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 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
FYI, there are free accounts available to qualified editors to access the Credo and Questia online e-Libraries
Wikipedia:Credo accounts & Wikipedia:Questia
-- 70.24.247.242 ( talk) 04:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
{{ JWST}} has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 13:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Could someone astronomy-smart, please take a look at the sentence in fluorine regarding elemental fluorine in the interstellar medium?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorine#In_the_universe
Does it mean difluorine (F2) or monofluorine (F)? Or is it just saying atoms were seen with no info about what bonded to?
The 1981 paper is available on the web:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1981ApJ...247L..39S/L000041.000.html
Also, I wonder if there is any later confirmation or refutation of this "seeing elemental fluorine in the interstellar medium".
TCO ( talk) 23:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Great Red Spot have a separate article? I notice that the Great Dark Spot has one, but that has a much smaller observation history. The current section the redirect points to could be greatly expanded in an article, particularly with observational history. -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 11:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Mercury Caloris Basin2.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 04:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I nominated multiple files - now waiting in Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source as of 20 August 2012, Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source as of 21 August 2012 and Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source as of 22 August 2012. At least part of them are almost certainly from NASA but I was unable to find sources Bulwersator ( talk) 08:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Several more images have been tagged for immediate deletion. Considering that some of these are high-rez images of the terrain of Saturn's moons, they could only have come from Voyager 1,2 or Cassini, so can't we remove the DI-no-source because it is impossible for it to come from any other source? -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 06:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
https://www.google.com/news/more?pz=1&cf=all&topic=snc&ncl=dGjHWEgorbtGoWMb2YnTlHKdn5vHM -- the recent news stories about impressive images from the HST store of images might make good uploads. -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 06:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
It would be great if someone could help with finding media on Commons for the BAA category, or generally helping to categorise it. I'm afraid I only know about trains. - mattbuck ( Talk) 21:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
....is at FAC - see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Corona Australis/archive1 Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
For those interested, here's an interesting resource on star names that I've not seen used before. It was created by Professor Mustafa Pultar and is entitled YILDIZ ADLARI SÖZLÜĞÜ (Dictionary of Star Names). The only problem is that it's in Turkish, although Google Translate does a decent job of translating. What's interesting is Prof. Pultar researched Ottomon seafarers from way back and compiled a list of names used from that era. My question is whether it's a credible enough resource to use in referencing star names. Any thoughts?-- Sadalsuud ( talk) 15:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Several NASA space probe collages have been put up for deletion, see Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 August 30 -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 07:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
There's a discussion going on about whether or not to include links to discovery/orbit diagrams/physical parameters/etc... in the JPL database ext link template.
i.e. [2] vs [3]. Please comment at Template talk:JPL small body. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
File:EN Hassan crater.jpg has been listed for immediate deletion as being unsourced -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 14:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Is the SIMBAD site not loading for anyone else? Or is it just my computer. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 00:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Do we have an article on ULSNe? I saw it come up on news reports recently, and couldn't find it with a cursory check of our articles. [4] [5] [6] (I believe the news article is for the most distant ULSN known, since the most distant SN known is much farther away) -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 10:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
J0651 has been requested to be renamed to its catalogue entry in the SDSS, see Talk:J0651 -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 23:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
STARNAMES was recently modified, per comment at Talk:J0651, which also contains other discussion. -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 06:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I have nominated Category:Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer for deletion, as an unneeded level of categorization, that crosses the spacecraft tree with the astronomical survey tree. -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 07:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
File:Bigmelt.jpg and File:Cererian movie052706.gif have been nominated for deletion as well... -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 06:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I've removed these categories from the telescopes category tree, as they are not telescopes. -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 04:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering if Category:Chinese telescopes is redundant to Category:Astronomical observatories in China ; except for the space telescopes, which could have the category renamed to match the Soviet cateogry as Category:Chinese space telescopes ? -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 04:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
File:Coronal-seismology-simple.png has been nominated for deletion because of licensing problems -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 06:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
A recent edit by Chjoaygame ( talk · contribs) has drastically altered the content of at least one portion of Heat death of the universe ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I have doubts about the new content, but I don't have the expertise to vet it. Would anyone with a better thermodynamics background than mine care to do so? -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 23:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
The above linked comment is by a registered editor, and comments from people who specialize in astronomy/physics are needed for this discussion. 217.147.94.149 ( talk) 02:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Someone might also want to examine the changes made to Star and Sun -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 03:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
file:EN003 Degraded Craters on Enceladus.jpg has been nominated for deletion as unsourced -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 03:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
File:Craters of the Far Side of the Moon.jpg has been nominated for immediate deletion as unsourced -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 04:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I have nominated Amateur Achievement Award of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Please come to galaxy rotation curve and offer a third opinion. Junjunone ( talk) 18:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Focus on the content.
