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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
Per the discussion in the WT:ASTRO#Phase three pilot can start thread, The pages in Category:Main Belt asteroid stubs are being used as a trial for applying the WP:NASTRO guidelines. The vast majority of these seem to be bot-generated stubs that do not presently meet the notability guidelines, and that describe objects that are unlikely to meet the notability guidelines in the near future.
As things presently stand, we have a list of about 19,000 stubs tabulated in pages indexed at WP:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Stub processing. Manually sifting through these is a huge task.
What I am proposing, and seeking yes/no indications on, is writing a bot that goes through the autogenerated list, makes note of stubs that were flagged as having at most 1 reference or external link and being "short", and automatically redirecting these back to one of the appropriate asteroid-list pages.
The rationale for automated processing is that even if we have to un-redirect a few stubs, that's still far less work than manually going through 19k stubs by hand.
That said, WP:BOT indicates that this sort of automated processing should only happen if there's clear community consensus for doing so. What do the WP:AST and WP:ASTRO crews think about this proposal? Worth it/not worth it? -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 09:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I propose the logo of the Wikiproject be changed to File:Iridescent Glory of Nearby Helix Nebula.jpg as it is of better resolution of the current image. It wouldn't make a difference in terms of the display of the logo but it would promote the better quality image over the older lower quality image. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 03:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that we need an astronomy wikiproject on Commons. I note that both WPAviation and WPCanada established branched at Commons, so we could as well, considering the note above on Commons deletions. ( Commons:Commons:WikiProject Aviation, Commons:Commons:WikiProject Canada )
70.24.247.54 ( talk) 04:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I've got something of a puzzle regarding the brown dwarf OTS 44. This was covered by Luhman et al (2005a) and Luhman et al (2005b), where it was described as a solitary brown dwarf with a disk. SIMBAD associates this with 2MASS J11100934-7632178 and has a link to Stelzer & Micela (2007), who describe it as a wide binary brown dwarf system. I think the Stelzer & Micela article could be used to usefully expand OTS 44, but now I'm not sure if it is the same system. Neither of the Luhman et al papers list the 2MASS number. Might I ask if somebody could suggest which way to go with this? Thank you. Regards, RJH ( talk) 19:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I've been working to expand this article, but it's starting to looking a little odd and it seems like there's a study I'm missing somewhere. It's categorized as a giant star, yet it has a huge rotation velocity of 236+ km/s and the little HR diagram on the Wolfram site spots it in the main sequence. Both Wolfram and David Darling list it as a shell star, but none of the journal articles seem to do so. (The secondary was apparently responsible for the earlier spectral peculiarities.) The Eggleton+ 2008 entry for HR 6879 appears to list the secondary as the source of the X-rays, but I think Hubrig et al (2001) seemed to suggest it was not. There's also a circumstellar disk that seems to be orbiting outside the secondary, which I wonder if the emission from that ties in with the shell star identification in some way? Anyway, an interesting object. I was just wondering if anybody had some interesting insights they could share? Thank you. Regards, RJH ( talk) 19:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
As an experiment I ran through the sparsely populated list of minor planets on List of minor planets/100001–100100. First I added 'div' pairs to each of the linked minor planet names. Then I went to each of the linked minor planet pages and looked to see if it met the automated script criteria for a redirect. I added redirects to just those articles. In all it took about 15 minutes.
There are more than 1,300 list articles in total. At 15 minutes a pop, we're talking 325 hours. Say an editor provides 1.5 hours of contributed time per day, that's 217 days (or 7 months) of useless, mind-numbing scutwork. I don't find that prospect particularly appealing and I'm not sure many others would either. :-) Hence, I don't think we can expect this to happen. Regards, RJH ( talk) 17:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
This image is almost certainly PD-NASA but I was unable to find source. Any help is welcomed. Bulwersator ( talk) 22:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
We have an article on a song called HR 8938 Cephei. This suggests that we should have an article on the star the song is named after, HR 8938/ HR 8938 Cep/ HR 8938 Cephei (star). [1] [2] ; any thoughts? -- 70.24.247.54 ( talk) 09:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems that someone has now created HR 8938 Cephei (star). Surely that fails WP:NASTRO? Modest Genius talk 16:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I found this at the WP:Council... Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Exoplanets -- someone has proposed a new wikiprojects on Created an Article on Each Exoplanet... 65.92.182.149 ( talk) 08:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that not all of the stupid Eubot redirects have been deleted/fixed yet... (I just fixed A centauri right now... it did not point to A Centauri... as Eubot things A=Alpha for some weird reason)
From RFD, there's a notice of another bot doing weird character substitution redirects... RjwilmsiBot ( talk · contribs) ... so we might be getting more of these wrong redirects... 70.24.251.71 ( talk) 06:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
There is an ongoing effort by some admins on commons to delete all MESSENGER and New Horizons images. (See here and here). I think this is not justified because they use very specious interpretation of their image use policies. I think the astronomical community needs to know and participate in all those discussions. Ruslik_ Zero 09:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I sometimes run across data entries at the SIMBAD site that seem like obvious errors. One I found today is for the star HIP 32246 ( Epsilon Geminorum) in the VizieR database entry for Tetzlaff et al (2011). VizieR lists a spectral type of A3mA6-A9, whereas SIMBAD lists it as G8Ib. Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but those seem to be completely different. I was wondering how much reliance I should place in the other VizieR information for this star? It's not listed in the paper so I can't do a cross-check. Thank you. Regards, RJH ( talk) 18:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Marasama ( talk) 18:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_February_28#File:Epsilon_Tauri_b_and_Hyades.png about the possible deletion of this image. Thincat ( talk) 09:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
A different proposal has propped up to create a WikiProject for extrasolar planets. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Extrasolar planets (this is not the same as the one from last month) 70.24.251.71 ( talk) 06:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The illustration on the Tau Geminorum article ( File:Tau Geminorum and brown dwarf.png) seems at least a little questionable to me. If the brown dwarf is not radiating any significant light, at a distance of roughly 1–2 AU I'd expect it to at least be reflecting a lot of light from the giant primary; hence showing a crescent. Am I way off base there? I mean it shouldn't be much different than Jupiter/Saturn in terms of albedo, unless the atmosphere is choked with soot. :-) (I've studied some illustrative art, so I'm a little conscious of light, shadows and reflection from objects, &c.) Regards, RJH ( talk) 03:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I think I found the answer to the odd spectra (ie. kA5 hA8 mF4). On page HD 15082, the star's spectra is kA5 hA8 mF4, with...
