs a look from someone who knows about astronomy. And if possible, history of astronomy. Thanks.
14:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I've put Epsilon Eridani up for FAC here. Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 17:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've proposed that Mizar (star) be moved to Mizar and Alcor, discussion is here. Icalanise ( talk) 22:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I just started those two and haven't a clue what I'm doing. Could someone please give them a quick look, particularly the infobox? I am looking for more info now. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 03:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Done Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 23:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I've made a request for a bot to try and guess bibcodes for the most popular astronomy journals / journals with the biggest presence in the ADSABS database. Feedback is welcome. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
There are times when the parallax for a star is available, but worthless except to show that the star is beyond the limitations of the parallax measurement. The example that got me onto this is that of R Andromedae, where the original Hipparcos parallax is not merely smaller than its estimated uncertainty (-0.06 +/- 6.49 mas), it's negative in this case, giving a patently silly result when it's used for any derived quantity. There are, however, decent distance estimates for the star from astrophysical methods. (Those methods in general are not astrometric, so the ability to put such a distance estimate in some part of the Starbox that isn't in the "astrometry" section seems better; that's a subtle distinction but it is important.) Is there a way to manually override (or merely just suppress) the automatically-computed distance and its by-products in the Starboxes, while leaving the parallax information in place? BSVulturis ( talk) 16:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
There was a question raised on the Mars talk page about whether the top level Mars time intervals should be called Epochs or Periods. The literature seems to be divided on the topic. Some informed input would be appreciated at Talk:Mars#Epoch vs. Period in geologic history section. Thank you. Regards, RJH ( talk) 16:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Carbon giant has been prodded for deletion. 65.94.45.160 ( talk) 06:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
It looks like the alignment of the headers for the Starbox templates have been altered. Checking the Sirius article, the headers are now left aligned, with the exception of the starbox visbin sub-template. That makes it look a little squirrely. Possibly somebody has altered a style sheet? I don't see any other edits that would have caused the revision. Should we add a manual center-alignment to each of the sub-template headers to make them consistent again? Regards, RJH ( talk) 20:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
This article was created a couple of years ago and was tagged as an essay. Parts of it seem legitimate and it is well sourced, but it may be in need of cleanup. Please take a look if you have an inclination. Thanks. Regards, RJH ( talk) 16:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I've nominated the {{ Nearest star systems}} and {{ Nearest bright star systems}} templates (and associated subtemplates) for discussion at WP:TfD#Nearest star systems navboxes. Icalanise ( talk) 18:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Result of TfD was that both the templates have been reduced to a 10 light year cutoff. IMHO the {{ Nearest bright star systems}} template is now pretty much pointless, but going to hold off on renominating it until further decisions get taken. Icalanise ( talk) 20:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Is the ISS as bright as Venus, Brighter or comparable, how is the magnitude determined ? Is looking through a telescope at the ISS even astronomy ? is it an astronomical object ? We could use some help here. Anyone got 10 minutes ? Please come to the ISS talk page to help. Penyulap talk 15:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated International Space Station 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. This is about an effort to improve the article, and get some new ideas for this article. Penyulap talk 15:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
There are quite a few NGC objects especially Nebulae, which don't have any apparent magnitude specified in the catalog. But the wikipedia articles mention the apparent magnitude. I think a careful review of these quoted apparent magnitudes is needed. For example:
I will expand this list as I find more instances. EPharaoh ( talk) 18:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
We have a redirect, V4641, which redirects to the binary star V4641 Sgr; it strikes me as not a wholly appropriate redirect. Any thoughts on it? 76.66.193.119 ( talk) 22:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The following suggestion was made at Talk:Earth#Template:Infobox_Earth.3F by User:Cybercobra:
To me doing something like this would make a certain amount of sense, but I think we should apply the approach consistently across all of the Solar System planet articles. What do you think?— RJH ( talk) 18:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
template:Trans-Neptunian objects survived deletion by TfD. The outcome was to rewrite the template. What should be included in the new version of the template? 76.66.193.119 ( talk) 04:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
An example of the new template might be:
76.66.193.119 ( talk) 04:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The fair use status of File:Charon plutoface.png is being debated. -- Kheider ( talk) 19:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I've recently revamped the decaying Portal:Human spaceflight so that it now includes Random Portal Components, and therefore there is no need to regularly choose new articles, pictures, etc. At the moment Portal:Astronomy doesn't have a Picture of the Week. If there's interest, I could do a similar thing and install Random Portal Components in Portal:Astronomy, and therefore lessen (indeed eliminate) the burden of always finding new pictures, articles, etc? The portal would look identical.. but the pictures, articles, etc would change everytime you reload the page.