|
---|
|
image:Peratt-galaxy-formation-simulation.gif has been nominated for deletion. There is a dispute as to the owner of the copyright. -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 03:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The project's astronomers may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Astrobiology Portal. -- John of Reading ( talk) 06:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
There's an ongoing debate at Talk:Heat death of the universe#entropy and the future of the universe as stated in this article. Third opinions would be welcome, as it appears to be deadlocked between two participants. I don't have the expertise to contribute usefully myself. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 06:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
...is still at a mammoth FAC, but has 2 supports and one "lean towards supporting" but has had little input from folks familiar with astronomy. Some review of comprehensiveness and weighting might be best placed coming from someone here....Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 05:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at David Southwood? Both primary contributors to the article (including myself) have close links to the RAS, so there's a possible conflict of interest. It would be good if someone could check that we've given him a fair treatment. Modest Genius talk 16:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
At Talk:Halley's Comet, it has been bought up that Proper names (astronomy) is missing comets. -- 70.24.247.66 ( talk) 02:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Is at Wikipedia:Peer review/Triangulum Australe/archive1. All input appreciated. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I am involved in a dispute with another editor at Talk:List of planets about whether citations are needed to support the article. Input from third parties would be useful to help settle the debate one way or the other. Thanks. Road Wizard ( talk) 12:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I have created a section on the variation in lengths of various years at User:Jc3s5h/sandbox2. I plan to insert this in the Year article. If you have any sources to compare these results to, I'd appreciate it. Jc3s5h ( talk) 17:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I remember there was consensus to get rid of the stubs over a certain number. Does anyone remember what the cutoff was? Gigs ( talk) 15:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
I had a discussion today with a couple of academics from the University of Glasgow, who have organised for two students to work on improving small sets of physics articles as part of an assessed project. The project is likely to involve each one taking a particular low-quality core article and working on improving it to a reasonably good standard, along with its related articles, for a total of about a hundred hours of research/writing over several weeks; they'll be shown how to edit Wikipedia in advance and given plenty of examples of "good articles" to work from, so hopefully it should go reasonably smoothly.
At the moment, though, the supervisors are looking for subjects. Are there any standalone articles or groups of articles that you would suggest as potentially interesting topics for this sort of project? I'm quite aware that a well-chosen topic at the outset will make the project much more likely to succeed, and it'd be great to have input from people who're currently working in the area. Andrew Gray ( talk) 23:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I am frustrated - see Leo Minor, the infobox of which uses this chart, whereas I modified it to show the brightest stars with Flamsteed numbers (given the constellation has only one damn star with a Bayer designation :P - see this one. Question is how do I get chart #2 into the infobox...... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 10:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
Apologies if this is the wrong place for this request. An article has been created for the recently discovered exoplanet Alpha Centauri Bb. Early in this article's genesis, this was tagged at being of "Start" class. However the article has had considerable attention from a number of editors in the following days and is much improved. Please may I request a re-assessment of the article's quality, and advice on how it may advance in quality from its current status.
Many thanks LukeSurl t c 14:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Do we think this is a Reliable Source folks? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I raised a concern on the talk page a few months ago, the gist of which is that I suspect some of the source info is outdated and didn't account for dark energy. My amateur guess was that all gravitationally unbound structures eventually become causally separated, and ultimately, everything becomes gravitationally unbound, so, ultimately you wind up with each stable elementary particle alone in its own universe.