However, I do not know if this is the case, just saw the pattern. If this is correct, Stellar classification definately needs an update if verified correctly. Thanks, Marasama ( talk) 16:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
From what I can find out, the kA5 hA8 mF4 notation is specifically intended for Am stars, or at least that's what it says on p. 178 of Stellar Spectral Classification by Gray and Corbally. The book doesn't give an original source, but after a some checking around I suspect it may have originated from p. 306 of Gray & Garrison (1989). Some other sources use a slightly different notation: (A5/A8/F4). Regards, RJH ( talk) 02:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
The SIMBAD entry for Pi Herculis may have an oddity. It lists the star as type K3Iab:, whereas nearly every other source lists it as K3II. The nearest match I could find is Eggleton & Tokovinin (2008) who give it as K3IIab. I also wonder what the "C ~" notation in SIMBAD is supposed to mean? Shrug. Regards, RJH ( talk) 04:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I alerted SIMBAD about this, and they have now updated to K3II, with a reference. Modest Genius talk 13:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Category:NGC objects has been nominated to be renamed. 70.24.251.224 ( talk) 04:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
with the cleanup of the unclassified categories, I've noticed that we might need to create WP:Topic category and WP:Set category pairs... it would ease separation between categories containing objects, and articles about the science surrounding the topic. Like Category:Galaxies with a subcategory Category:Galaxy (or Category:Galaxy astronomy (this cannot be called "galactic astronomy" since that is the study of the Milky Way Galaxy))... or Category:Nebulae and Category:Nebular astronomy (or Category:Nebula or Category:Nebula astronomy)
Since we are missing categories for more obscure subtypes of general types, I'm going to need to move some of the unclassified into the main categories, so an astronomy field category for each type of object would be useful. 70.24.248.7 ( talk) 06:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
IC 1517 is a similar ultrastub article. However, our data doesn't match NED or SIMBAD. But it is apparently little studied... 70.24.248.7 ( talk) 07:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
IC 1059 doesn't seem all that well studied. SIMBAD lists only three articles, though NED shows a few references.
This page is very stubby, what should we do with the article? I found it during the ongoing classification drive of the unclassified cats. 70.24.248.7 ( talk) 07:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Category:Common envelope binaries has been proposed to be renamed to Category:Common envelopes. 70.24.248.7 ( talk) 04:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone wanted to ask Svick to create cleanup sub-listings for us (astronomical objects) and constellations (and exoplanets, if that TF gets off the ground), to get shorter lists than the main one for WPAstronomy?
See User:Svick/WikiProject cleanup listing/Add (WPAstronomy's listing)
70.24.248.7 ( talk) 06:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I can't figure out what star Delaware Diamond is. See Talk:Delaware Diamond where a couple other users are also thinking about it. (this is part of the unclassified cleanup) 70.24.250.156 ( talk) 05:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Coin #1831 from David Sear's "Byzantine Coins", probably minted in 1054 depicts two very large stars in the back ground. It is probably a reference to SN 1054. I have located a nice picture of that coin. I think it should be included in the discussion of this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.207.94 ( talk) 21:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)59 Andromedae is another unclassified cleanup problem. SIMBAD [4] has a disambiguation page for this name, strongly suggesting a rename is in order. Further, it has one of those nonstandard floating tables that CarloscomB added to articles that appears below everything on the page (including seealso,references,externalinks)... I've changed the table to a normal wikitable markup. 70.24.244.198 ( talk) 11:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I just found this, Category:Binary star systems, a newly created category that replicates our longstanding category Category:Binary stars. I've sent it for deletion at CFD.