Also, I got Wikinews to add an Astronomy Category, so the Astronomy News section now automatically updates. Mlm42 ( talk) 20:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
The article List of extrasolar planet extremes is unreferenced and some of the records appear to be quite suspect - apparently this list is not well maintained. I'm inclined to regard the page as an article-sized trivia section. Icalanise ( talk) 20:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
According to the article Vanth (moon), the name of (90482) Orcus I Vanth was assigned in April 2010, but the reference is a blank page. However the name appears to be assigned in Minor Planet Circular 69495, available in a batch dated 2010/03/30 [2] [3]. I'd update the article but I'm not particularly well-versed in the naming procedures, so I might be missing something here. Icalanise ( talk) 00:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
FYI, File:Pluto.jpg has been nominated for deletion at WP:FFD. 76.66.193.119 ( talk) 05:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Article Astronomical bodies in pseudoscience and the paranormal (sigh) has multiple issues and has been PROD'd. FYI.— RJH ( talk) 19:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Moved to WikiProject Solar System. Icalanise ( talk) 19:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I've made some edits of a few of the starbox templates, converting them from Wiki tables to HTML tables, and commenting out the end of lines. As far as I can tell, this helps avoid the extra newlines that sometimes get generated at the top of the articles. Icalanise ( talk) 22:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Now making its way through the turgid FAC process here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#90377 Sedna. =) — RJH ( talk) 17:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated the articles Cold Neptune and Cold Jupiter for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold Neptune. Icalanise ( talk) 23:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
In the Astrometry and Details sections of the starbox template, the inline references come before the units of measurement. I think I prefer them to come after, how do other folks feel about this? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 19:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
| mass = 1.100<ref name="eso">{{cite web | author=Kervella | first=Pierre | coauthors=Thevenin, Frederic | date=March 15, 2003 | url=http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-2003/pr-05-03.html | title=A Family Portrait of the Alpha Centauri System | publisher=ESO | accessdate=2008-06-06 }}</ref>
{{Infobox settlement}}
for example.
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk)
14:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Supposedly new user Metebelis has been renaming a number of star articles to use Gould's Uranometria Argentina designation (with a "G"). While technically correct, in many of the cases I don't believe the new name is the most common. In many cases it is very obscure. For example: HR 5568 (or Gliese 570) is now 33 G. Librae. What do you think? I suspect this account is a sock puppet because the editor looks experienced.— RJH ( talk) 19:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Comments/Assistance incorporating the information into the article would be welcome. NW ( Talk) 01:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Please take a look at the following discussion about a proposed merge of Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects into Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy:
Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 18:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
NGC 3603 is an open cluster of stars which it is claimed was discovered by John Frederick William Herschel in 1834. Does any know how this can be verfied (or not)? -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 11:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
There is a request to split List of extrasolar planets with two sections suggested as becoming standalone lists. 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 05:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Category:Cold Neptunes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Category:Cold Jupiters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) have been nominated for deletion. 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 04:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
An anonymous user ( 72.254.128.201 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)) has been making a very large number of changes to astronomy-related articles ( neutron star, active galactic nucleus, quasar, and several fusion process articles, to name a few). At best these are benign but not very useful typesetting changes. More often, they're problematic (replacing words with less-appropriate or outright wrong synonyms throughout the article). In several cases, the anon changed temperature values in the fusion process articles, without citing a source to back up their claimed values.