One response suggested I ask WT:AST for updated sources, and thus far it is the only response, therefore and thusly, I ask this August Assembly to Ponder this Imponderable, Yours etc, -- 174.118.1.24 ( talk) 19:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering if this should be renamed to some other capitalization? -- 70.24.250.26 ( talk) 09:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
See Talk:WISEPC J150649.97+702736.0 where a large number of articles are up for renaming. -- 70.24.250.26 ( talk) 06:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
{{ Virgo}} has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.26 ( talk) 08:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
This might be useful http://www.cbc.ca/player/Shows/ID/2305106236/ in expanding the radial velocity method planet detection, since it covers some of the engineering/technical details of an early form. -- 70.24.250.26 ( talk) 11:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I've been working on the category tree of Category:Meteorites for the last few days and have now requested that a bot check that all the articles and categories in the tree are tagged with {{ WikiProject Geology}} (amongst other things). Full details at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 51#Meteorites. -Arb. ( talk) 00:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
So far only one article links to Orbit modeling, a new article. Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
While doing some assessments, I ran across this article today: March equinox. I thought it odd for it to be a stand-alone article, and sure enough, I found September equinox, which is pretty much an identical article. The fun doesn't stop there, though. There's also Equinox, again with much of the same information, and Equinox (celestial coordinates). For a laugh, take a look at the comical disambiguation language on Equinox. These pages seem to have been created a long time ago, and there was even some discussion of mergers in the talk pages for March equinox…but nothing happened. The same story occurs again with Solstice - there are a handful of redundant pages.
I think these pages ought to be merged into just two: Equinox and Solstice. What do fellow astro editors think? Should discussions happen on each article, or can we do one discussion for a bulk merge into the two relevant articles? Cheers, AstroCog ( talk) 03:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
the merge proposal was placed on the Winter Solstice page. Both the Winter Solstice, and Midsummer Pages address the connection between solstices and symbolic ceremonies, rituals, holidays, and traditions that have come to define each solstice and thus should not be merged into one article. The sheer volume of cultural data in each of these articles would overwhelm the scientific subject of the Solstice/equinox pages. winter solstice addresses the physics of the solstice and provide links to the main article in it's intro but the bulk of the article is history and anthropology, which is appropriate for a specific holiday page. Some thing ( talk) 17:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Astronomy for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot ( talk) 01:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Over at WikiProject Geology they're running a December collaboration to improve articles in Category:Meteorites and its sub-categories.
WikiProject Astronomy members are welcome to participate.
There is a task list and discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology#Collaboration for December.
-Arb. ( talk) 23:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Can someone help me make sense of the spectral type of Delta Normae? I can't figure out what is being said here, and it would be nice to know for categorization purposes. Thanks in advance. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 20:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Having a bit of a disagreement on Talk that could really do with other interested voices chipping in. It concerns the reporting of certain exoplanet names as "official". ChiZeroOne ( talk) 20:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Category:Meteorite journals has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.247.127 ( talk) 20:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I figure that astronomers are as likely to know as much about this as anyone. A question has arisen at Talk:Equator#Not sure about these statements about whether places on the Equator have theoretically exactly 12 hours of day throughout the year, measured by when the centre of the sun crosses the horizon, and ignoring refraction effects. Any expert comments there would be welcome. 86.160.216.227 ( talk) 03:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Apparently the article on Upsilon Andromedae c wants to claim this object is a star. I'm not sure any serious source has claimed this object should not be regarded as a planet, and certainly the "13 Jupiter masses = brown dwarf boundary" is not a hard-and-fast rule, even some of the exoplanet catalogues use higher masses (usually based on the brown dwarf desert). Not sure how best to proceed with this.
Also it looks like the astrometric masses have been systematically replaced with RV minimum masses in the infoboxes, not sure what's going on there... 84.73.25.195 ( talk) 19:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
See the above link - Talk:List_of_brightest_stars#Request_for_comment:_Listing_individual_components_of_stars_which_are_seen_as_single_points_from_earth
and vote discuss away....
Casliber (
talk ·
contribs) 05:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, there's a discussion going on at Talk:Perseus (constellation) about a particular section - people here may be interested. Keilana| Parlez ici 01:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, here's an interesting development: 274301_Wikipedia.