70.24.244.198 ( talk) 12:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
50 Cancri says it is also called "A2 Cnc", but I can't seem to find that in a cursory search. What I found with "A2" and "a2" was written in 1829, and I don't know what epoch that is, or if it's the same star. But those are two different A1/a1's. 70.24.244.198 ( talk) 12:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
45 Cancri says it is also called "A1 Cnc", but I can't seem to find that in a cursory search. What I found with "A1" and "a1" was written in 1829, and I don't know what epoch that is, or if it's the same star. But those are two different A1/a1's. 70.24.244.198 ( talk) 12:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
IC 1011 has a large amount of material that was written when it was confused with IC 1101. But since the article has undergone cleanup to remove IC 1101 content, this still remains, though unreferenced. I feel it should just be deleted. I'm not going to personally do it, since I'm pretty sure a bot will come around to give me a vandalism warning, or some EditPatroller who doesn't know astronomy will do it. 70.24.244.198 ( talk) 14:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering if some of the recently deleted category names, and some of the non-selected category names shouldn't be created as category redirects?
70.24.244.198 ( talk) 04:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Armbrust ( talk · contribs) just recently starting moving a bunch of pages willy-nilly, and then made CFD nominations based on the page moves. Nearly all of them don't make any sort of sense, and there's a lot to revert and cleanup. Help would be appreciated to cleanup that mess, as [5] s/he aren't listening to reason. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
So... NGC objects CfD had 4 opposes and 4 supports for renaming Category:NGC objects to Category:New General Catalogue objects. The end result: a rename to Category:NGC astronomical objects. Heh. RJH ( talk) 20:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
User Metebelis has been renaming star articles from the Gliese Catalogue of Nearby Stars from the GJ identifier to Gliese, apparently under the assumption that the latter is the de facto Wikipedia standard. An example is his move of GJ 1214 to Gliese 1214. In a couple of instances I disagreed and moved them back because of the preponderance of publications that used the GJ identifier rather than Gliese. (This is consistent with our past discussions on article naming conventions.) I've asked him to begin a discussion on the topic here but he has apparently declined. How do we feel about the naming convention for these articles. Should we apply a blanket principle of consistency here?
For some reason the principle of consistency within an article has now been spread to become consistency between articles. I'm not sure where that concept sprang up but I can't find a policy to support it. Personally I think the principle of consistency gets over used. It's a reasonable policy but shouldn't be pushed in the face of common sense. Regards, RJH ( talk) 01:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, well the goofy bit was in the sense of people, typically anonymous editors, making seemingly arbitrary changes that don't particularly benefit anybody. The English variant is the same issue because it demonstrates that inconsistencies can and do occur between articles. Common sense tells me we should be following naming conventions established by common use in the astronomical community.
I did finally locate the consistency policy regarding article titles here: WP:CRITERIA. In particular, it does suggest we should apply the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects) you mentioned earlier. However, per the "Stars" section of that article, "If there is no Bayer or Flamsteed designation, then the Draper number (HD) and or Gliese number (GJ) should be the article's title based on which one is in wider use (e.g. HD 98800, GJ 3021, Gliese 876)." The key words there are "wider use". That is somewhat subject to interpretation, but I usually go by the number of significant scholarly publications. Note that it does not say that we should be choosing Gliese exclusively.
Regards, RJH ( talk) 02:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
The Catalogue of Nearby Stars has a complex history as explained on the article page. Stars with CNS numbers >1000 should NOT be referred to as "Gliese NNNN" because these are from the Gliese and Jahreiß extensions (or the Woolley extension for >9000, but the Woolley designation is not used any more). So " Gliese 3021" or " Gliese 1214" are incorrect, these should be GJ 3021 and GJ 1214. For stars with numbers <1000 the CNS lists the designation as "Gl" rather than "GJ", so for these the "Gliese" designation is appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.126.76.193 ( talk) 07:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
A thought occurred to me that the {{ Clade}} template might be useful for constructing mobile diagrams for multi-star systems. Granted it would be oriented sideways, but I think the effect would be about the same. Anyway, there's documentation on the template page if anybody wants to try it. There's also a {{ Cladogram}} template for putting the diagram in a box. Regards, RJH ( talk) 02:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Yep it kind of works:
GJ 667 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
C | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A | B | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cb | Cc | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mobile diagram of GJ 667
Not sure how to make it display like an image though. Regards, RJH ( talk) 22:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
In cleaning up unclassified stars, there's Star of Bethlehem, which is definitely different from what else remains. I'm thinking we need a Category:Stars in mythology to place this in (similar to Category:Animals in mythology, etc) . 70.24.248.211 ( talk) 06:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Category:NGC astronomical objects has been proposed to be renamed back to Category:NGC objects. 70.24.248.211 ( talk) 08:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The following AfD may be of interest to the wikiproject Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24968 Chernyakhovsky. Cheers, Polyamorph ( talk) 09:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Is it possible to talk about near resonance (or commensurability) between Venus and the Earth? See the discussion here, please. Thank you very much. Jan.Kamenicek ( talk) 00:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
{{{name}}} | |
---|---|
{{{image}}} | |
Pronunciation | {{{pronounce}}} |
Discovery date | {{{date}}} |
Parent body | {{{parent}}} |
Radiant | |
Constellation | {{{constellation}}} |
Right ascension | {{{ra}}} |
Declination | {{{dec}}} |
Properties | |
Occurs during | {{{month}}} |
Date of peak | {{{date}}} |
Velocity | {{{velocity}}} km/s |
Zenithal hourly rate | {{{zhr}}} |
Notable features | {{{notes}}} |
Hello. I think it might make sense to create a {{ Infobox meteor shower}} template for use on the numerous meteor shower articles. Is there any concern about this? Does the layout and parameters as presented here seem reasonable for this purpose? Thank you. Regards, RJH ( talk) 02:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I found this article, Newfound Blob, which someone has rated "mid" importance. Unfortunately, I can't find any information that tells me it is called "Newfound Blob", indeed, several other LABs have been called "newfound blob" when they were discovered. Neither reference used actually uses the term "Newfound Blob", except in the title of one of the two. It is lacking in detail, and I don't think it should have a mid-importance rating either. 70.24.248.211 ( talk) 06:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I checked NASA ADS for publications by Ryosuke Yamauchi and found this:
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)It seems at least similar to the news story. Regards, RJH ( talk) 22:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I recently merged
to a single entry
Likewise, the
are now all merged into
Just thought I'd let you all know. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey there ASTRO people. There is a request to redirect a bunch of asteroid stubs ( see list), so some extra eyes would be need on this. In a nutshell, when an asteroid has...