I've cleaned up the damage down to their 19:2x 25 Sept. edits to carbon burning process, but there's a lot more to be vetted (and possibly reverted). Help would be appreciated. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 22:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
An IP editor just added a couple of "citation needed" tags to Quasar. If anyone would be willing to dig up appropriate references, that would be handy, as the requests were attached to statements about a topic that's turned ugly in the past (evaluating quasar distance and Hubble's Law). -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 00:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I've ended up with a disagreement with User:SchuminWeb about ESO image credits on the Beta Pictoris article. The image license for ESO images [4] states that the image credit must be clearly visible. I interpret this to mean that the image credit should be placed in the image caption in the article. User:SchuminWeb disagrees and has removed the credit, stating that it is enough to put the image credit on the file page and that such image credits should not appear in articles. Any advice on this matter would be appreciated. Thanks. Icalanise ( talk) 08:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I propose integrating in to starbox a detail area describing its planetary system. Can be as simple as
Planets WhateverStar A, WhateverStar B, WhateverStar C
roughly speaking. It is increasingly clear that it will be more a rarity to find stars without planets rather than vice versa, and as the planet hunt progresses it is likely that more stars will become worthy of articles.
If there are no objections I'll begin work on the template to add in such a feature soon. It should be easy to implement and will be designed to follow standard lettered nomenclature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockatship ( talk • contribs) 00:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
It looks like there are more than a couple of hundred star articles that don't have a completed {{ WikiProject Astronomy}} appraisal template yet. Many of the articles are stubs from our old friend CarloscomB that are in need of cleanup (including an unnecessary image entry in the infobox, the use of periods instead of commas for the stellar properties, overly long name lists, and confusion about double vs. binary stars). I'm still slowly working my way through the star articles list, and I'm sure there are probably other astronomy sub-categories with articles that are missing wikiproject templates.— RJH ( talk) 20:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
FYI Image:Gliese 581GG.PNG has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 05:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I guess I've only noticed this because I have been browsing with JavaScript turned off, but the {{ nearest systems}} and {{ nearest bright star systems}} templates are really really big. They're also full of redlinks. (It isn't entirely clear what the "bright" criterion is, there are a lot of awfully dim red dwarf stars listed there). Not sure what to do about them really. Icalanise ( talk) 18:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
After this article came to the front page (which I always dislike) it underwent a few useful changes and one I had a concern about by a WP Administrator. This edit removed some content from the Possible Companions section that had been contributed by other authors. This material was fully cited and it concerned the topic; therefore it satisfied WP:TOPIC. Out of respect for the authors of the material, I restored the content and left a discussion topic on the article's talk page. I would appreciate it if you could contribute your thoughts on whether to keep the material or let it be deleted. Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 20:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm by no means an expert, but I noticed that a couple articles ( Tarvos and Thrymr) have recently had photos added... sourced from Cassini's raw image site. However, when I've browsed that site in the past, I've found that small objects can easily be completely lost among cosmic ray hits and stars, even for the inner small moons. Considering that these moons are much more distant, I doubt that the photos really contain the moons they claim to be photos of at all. Can anyone help confirm or deny this? -- Patteroast ( talk) 04:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I nominated this article for Featured List status. The review page is here. Ruslik_ Zero 18:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello members of Project Astronomical objects. I am helping prepare a new article to be submitted for DYK. The article is about the Earth's shadow as it is visible from Earth at sunset and sunrise. I am checking to see when in this article we should use "Sun" meaning the astronomical body, and when to use "sun" meaning the everyday use of the term. If someone has a moment can they please take a look, please feel free to change the usage or tweak the content as seems appropriate. Many thanks, Invertzoo ( talk) 14:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Abell 2218 needs cleanup, it seems to use out of date science to claim that the most distant galaxy occurs in a gravitation lens image created by the cluster. However later galaxy discoveries with lower redshift claims have been acclaimed the most distant galaxy known. 76.66.198.128 ( talk) 05:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