...I'm not touching this with the notability stick, no way, no how. But I will sit back and watch any discussion. Cheers, AstroCog ( talk) 21:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC) ....That made me chuckle I must concede...... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
WPAST members may be interested in talk:Luminous blue variable star#Suggested move. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 04:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
file:XingXiu(2).png has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 07:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
It's my belief that authors and editors should only use one unit (either ly or pc) when referring to distances from Earth, or radii of nebulae, in the infobox. For example, in the infobox for the Carina Nebula, the radius is shown as being "~10 pc." Conversely, in the article about the Tarantula Nebula, the radius is given as being "300 ly." Despite the fact that both units are commonly used in the field of astronomy, I think we should define guidelines denoting standards, for consistency's sake. I personally cast my vote for using ly as the standard. Julesmazur ( talk) 01:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
FYI, there's a notice at WT:PHYSICS about a query at Talk:Optical telescope about the strength limitations of telescopes. -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 23:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
WPAST members may be interested in the discussion here, about an element of our notability guidelines. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 02:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I couldn't find the answer to this anywhere, but why don't the infoboxes on stars contain their distance in light years from earth? Wouldn't this be information someone might want to quickly reference? I notice that most articles mention the distance in the body, but not the infobox. -- BHC ( talk) 05:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I've recently learned that stars that are visible to the naked eye are automatically notable. I'm curious as to what the policy is for stars that aren't visible to the naked eye. Can someone point me to the relevant policy? I tried searching for WP:NSTAR but that didn't take me anywhere. Ryan Vesey 20:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
There's some discussion on object notability generally and the application of Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#Megamerge. Comments very welcome there. Andrewa ( talk) 14:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
What is the name of the hypothesis that says the big bang was sparked by an event in another universe? Pass a Method talk 13:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Astronomical transit ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been proposed to be renamed to Transit (astronomy) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 23:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Is File:VtransitsJ.jpg correct? Would the apparent dimensions of Jupiter and Venus allow for such a configuration to occur? (Do you have to be at the distance of Proxima to see this being the relative sizes of the discs overlapping? ; obviously, if you're close to Venus, Venus would be much larger than Jupiter, and Jupiter would be a dot in the sky) -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 23:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from February 2012 has something like 5000 articles (mainly stubs?) tagged as questionable notability. That is an astronomical number of tagged articles. (sorry...) It would be good to get a decision on what to do with them. Listify maybe? -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 08:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed that there's a {{ chemical-importance}} so perhaps we should have a {{ astronomical-object-importance}} template, with corresponding category Category: Astronomical object articles with topics of unclear importance -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 07:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
{{
Notability|Astro}}
does the same thing. And I notice that the chemistry version is currently a candidate to be merged into {{
notability}}.
Modest Genius
talk 22:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Project Daedalus is the name chosen for the British Interplanetary Society's Starship study. - apparently this article from British Interplanetary Society, but I can not find the original. please help. Vyacheslav84 ( talk) 15:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Can an admin move the current Comet Siding Spring to C/2007 Q3? There are 11 comets + 1 asteroid known as Siding Spring, and the potential Mars impactor C/2013 A1 (Siding Spring) is drawing a lot of attention. -- Kheider ( talk) 16:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello! I was reviewing the page Hypothetical types of stars and I wondered if it qualified as a list and should be called List of hypothetical types of stars. — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I've added the brown dwarf WISE 1049-5319 to Template:Star systems within 5 – 10 light-years however it doesn't appear on the template. I don't know why it doesn't work. I've used the same format as appears in other templates - for example L-class dwarfs appear ok in the template Template:Star systems within 15 – 20 light-years. Nestrs ( talk) 15:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I have several questions, but I'll start with this one –
Mercury's orbital inclination is 7° to the ecliptic. Its axial tilt is nearly 0°. How then can its north pole declination be 61°? Based on this idea, is it not logical that the declination be 81°? Same goes for all the planets. BigSteve ( talk) 15:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Another question – Longitude of ascending node is measured against the ecliptic. But wouldn't it be more logical if it were measured against the Invariable plane? Does anyone know where such data for the planets' orbits can be found? After all, if the earth's own "–11.3°" is (I'm assuming???) based on the Invariable plane. Surely then the other planets' ascending node longitudes can be, too...? BigSteve ( talk) 15:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
So, we have Grey hole ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and a different Gray hole ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), should we just redirect the prodded grey hole to Gray hole ? -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 23:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
List of cloud types has a section on "other planets", but it's rather sparse, do we have an article for Clouds outside the Earth ? Particularly, the cloud types article is missing Titan, Triton (cryovolcanic clouds), Io (volcanic clouds); not to mention clouds on brown dwarfs. -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 21:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
U Andromedae has been prodded for deletion. I think it's probably better to keep it around, to prevent someone from misconceiving it as Upsilon Andromedae, since inevitably it will end up as a typo-redirect to υ And - if it is deleted. -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 02:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
The templates like {{ Stars of Andromeda}} are unsatisfactory, as they don't give a full list of notable stars in the constellation. In addition, the layout for non-bayer and non-flamsteed stars is a problem; simply lumping them into a "nearby" and "other" category is not good, as if all notable stars were to be added, the "other" category would become extremely large. At User:StringTheory11/sandbox, I have put together a draft layout for the template that I think works much better. It would be appreciated if someone could give me feedback on it, so that we can figure out what to improve. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 19:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I have finished the templates for all constellations starting with "A". I was thinking of deploying them on these constellations as a sort of test to see how they work. If they seem to work well, I will make templates for the other constellations (slowly). What do other people think of this? StringTheory11 ( t • c) 04:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Can someone rebuild the recently PROD-deleted asteroid articles as redirects to the list, such as they are supposed to be?