the article would be converted to a redirect to the relevant list of minor planets per WP:NASTRO. However, since this concerns a large quantity of article, some additional things need to be addressed, and I want to make sure I'm not overlooking anything before approving this request.
Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Putting a cut-off at 2000 means not-redirecting the following
After browsing a few of these articles, I really don't see any that meet WP:NASTRO. And they were all (or nearly all) created by Cluebot II. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Here's my put:
<!-- Before converting the XXXXX redirect into an article, please check whether the content will satisfy the guidelines for astronomical object notability on WP:NASTRO. In particular, the object must have significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. Just because an object is listed in a database (like the JPL Small-Body Database) does not mean it is notable. -->
Headbomb – can you clarify what categories you mean? Regards, RJH ( talk) 16:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok I have done 5 test conversions:
* 4990 Trombka
They are all in
* Category:Minor planet redirects
Why is asteroid 2025 Nortia inluded on this re-direct list when it has a JPL Small-Body Database entry that includes an IRAS reference? Your lists details entered by Chrisrus may be a little misleading as to what selection process was used. -- Kheider ( talk) 17:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I have opened a thread on notability for Earth-crossing asteroids at Wikipedia talk:Notability (astronomical objects)#NEOs. Spinning Spark 16:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I've found a mistake in this article. In pl, ru & uk.wiki (and possibly others) this object is told to be a galaxy but in en.wiki it is classified as star-forming region. In NGC 2363's SIMBAD entry there's a note that it is a galaxy but frequently confused with the bright HII region Mrk 71 in NGC 2366. -- Winiar ( talk) 07:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
The Andromeda (constellation) article is up for FAC here. Regards, RJH ( talk) 16:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
See Talk:Dwarf planet, where the result of the RFC is now being disuputed. 70.24.251.208 ( talk) 11:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I had an idea to apply the same finder technique we use on star articles—overlaying a circle on a map—for the purpose of identifying lunar crater locations. Based on a trial on the Peary (crater) and Rozhdestvenskiy (crater) articles using a polar image, it seems to work reasonably well. Does anybody have a strenuous objection to this approach? Regards, RJH ( talk) 21:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
At its creation, the Omicron Aquarii article stated that the star is a Gamma Cassiopeiae variable. Given the description on the variable star article, I have no reason to doubt that. But I'm sure not having much success trying to confirm it. About the closest I can find is the GCVS entry, which lists it as spectral class B7IVe-sh; [7] presumably the "sh" means it is a shell star. Am I okay using the GCVS for a reference? (Similar concern for Pi Aquarii.) Thank you. Regards, RJH ( talk) 18:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Apparently this binary star system has five planets. I can't find a reference to confirm this "finding". [9] Regards, RJH ( talk) 16:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Jupiter family comet has been nominated for deletion. -- 70.49.127.65 ( talk) 05:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Many of the stars in the Bright Star Catalogue only seem to have a limited amount of information available. An example may be 99 Aquarii, which now has a suite of references and some details, but only three small paragraphs of text. Depending on the interpretation, that article appears to satisfy the criteria for article quality ratings of Start, C, and possibly even B on the project's quality scale. It seems unlikely that this article will be expanded in the near future unless there is an unusual discovery such as a planetary system, so how do you think it should be rated? I'm tempted to set such articles to a 'B', but I'm not sure that is appropriate. Thank you. Regards, RJH ( talk) 16:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Another minor planet up for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4706 Dennisreuter. Some discussion is occurring regarding automated deletes. Regards, RJH ( talk) 17:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I would like to see more votes and comments at Talk:S/2012 P 1 - Requested move. In 2015 we might be adding several moons to minor planet Pluto and we should have a reasonable consensus as to how to properly name them. Thank you. -- Kheider ( talk) 08:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
11277 Ballard is at AfD. Johnuniq ( talk) 10:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
List of stars in the constellation Andromeda has been requested to be renamed -- 76.65.131.160 ( talk) 03:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I ran into an issue with a reference that has me scratching my head a little:
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)What I'm looking at is the information on WDS 18465−0058 (5 Aql). The orbital elements listed on p. 737 shows a = 0.2″ and a period of 33+ years. However, on pp. 741–742 is says the A–B pair have a separation of 12″.8, while the spectroscopic binary (which I'm guessing is Aa–Ab) has a period of 4.77 days. (I confirmed this period in Abt & Levy (1985).) This data looks very contradictory. Am I perhaps misunderstanding something? Regards, RJH ( talk) 15:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
Per the discussion in the WT:ASTRO#Phase three pilot can start thread, The pages in Category:Main Belt asteroid stubs are being used as a trial for applying the WP:NASTRO guidelines. The vast majority of these seem to be bot-generated stubs that do not presently meet the notability guidelines, and that describe objects that are unlikely to meet the notability guidelines in the near future.