On Talk:Gliese 581 g, User:Viriditas is claiming that citing the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia note on the Gliese 581 system that the HARPS new data does not detect planet g [6] violates WP:BLP because we cannot absolutely verify that is what exactly was said at the conference. Is this correct? Extra opinions would be useful. Icalanise ( talk) 12:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI, SAO 138238 has been requested to be renamed. 76.66.203.138 ( talk) 06:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Can someone clean up JKCS 041? Someone turned it into a {{ quotefarm}} back in May 2010. I'd personally delete the entire quote section, but I'd get cited for vandalism, since edit patrollers seem to do that whenever massive amounts of text are removed by IP editors. 76.66.198.128 ( talk) 04:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know of a star inside of the Milky Way further than UDF 2457 @ ~59,000 ly? -- Kheider ( talk) 18:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Astronomical Objects articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 00:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
FYI List of most luminous stars in the local area was recently created. However it seems highly inaccurate. The local area is undefined in the article, and several stars on the list are thousands of light years away, one not even residing in the Milky Way. 76.66.203.138 ( talk) 09:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that List of brown dwarfs doesn't actually list the spectral type or apparent magnitude of the brown dwarf, rather it lists the spectral type and apparent magnitude of the primary star of the star system the brown dwarf is part of. This seems misleading, and less useful than having data on the brown dwarf itself being listed (both could be listed, but that is not currently done; though this is supposed to be a list of brown dwarfs)
76.66.203.138 ( talk) 11:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
anyone notice that planemo was renamed to planetary mass object and then disappeared back in April? For some reason the planemo type was merged into its subset, the planet type. 76.66.203.138 ( talk) 08:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps a renewed planetary mass object should include the material on planetary mass moons, and distinctions between planemos, substars, subbrowndwarfs, etc ? 76.66.203.138 ( talk) 14:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI, 4 Sagittarii has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.203.138 ( talk) 07:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
At WT:WikiProject Space, it has been proposed that WikiProject Astronomy and WikiProject Astronomical objects be abolished; and merged into WPSpace. 76.66.194.212 ( talk) 06:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Cepheid variable was rewritten yesterday. This is rated as a top importance article for us. Also, Type II Cepheids was created yesterday. Cepheid variable has also been requested to be renamed as Classical Cepheid variables. This was all done by 99.192.66.42 ( talk · contribs); We should consider whether it is better to split off an article on classical Cepheids, versus moving the page history to classical, and building a new overview page. 76.66.194.212 ( talk) 06:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space/2010 Reorganisation regarding the future of WikiProject Space and its child projects. The discussion is aimed at defining the roles of projects, and improving the activity and coordination of the projects. The input of members of this project is requested as it is one which may be affected by the issue. -- G W … 22:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
i think there is a big need for a list of brightest nebulae on Wikipedia. i wanted many times such a list for observing and i think that many others did, it would be very useful. but there is problem in references, i tried to search in websites and books for something useful to create this list but i could not find anything. anyone knows a useful links, books or articles? -- aad_Dira ( talk) 16:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC).
I've been doing some updates to the Messier 87 article. One of the items I wanted to pin down is the distance estimate. The current estimate cites Tonry et al. (2001), who gives a distance modulus of 31.03 ± 0.16 in Table 1. I'm assuming this was converted by somebody to the current distance estimate listed in the article (17 ± 0.31) Mpc. In searching further, I came across Bird et al. (2010) who gives a weighted mean distance modulus of 31.08 ± 0.06 based upon multiple measurement techniques, which they then convert to (16.4 ± 0.5) Mpc. It's perhaps a bit odd that the latter references the former, yet gives a weighted mean with a greater variance than the value listed in the Wikipedia article. I'm tempted to just go with the Bird et al. (2010) value since that article is focused on M87 rather than being a general survey.
Do you have a recommendation? Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 21:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The Epsilon Eridani page has reached GA class status. My understanding is that the next stage is to become an A class article. Might I ask for some input on what needs to be done to reach that level? Thank you.