4692 SIMBAD ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) , 19433 Naftz ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) , 18106 Blume ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) , 12909 Jaclifford ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
-- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 03:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
[12]: worthy of an article or not? I know him, so I'm probably not the best situated to make the decision, but I was a little surprised not to find a Wikipedia article on him. - Jmabel | Talk 03:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
{{ Starbox character 2s}} has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 00:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
See talk:Bortle Dark-Sky Scale where this has been proposed to be renamed -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 07:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
There's an FAC review currently in progress for Potential cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact. Anyone is welcome to join and contribute their thoughts. Wer900 • talk 18:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Can someone go over this wikibook? I just removed an entry for a 1-line stub article on a quasar from the list of pages to print to create this book. Shouldn't we be publishing the more substantive and/or important quasars only, and not just any old quasar article? -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 08:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Is http://phl.upr.edu/projects/habitable-exoplanets-catalog/top10 an acceptable source? It has a note
“ | A similar List of Extrasolar Planet Extremes is available in wikipedia but needs to be updated.
IMPORTANT NOTE: These lists were automatically generated by HEC for all confirmed exoplanets. Radius or mass was estimated when not available from mass-radius relationships. This page is only updated when necessary. |
” |
Which seems to make this a rather poor source to use. It's being used to update List of extrasolar planet extremes, which the source claims is in need of updating... so seems to be soliciting edits to Wikipedia... -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 09:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Besides, "updated when necessary" means that it is updated only when new planetary parameters are published. In short, your reasoning seems quite flawed, and the HEC is a perfectly reliable source. It is NOT WP:CIRCULAR with our own article. Wer900 • talk 01:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
File:C925ota.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 17:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I have a suggestion, that the stars in constellation x list articles be expanded to include HR and perhaps Gliese designations. Since they now contain traditional names, Bayer, Flamsteed, Gould, HD and HIP. Harvard Bright Star Catalogue is also rather widely used. -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 03:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please review recent changes to Copernican principle by Wyattmj ( talk · contribs) (see its history and last thread on the talk page). Grammar and formatting aside, I see it as WP:OR, where an editor draws conclusions from primary sources. Thanks. Materialscientist ( talk) 05:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Could someone verify the accuracy and relevance of this 2009 addition to Solar eclipse, which is still present in a slightly modified form in the article today. I've caught one of the authors spamming citations to his papers on Wikipedia for the past few years (the author in question also is a computer scientist, not an astronomer of physicist.) — Ruud 23:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
See http://earthsky.org/space/proposed-budget-includes-100m-to-place-asteroid-in-orbit-around-moon
Is this reflected anywhere in wiki? Tkuvho ( talk) 10:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
The Celestial observation article is in dire need of a rewrite. It is currently the result of a student's work, one who was unversed in the subject. I analyzed the first part of the lead (lede) on its talk page, but it is not my subject area. -- Bejnar ( talk) 04:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi
I was doing NPPs and came across this gem. I have had a quick look, but it may need a bit more going over - I will look in more detail later tonight though.
In any case it could do with a basic assessment (I have put the astronomy banner on the talk page but without params), and I have added a cl-span to the lead(/lede) and a note on the talk page for someone with more knowledge to have a look if someone can spare a few minutes.
Thanks Chaosdruid ( talk) 21:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
That might seem like a dumb question, but bear with me. The article long period variable was recently renamed to long-period variable and discussion on the merits of this doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. I have my own opinion, but I'll go along with what other astronomers think. Lithopsian ( talk) 18:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Although I didn't originate Kepler-62 and the pages related to its stellar system, I would like to ensure that building these pages is not the crusade of a small group. Please help to document the latest major exoplanet discovery. Wer900 • talk 01:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Suspected error in this file: .