As things presently stand, we have a list of about 19,000 stubs tabulated in pages indexed at WP:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Stub processing. Manually sifting through these is a huge task.
What I am proposing, and seeking yes/no indications on, is writing a bot that goes through the autogenerated list, makes note of stubs that were flagged as having at most 1 reference or external link and being "short", and automatically redirecting these back to one of the appropriate asteroid-list pages.
The rationale for automated processing is that even if we have to un-redirect a few stubs, that's still far less work than manually going through 19k stubs by hand.
That said, WP:BOT indicates that this sort of automated processing should only happen if there's clear community consensus for doing so. What do the WP:AST and WP:ASTRO crews think about this proposal? Worth it/not worth it? -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 09:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I propose the logo of the Wikiproject be changed to File:Iridescent Glory of Nearby Helix Nebula.jpg as it is of better resolution of the current image. It wouldn't make a difference in terms of the display of the logo but it would promote the better quality image over the older lower quality image. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 03:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that we need an astronomy wikiproject on Commons. I note that both WPAviation and WPCanada established branched at Commons, so we could as well, considering the note above on Commons deletions. ( Commons:Commons:WikiProject Aviation, Commons:Commons:WikiProject Canada )
70.24.247.54 ( talk) 04:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I've got something of a puzzle regarding the brown dwarf OTS 44. This was covered by Luhman et al (2005a) and Luhman et al (2005b), where it was described as a solitary brown dwarf with a disk. SIMBAD associates this with 2MASS J11100934-7632178 and has a link to Stelzer & Micela (2007), who describe it as a wide binary brown dwarf system. I think the Stelzer & Micela article could be used to usefully expand OTS 44, but now I'm not sure if it is the same system. Neither of the Luhman et al papers list the 2MASS number. Might I ask if somebody could suggest which way to go with this? Thank you. Regards, RJH ( talk) 19:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I've been working to expand this article, but it's starting to looking a little odd and it seems like there's a study I'm missing somewhere. It's categorized as a giant star, yet it has a huge rotation velocity of 236+ km/s and the little HR diagram on the Wolfram site spots it in the main sequence. Both Wolfram and David Darling list it as a shell star, but none of the journal articles seem to do so. (The secondary was apparently responsible for the earlier spectral peculiarities.) The Eggleton+ 2008 entry for HR 6879 appears to list the secondary as the source of the X-rays, but I think Hubrig et al (2001) seemed to suggest it was not. There's also a circumstellar disk that seems to be orbiting outside the secondary, which I wonder if the emission from that ties in with the shell star identification in some way? Anyway, an interesting object. I was just wondering if anybody had some interesting insights they could share? Thank you. Regards, RJH ( talk) 19:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
As an experiment I ran through the sparsely populated list of minor planets on List of minor planets/100001–100100. First I added 'div' pairs to each of the linked minor planet names. Then I went to each of the linked minor planet pages and looked to see if it met the automated script criteria for a redirect. I added redirects to just those articles. In all it took about 15 minutes.
There are more than 1,300 list articles in total. At 15 minutes a pop, we're talking 325 hours. Say an editor provides 1.5 hours of contributed time per day, that's 217 days (or 7 months) of useless, mind-numbing scutwork. I don't find that prospect particularly appealing and I'm not sure many others would either. :-) Hence, I don't think we can expect this to happen. Regards, RJH ( talk) 17:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
This image is almost certainly PD-NASA but I was unable to find source. Any help is welcomed. Bulwersator ( talk) 22:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
We have an article on a song called HR 8938 Cephei. This suggests that we should have an article on the star the song is named after, HR 8938/ HR 8938 Cep/ HR 8938 Cephei (star). [1] [2] ; any thoughts? -- 70.24.247.54 ( talk) 09:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems that someone has now created HR 8938 Cephei (star). Surely that fails WP:NASTRO? Modest Genius talk 16:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I found this at the WP:Council... Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Exoplanets -- someone has proposed a new wikiprojects on Created an Article on Each Exoplanet... 65.92.182.149 ( talk) 08:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that not all of the stupid Eubot redirects have been deleted/fixed yet... (I just fixed A centauri right now... it did not point to A Centauri... as Eubot things A=Alpha for some weird reason)
From RFD, there's a notice of another bot doing weird character substitution redirects... RjwilmsiBot ( talk · contribs) ... so we might be getting more of these wrong redirects... 70.24.251.71 ( talk) 06:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
There is an ongoing effort by some admins on commons to delete all MESSENGER and New Horizons images. (See here and here). I think this is not justified because they use very specious interpretation of their image use policies. I think the astronomical community needs to know and participate in all those discussions. Ruslik_ Zero 09:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I sometimes run across data entries at the SIMBAD site that seem like obvious errors. One I found today is for the star HIP 32246 ( Epsilon Geminorum) in the VizieR database entry for Tetzlaff et al (2011). VizieR lists a spectral type of A3mA6-A9, whereas SIMBAD lists it as G8Ib. Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but those seem to be completely different. I was wondering how much reliance I should place in the other VizieR information for this star? It's not listed in the paper so I can't do a cross-check. Thank you. Regards, RJH ( talk) 18:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Marasama ( talk) 18:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_February_28#File:Epsilon_Tauri_b_and_Hyades.png about the possible deletion of this image. Thincat ( talk) 09:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
A different proposal has propped up to create a WikiProject for extrasolar planets. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Extrasolar planets (this is not the same as the one from last month) 70.24.251.71 ( talk) 06:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The illustration on the Tau Geminorum article ( File:Tau Geminorum and brown dwarf.png) seems at least a little questionable to me. If the brown dwarf is not radiating any significant light, at a distance of roughly 1–2 AU I'd expect it to at least be reflecting a lot of light from the giant primary; hence showing a crescent. Am I way off base there? I mean it shouldn't be much different than Jupiter/Saturn in terms of albedo, unless the atmosphere is choked with soot. :-) (I've studied some illustrative art, so I'm a little conscious of light, shadows and reflection from objects, &c.) Regards, RJH ( talk) 03:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I think I found the answer to the odd spectra (ie. kA5 hA8 mF4). On page HD 15082, the star's spectra is kA5 hA8 mF4, with...