Regards, RJH ( talk) 00:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Recently, a number of edits have been made regarding our categorization system for small groups of stars. This system has to do with stars that (a) appear to be part of a group of n stars, where n = 2, 3, ..., and where the group is either (b.1) known to be a physical, gravitationally bound system or (b.2) known not to be physical, or not known either to be physical or not physical. The categorization at present is as follows:
Description | Categorization |
n = 2 (a), physical (b.1) | Category:Binary stars |
n = 2 (a), not known physical (b.2) | Category:Double stars |
n = 3 (a), physical (b.1) | Category:Triple star systems |
n = 3 (a), not known physical (b.2) | Category:Triple stars |
n ≥ 4 (a), physical (b.1) | Category:Multiple star systems |
n ≥ 4 (a), not known physical (b.2) | Category:Multiple stars |
The question is when to categorize stars into the last category ( Category:Multiple stars). You are invited to comment at Category talk:Multiple stars. Spacepotato ( talk) 02:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to give a quick heads-up that new user Obiwan42 has been making a number of " contributions" to astronomy articles, at least some of which appear inappropriate. For example, he has been changing the values of some infobox parameters so that they do not match the sources. We might want to keep an eye on the user's activities. Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 19:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately he's back at it, and he hasn't been including a source for his data. I reverted several of his contributions on the grounds that they were arbitrary changes with no sources given, and he has a history of overwriting values with incorrect data.— RJH ( talk) 16:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I'm going to update the dwarf planet candidates larger than 500 km across whose orbital parameters in the infobox use old data. I will update the data using the latest numbers from here and here. However I will wait for discussion prior to updating any official dwarf planets (some of which use Epoch 1950??). Thanks. ~ A H 1( T C U) 20:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I propose to merge Vega as an X-ray source with Vega, as I do not see the purpose of having a separate article to mention the X-ray properties of the star. Opinions? Comments? CielProfond ( talk) 01:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The dictionary definition of star cluster at Wiktionary has been nominated for deletion. It is being claimed that a star cluster is nothing more than a "cluster" of "stars", hence is not an independent term, but two words mashed together with no other meaning. 65.93.14.196 ( talk) 12:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I've just put an article up for AfD because the subject discusses a Kepler Object of Interest, basically a planet candidate. We are not talking about any of the 500 or so officially announced planets like those of the Kepler-11 system (note those actual planets don't even have articles yet!), we are talking about points of data no one knows yet are even real phenomena. The statistics of the candidates from the released paper are mentioned already in the Kepler article but does each candidate really deserve its own article? This seems to ridiculously defy notability standards. All sorts of scientific data are released to the public every day, is every datum verified or not notable enough for its own article? ChiZeroOne ( talk) 19:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
There's an ongoing discussion about cleaning up bibcodes in citations. Feedback is welcome. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure everyone's still sick of this from the last time it happened, but an IP editor has just posted a long essay at Talk:Quasar advocating for red-shift quantization, claiming that the evidence for cosmological red-shifts for quasars is weak, and so on. I'm on semi-sabbatical, so I'm not going to touch this for now. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 20:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
KOI-730, another unconfirmed candidate planetary system, has been nominated for deletion. 65.95.15.144 ( talk) 21:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
There's a discussion on the Mars talk page about what units should be used when listing atmospheric abundances in the infobox. Your input would be appreciated. Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 18:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
@Xsession: Like you, probably many readers are more accustomed to ppm than to the correct units. However, do you really know what is meant by that? 1E-6 kg/kg or 1E-6 mol/mol? This is not the same! I think unambiguity is more important than sticking to commonly used but ambiguous units.
Since I started this topic, I'd like to add some background information: I propose to get rid of the old and ambiguous units ppm, ppb, and ppt. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) says: "Only in the rarest of instances should ambiguous units be used, such as in direct quotations". I can see at least 3 ambiguities with these old units:
Consistent with IUPAC recommendations (see IUPAC Green Book http://old.iupac.org/publications/books/gbook/green_book_2ed.pdf and also page 1387-1388 of http://www.iupac.org/publications/pac/67/8/1377/pdf), I suggest to make the following replacements:
old unit | ppt | ppm | ppb | ppt |
definition | 1E-3 | 1E-6 | 1E-9 | 1E-12 |
new unit (if mass fraction) | g/kg | mg/kg | μg/kg | ng/kg |
new unit (if mole fraction) | mmol/mol | μmol/mol | nmol/mol | pmol/mol |
RolfSander ( talk) 18:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Could we please keep the discussion at Talk:Mars#Original units were clearer?, rather than having it spread over multiple talk pages? Modest Genius talk 18:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree not to split the discussion. However, I prefer to have it here because the question is not specific to Mars. RolfSander ( talk) 19:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{
citation}}, {{
cite journal}}, {{
cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id=
(or worse {{
arxiv|0123.4567}}
|url=
http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567
), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567
, likewise for |id=
and {{
JSTOR|0123456789}}
|url=
http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789
→ |jstor=0123456789
.