I suggest switch colors of components, then all be correct.-- Abeshenkov ( talk) 13:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Certainly, a red giant overflowing it's roche lobe would be more luminous on basis of size than a similar mass star in an earlier phase of stellar evolution but a.) blue stars are almost always as big or bigger than red giants (excepting a few stages of young white dwarfs) and b.) in the animation the stars are the same size. Pretty much any way you look at the diagram right now it has something that doesn't add up, unfortunately...
Sailsbystars (
talk) 07:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
On 4 October 2012, I had removed a similar illustration by the same author ( File:Eclipsing binary star animation 2.gif) from the article Algol because, like the illustration currently under discussion, the illustration that I removed showed pronounced perspective effects, which are absolutely absurd to contemplate. Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk) 00:22, 9 May 2013 (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 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
FYI, there are free accounts available to qualified editors to access the Credo and Questia online e-Libraries
Wikipedia:Credo accounts & Wikipedia:Questia
-- 70.24.247.242 ( talk) 04:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
{{ JWST}} has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 13:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Could someone astronomy-smart, please take a look at the sentence in fluorine regarding elemental fluorine in the interstellar medium?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorine#In_the_universe
Does it mean difluorine (F2) or monofluorine (F)? Or is it just saying atoms were seen with no info about what bonded to?
The 1981 paper is available on the web:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1981ApJ...247L..39S/L000041.000.html
Also, I wonder if there is any later confirmation or refutation of this "seeing elemental fluorine in the interstellar medium".
TCO ( talk) 23:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Great Red Spot have a separate article? I notice that the Great Dark Spot has one, but that has a much smaller observation history. The current section the redirect points to could be greatly expanded in an article, particularly with observational history. -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 11:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Mercury Caloris Basin2.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 04:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I nominated multiple files - now waiting in Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source as of 20 August 2012, Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source as of 21 August 2012 and Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source as of 22 August 2012. At least part of them are almost certainly from NASA but I was unable to find sources Bulwersator ( talk) 08:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Several more images have been tagged for immediate deletion. Considering that some of these are high-rez images of the terrain of Saturn's moons, they could only have come from Voyager 1,2 or Cassini, so can't we remove the DI-no-source because it is impossible for it to come from any other source? -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 06:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
https://www.google.com/news/more?pz=1&cf=all&topic=snc&ncl=dGjHWEgorbtGoWMb2YnTlHKdn5vHM -- the recent news stories about impressive images from the HST store of images might make good uploads. -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 06:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
It would be great if someone could help with finding media on Commons for the BAA category, or generally helping to categorise it. I'm afraid I only know about trains. - mattbuck ( Talk) 21:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
....is at FAC - see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Corona Australis/archive1 Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
For those interested, here's an interesting resource on star names that I've not seen used before. It was created by Professor Mustafa Pultar and is entitled YILDIZ ADLARI SÖZLÜĞÜ (Dictionary of Star Names). The only problem is that it's in Turkish, although Google Translate does a decent job of translating. What's interesting is Prof. Pultar researched Ottomon seafarers from way back and compiled a list of names used from that era. My question is whether it's a credible enough resource to use in referencing star names. Any thoughts?-- Sadalsuud ( talk) 15:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Several NASA space probe collages have been put up for deletion, see Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 August 30 -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 07:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
There's a discussion going on about whether or not to include links to discovery/orbit diagrams/physical parameters/etc... in the JPL database ext link template.
i.e. [2] vs [3]. Please comment at Template talk:JPL small body. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
File:EN Hassan crater.jpg has been listed for immediate deletion as being unsourced -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 14:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Is the SIMBAD site not loading for anyone else? Or is it just my computer. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 00:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Do we have an article on ULSNe? I saw it come up on news reports recently, and couldn't find it with a cursory check of our articles. [4] [5] [6] (I believe the news article is for the most distant ULSN known, since the most distant SN known is much farther away) -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 10:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
J0651 has been requested to be renamed to its catalogue entry in the SDSS, see Talk:J0651 -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 23:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
STARNAMES was recently modified, per comment at Talk:J0651, which also contains other discussion. -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 06:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I have nominated Category:Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer for deletion, as an unneeded level of categorization, that crosses the spacecraft tree with the astronomical survey tree. -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 07:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
File:Bigmelt.jpg and File:Cererian movie052706.gif have been nominated for deletion as well... -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 06:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I've removed these categories from the telescopes category tree, as they are not telescopes. -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 04:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering if Category:Chinese telescopes is redundant to Category:Astronomical observatories in China ; except for the space telescopes, which could have the category renamed to match the Soviet cateogry as Category:Chinese space telescopes ? -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 04:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
File:Coronal-seismology-simple.png has been nominated for deletion because of licensing problems -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 06:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
A recent edit by Chjoaygame ( talk · contribs) has drastically altered the content of at least one portion of Heat death of the universe ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I have doubts about the new content, but I don't have the expertise to vet it. Would anyone with a better thermodynamics background than mine care to do so? -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 23:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
The above linked comment is by a registered editor, and comments from people who specialize in astronomy/physics are needed for this discussion. 217.147.94.149 ( talk) 02:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Someone might also want to examine the changes made to Star and Sun -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 03:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
file:EN003 Degraded Craters on Enceladus.jpg has been nominated for deletion as unsourced -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 03:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
File:Craters of the Far Side of the Moon.jpg has been nominated for immediate deletion as unsourced -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 04:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I have nominated Amateur Achievement Award of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Please come to galaxy rotation curve and offer a third opinion. Junjunone ( talk) 18:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Focus on the content.