However, I do not know if this is the case, just saw the pattern. If this is correct, Stellar classification definately needs an update if verified correctly. Thanks, Marasama ( talk) 16:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
From what I can find out, the kA5 hA8 mF4 notation is specifically intended for Am stars, or at least that's what it says on p. 178 of Stellar Spectral Classification by Gray and Corbally. The book doesn't give an original source, but after a some checking around I suspect it may have originated from p. 306 of Gray & Garrison (1989). Some other sources use a slightly different notation: (A5/A8/F4). Regards, RJH ( talk) 02:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
The SIMBAD entry for Pi Herculis may have an oddity. It lists the star as type K3Iab:, whereas nearly every other source lists it as K3II. The nearest match I could find is Eggleton & Tokovinin (2008) who give it as K3IIab. I also wonder what the "C ~" notation in SIMBAD is supposed to mean? Shrug. Regards, RJH ( talk) 04:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I alerted SIMBAD about this, and they have now updated to K3II, with a reference. Modest Genius talk 13:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Category:NGC objects has been nominated to be renamed. 70.24.251.224 ( talk) 04:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
with the cleanup of the unclassified categories, I've noticed that we might need to create WP:Topic category and WP:Set category pairs... it would ease separation between categories containing objects, and articles about the science surrounding the topic. Like Category:Galaxies with a subcategory Category:Galaxy (or Category:Galaxy astronomy (this cannot be called "galactic astronomy" since that is the study of the Milky Way Galaxy))... or Category:Nebulae and Category:Nebular astronomy (or Category:Nebula or Category:Nebula astronomy)
Since we are missing categories for more obscure subtypes of general types, I'm going to need to move some of the unclassified into the main categories, so an astronomy field category for each type of object would be useful. 70.24.248.7 ( talk) 06:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
IC 1517 is a similar ultrastub article. However, our data doesn't match NED or SIMBAD. But it is apparently little studied... 70.24.248.7 ( talk) 07:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
IC 1059 doesn't seem all that well studied. SIMBAD lists only three articles, though NED shows a few references.
This page is very stubby, what should we do with the article? I found it during the ongoing classification drive of the unclassified cats. 70.24.248.7 ( talk) 07:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Category:Common envelope binaries has been proposed to be renamed to Category:Common envelopes. 70.24.248.7 ( talk) 04:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone wanted to ask Svick to create cleanup sub-listings for us (astronomical objects) and constellations (and exoplanets, if that TF gets off the ground), to get shorter lists than the main one for WPAstronomy?
See User:Svick/WikiProject cleanup listing/Add (WPAstronomy's listing)
70.24.248.7 ( talk) 06:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I can't figure out what star Delaware Diamond is. See Talk:Delaware Diamond where a couple other users are also thinking about it. (this is part of the unclassified cleanup) 70.24.250.156 ( talk) 05:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Coin #1831 from David Sear's "Byzantine Coins", probably minted in 1054 depicts two very large stars in the back ground. It is probably a reference to SN 1054. I have located a nice picture of that coin. I think it should be included in the discussion of this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.207.94 ( talk) 21:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)59 Andromedae is another unclassified cleanup problem. SIMBAD [4] has a disambiguation page for this name, strongly suggesting a rename is in order. Further, it has one of those nonstandard floating tables that CarloscomB added to articles that appears below everything on the page (including seealso,references,externalinks)... I've changed the table to a normal wikitable markup. 70.24.244.198 ( talk) 11:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I just found this, Category:Binary star systems, a newly created category that replicates our longstanding category Category:Binary stars. I've sent it for deletion at CFD.