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Hot companion has been re-nominated as an AfD. Nstock ( talk) 04:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The article on the supernova was expanded from French wikipedia. I am doing some post-translation clean-up, but it really needs a look from someone who knows about astronomy. And if possible, history of astronomy. Thanks.
14:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I've put Epsilon Eridani up for FAC here. Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 17:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've proposed that Mizar (star) be moved to Mizar and Alcor, discussion is here. Icalanise ( talk) 22:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I just started those two and haven't a clue what I'm doing. Could someone please give them a quick look, particularly the infobox? I am looking for more info now. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 03:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Done Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 23:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I've made a request for a bot to try and guess bibcodes for the most popular astronomy journals / journals with the biggest presence in the ADSABS database. Feedback is welcome. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
There are times when the parallax for a star is available, but worthless except to show that the star is beyond the limitations of the parallax measurement. The example that got me onto this is that of R Andromedae, where the original Hipparcos parallax is not merely smaller than its estimated uncertainty (-0.06 +/- 6.49 mas), it's negative in this case, giving a patently silly result when it's used for any derived quantity. There are, however, decent distance estimates for the star from astrophysical methods. (Those methods in general are not astrometric, so the ability to put such a distance estimate in some part of the Starbox that isn't in the "astrometry" section seems better; that's a subtle distinction but it is important.) Is there a way to manually override (or merely just suppress) the automatically-computed distance and its by-products in the Starboxes, while leaving the parallax information in place? BSVulturis ( talk) 16:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
There was a question raised on the Mars talk page about whether the top level Mars time intervals should be called Epochs or Periods. The literature seems to be divided on the topic. Some informed input would be appreciated at Talk:Mars#Epoch vs. Period in geologic history section. Thank you. Regards, RJH ( talk) 16:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Carbon giant has been prodded for deletion. 65.94.45.160 ( talk) 06:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
It looks like the alignment of the headers for the Starbox templates have been altered. Checking the Sirius article, the headers are now left aligned, with the exception of the starbox visbin sub-template. That makes it look a little squirrely. Possibly somebody has altered a style sheet? I don't see any other edits that would have caused the revision. Should we add a manual center-alignment to each of the sub-template headers to make them consistent again? Regards, RJH ( talk) 20:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
This article was created a couple of years ago and was tagged as an essay. Parts of it seem legitimate and it is well sourced, but it may be in need of cleanup. Please take a look if you have an inclination. Thanks. Regards, RJH ( talk) 16:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I've nominated the {{ Nearest star systems}} and {{ Nearest bright star systems}} templates (and associated subtemplates) for discussion at WP:TfD#Nearest star systems navboxes. Icalanise ( talk) 18:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Result of TfD was that both the templates have been reduced to a 10 light year cutoff. IMHO the {{ Nearest bright star systems}} template is now pretty much pointless, but going to hold off on renominating it until further decisions get taken. Icalanise ( talk) 20:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Is the ISS as bright as Venus, Brighter or comparable, how is the magnitude determined ? Is looking through a telescope at the ISS even astronomy ? is it an astronomical object ? We could use some help here. Anyone got 10 minutes ? Please come to the ISS talk page to help. Penyulap talk 15:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated International Space Station 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. This is about an effort to improve the article, and get some new ideas for this article. Penyulap talk 15:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
There are quite a few NGC objects especially Nebulae, which don't have any apparent magnitude specified in the catalog. But the wikipedia articles mention the apparent magnitude. I think a careful review of these quoted apparent magnitudes is needed. For example:
I will expand this list as I find more instances. EPharaoh ( talk) 18:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)