70.24.244.198 ( talk) 12:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
50 Cancri says it is also called "A2 Cnc", but I can't seem to find that in a cursory search. What I found with "A2" and "a2" was written in 1829, and I don't know what epoch that is, or if it's the same star. But those are two different A1/a1's. 70.24.244.198 ( talk) 12:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
45 Cancri says it is also called "A1 Cnc", but I can't seem to find that in a cursory search. What I found with "A1" and "a1" was written in 1829, and I don't know what epoch that is, or if it's the same star. But those are two different A1/a1's. 70.24.244.198 ( talk) 12:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
IC 1011 has a large amount of material that was written when it was confused with IC 1101. But since the article has undergone cleanup to remove IC 1101 content, this still remains, though unreferenced. I feel it should just be deleted. I'm not going to personally do it, since I'm pretty sure a bot will come around to give me a vandalism warning, or some EditPatroller who doesn't know astronomy will do it. 70.24.244.198 ( talk) 14:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering if some of the recently deleted category names, and some of the non-selected category names shouldn't be created as category redirects?
70.24.244.198 ( talk) 04:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Armbrust ( talk · contribs) just recently starting moving a bunch of pages willy-nilly, and then made CFD nominations based on the page moves. Nearly all of them don't make any sort of sense, and there's a lot to revert and cleanup. Help would be appreciated to cleanup that mess, as [5] s/he aren't listening to reason. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
So... NGC objects CfD had 4 opposes and 4 supports for renaming Category:NGC objects to Category:New General Catalogue objects. The end result: a rename to Category:NGC astronomical objects. Heh. RJH ( talk) 20:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
User Metebelis has been renaming star articles from the Gliese Catalogue of Nearby Stars from the GJ identifier to Gliese, apparently under the assumption that the latter is the de facto Wikipedia standard. An example is his move of GJ 1214 to Gliese 1214. In a couple of instances I disagreed and moved them back because of the preponderance of publications that used the GJ identifier rather than Gliese. (This is consistent with our past discussions on article naming conventions.) I've asked him to begin a discussion on the topic here but he has apparently declined. How do we feel about the naming convention for these articles. Should we apply a blanket principle of consistency here?
For some reason the principle of consistency within an article has now been spread to become consistency between articles. I'm not sure where that concept sprang up but I can't find a policy to support it. Personally I think the principle of consistency gets over used. It's a reasonable policy but shouldn't be pushed in the face of common sense. Regards, RJH ( talk) 01:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, well the goofy bit was in the sense of people, typically anonymous editors, making seemingly arbitrary changes that don't particularly benefit anybody. The English variant is the same issue because it demonstrates that inconsistencies can and do occur between articles. Common sense tells me we should be following naming conventions established by common use in the astronomical community.
I did finally locate the consistency policy regarding article titles here: WP:CRITERIA. In particular, it does suggest we should apply the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects) you mentioned earlier. However, per the "Stars" section of that article, "If there is no Bayer or Flamsteed designation, then the Draper number (HD) and or Gliese number (GJ) should be the article's title based on which one is in wider use (e.g. HD 98800, GJ 3021, Gliese 876)." The key words there are "wider use". That is somewhat subject to interpretation, but I usually go by the number of significant scholarly publications. Note that it does not say that we should be choosing Gliese exclusively.
Regards, RJH ( talk) 02:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
The Catalogue of Nearby Stars has a complex history as explained on the article page. Stars with CNS numbers >1000 should NOT be referred to as "Gliese NNNN" because these are from the Gliese and Jahreiß extensions (or the Woolley extension for >9000, but the Woolley designation is not used any more). So " Gliese 3021" or " Gliese 1214" are incorrect, these should be GJ 3021 and GJ 1214. For stars with numbers <1000 the CNS lists the designation as "Gl" rather than "GJ", so for these the "Gliese" designation is appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.126.76.193 ( talk) 07:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
A thought occurred to me that the {{ Clade}} template might be useful for constructing mobile diagrams for multi-star systems. Granted it would be oriented sideways, but I think the effect would be about the same. Anyway, there's documentation on the template page if anybody wants to try it. There's also a {{ Cladogram}} template for putting the diagram in a box. Regards, RJH ( talk) 02:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Yep it kind of works:
GJ 667 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
C | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A | B | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cb | Cc | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mobile diagram of GJ 667
Not sure how to make it display like an image though. Regards, RJH ( talk) 22:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
In cleaning up unclassified stars, there's Star of Bethlehem, which is definitely different from what else remains. I'm thinking we need a Category:Stars in mythology to place this in (similar to Category:Animals in mythology, etc) . 70.24.248.211 ( talk) 06:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Category:NGC astronomical objects has been proposed to be renamed back to Category:NGC objects. 70.24.248.211 ( talk) 08:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The following AfD may be of interest to the wikiproject Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24968 Chernyakhovsky. Cheers, Polyamorph ( talk) 09:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Is it possible to talk about near resonance (or commensurability) between Venus and the Earth? See the discussion here, please. Thank you very much. Jan.Kamenicek ( talk) 00:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
{{{name}}} | |
---|---|
{{{image}}} | |
Pronunciation | {{{pronounce}}} |
Discovery date | {{{date}}} |
Parent body | {{{parent}}} |
Radiant | |
Constellation | {{{constellation}}} |
Right ascension | {{{ra}}} |
Declination | {{{dec}}} |
Properties | |
Occurs during | {{{month}}} |
Date of peak | {{{date}}} |
Velocity | {{{velocity}}} km/s |
Zenithal hourly rate | {{{zhr}}} |
Notable features | {{{notes}}} |
Hello. I think it might make sense to create a {{ Infobox meteor shower}} template for use on the numerous meteor shower articles. Is there any concern about this? Does the layout and parameters as presented here seem reasonable for this purpose? Thank you. Regards, RJH ( talk) 02:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I found this article, Newfound Blob, which someone has rated "mid" importance. Unfortunately, I can't find any information that tells me it is called "Newfound Blob", indeed, several other LABs have been called "newfound blob" when they were discovered. Neither reference used actually uses the term "Newfound Blob", except in the title of one of the two. It is lacking in detail, and I don't think it should have a mid-importance rating either. 70.24.248.211 ( talk) 06:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I checked NASA ADS for publications by Ryosuke Yamauchi and found this:
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)It seems at least similar to the news story. Regards, RJH ( talk) 22:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I recently merged
to a single entry
Likewise, the
are now all merged into
Just thought I'd let you all know. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey there ASTRO people. There is a request to redirect a bunch of asteroid stubs ( see list), so some extra eyes would be need on this. In a nutshell, when an asteroid has...
the article would be converted to a redirect to the relevant list of minor planets per WP:NASTRO. However, since this concerns a large quantity of article, some additional things need to be addressed, and I want to make sure I'm not overlooking anything before approving this request.
Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Putting a cut-off at 2000 means not-redirecting the following
After browsing a few of these articles, I really don't see any that meet WP:NASTRO. And they were all (or nearly all) created by Cluebot II. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Here's my put:
<!-- Before converting the XXXXX redirect into an article, please check whether the content will satisfy the guidelines for astronomical object notability on WP:NASTRO. In particular, the object must have significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. Just because an object is listed in a database (like the JPL Small-Body Database) does not mean it is notable. -->
Headbomb – can you clarify what categories you mean? Regards, RJH ( talk) 16:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok I have done 5 test conversions:
* 4990 Trombka
They are all in
* Category:Minor planet redirects
Why is asteroid 2025 Nortia inluded on this re-direct list when it has a JPL Small-Body Database entry that includes an IRAS reference? Your lists details entered by Chrisrus may be a little misleading as to what selection process was used. -- Kheider ( talk) 17:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I have opened a thread on notability for Earth-crossing asteroids at Wikipedia talk:Notability (astronomical objects)#NEOs. Spinning Spark 16:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I've found a mistake in this article. In pl, ru & uk.wiki (and possibly others) this object is told to be a galaxy but in en.wiki it is classified as star-forming region. In NGC 2363's SIMBAD entry there's a note that it is a galaxy but frequently confused with the bright HII region Mrk 71 in NGC 2366. -- Winiar ( talk) 07:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
The Andromeda (constellation) article is up for FAC here. Regards, RJH ( talk) 16:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
See Talk:Dwarf planet, where the result of the RFC is now being disuputed. 70.24.251.208 ( talk) 11:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I had an idea to apply the same finder technique we use on star articles—overlaying a circle on a map—for the purpose of identifying lunar crater locations. Based on a trial on the Peary (crater) and Rozhdestvenskiy (crater) articles using a polar image, it seems to work reasonably well. Does anybody have a strenuous objection to this approach? Regards, RJH ( talk) 21:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
At its creation, the Omicron Aquarii article stated that the star is a Gamma Cassiopeiae variable. Given the description on the variable star article, I have no reason to doubt that. But I'm sure not having much success trying to confirm it. About the closest I can find is the GCVS entry, which lists it as spectral class B7IVe-sh; [7] presumably the "sh" means it is a shell star. Am I okay using the GCVS for a reference? (Similar concern for Pi Aquarii.) Thank you. Regards, RJH ( talk) 18:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Apparently this binary star system has five planets. I can't find a reference to confirm this "finding". [9] Regards, RJH ( talk) 16:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Jupiter family comet has been nominated for deletion. -- 70.49.127.65 ( talk) 05:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Many of the stars in the Bright Star Catalogue only seem to have a limited amount of information available. An example may be 99 Aquarii, which now has a suite of references and some details, but only three small paragraphs of text. Depending on the interpretation, that article appears to satisfy the criteria for article quality ratings of Start, C, and possibly even B on the project's quality scale. It seems unlikely that this article will be expanded in the near future unless there is an unusual discovery such as a planetary system, so how do you think it should be rated? I'm tempted to set such articles to a 'B', but I'm not sure that is appropriate. Thank you. Regards, RJH ( talk) 16:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Another minor planet up for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4706 Dennisreuter. Some discussion is occurring regarding automated deletes. Regards, RJH ( talk) 17:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I would like to see more votes and comments at Talk:S/2012 P 1 - Requested move. In 2015 we might be adding several moons to minor planet Pluto and we should have a reasonable consensus as to how to properly name them. Thank you. -- Kheider ( talk) 08:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
11277 Ballard is at AfD. Johnuniq ( talk) 10:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
List of stars in the constellation Andromeda has been requested to be renamed -- 76.65.131.160 ( talk) 03:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I ran into an issue with a reference that has me scratching my head a little:
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)What I'm looking at is the information on WDS 18465−0058 (5 Aql). The orbital elements listed on p. 737 shows a = 0.2″ and a period of 33+ years. However, on pp. 741–742 is says the A–B pair have a separation of 12″.8, while the spectroscopic binary (which I'm guessing is Aa–Ab) has a period of 4.77 days. (I confirmed this period in Abt & Levy (1985).) This data looks very contradictory. Am I perhaps misunderstanding something? Regards, RJH ( talk) 15:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)