|
---|
|
image:Peratt-galaxy-formation-simulation.gif has been nominated for deletion. There is a dispute as to the owner of the copyright. -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 03:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The project's astronomers may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Astrobiology Portal. -- John of Reading ( talk) 06:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
There's an ongoing debate at Talk:Heat death of the universe#entropy and the future of the universe as stated in this article. Third opinions would be welcome, as it appears to be deadlocked between two participants. I don't have the expertise to contribute usefully myself. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 06:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
...is still at a mammoth FAC, but has 2 supports and one "lean towards supporting" but has had little input from folks familiar with astronomy. Some review of comprehensiveness and weighting might be best placed coming from someone here....Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 05:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at David Southwood? Both primary contributors to the article (including myself) have close links to the RAS, so there's a possible conflict of interest. It would be good if someone could check that we've given him a fair treatment. Modest Genius talk 16:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
At Talk:Halley's Comet, it has been bought up that Proper names (astronomy) is missing comets. -- 70.24.247.66 ( talk) 02:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Is at Wikipedia:Peer review/Triangulum Australe/archive1. All input appreciated. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I am involved in a dispute with another editor at Talk:List of planets about whether citations are needed to support the article. Input from third parties would be useful to help settle the debate one way or the other. Thanks. Road Wizard ( talk) 12:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I have created a section on the variation in lengths of various years at User:Jc3s5h/sandbox2. I plan to insert this in the Year article. If you have any sources to compare these results to, I'd appreciate it. Jc3s5h ( talk) 17:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I remember there was consensus to get rid of the stubs over a certain number. Does anyone remember what the cutoff was? Gigs ( talk) 15:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
I had a discussion today with a couple of academics from the University of Glasgow, who have organised for two students to work on improving small sets of physics articles as part of an assessed project. The project is likely to involve each one taking a particular low-quality core article and working on improving it to a reasonably good standard, along with its related articles, for a total of about a hundred hours of research/writing over several weeks; they'll be shown how to edit Wikipedia in advance and given plenty of examples of "good articles" to work from, so hopefully it should go reasonably smoothly.
At the moment, though, the supervisors are looking for subjects. Are there any standalone articles or groups of articles that you would suggest as potentially interesting topics for this sort of project? I'm quite aware that a well-chosen topic at the outset will make the project much more likely to succeed, and it'd be great to have input from people who're currently working in the area. Andrew Gray ( talk) 23:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I am frustrated - see Leo Minor, the infobox of which uses this chart, whereas I modified it to show the brightest stars with Flamsteed numbers (given the constellation has only one damn star with a Bayer designation :P - see this one. Question is how do I get chart #2 into the infobox...... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 10:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
Apologies if this is the wrong place for this request. An article has been created for the recently discovered exoplanet Alpha Centauri Bb. Early in this article's genesis, this was tagged at being of "Start" class. However the article has had considerable attention from a number of editors in the following days and is much improved. Please may I request a re-assessment of the article's quality, and advice on how it may advance in quality from its current status.
Many thanks LukeSurl t c 14:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Do we think this is a Reliable Source folks? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I raised a concern on the talk page a few months ago, the gist of which is that I suspect some of the source info is outdated and didn't account for dark energy. My amateur guess was that all gravitationally unbound structures eventually become causally separated, and ultimately, everything becomes gravitationally unbound, so, ultimately you wind up with each stable elementary particle alone in its own universe.
One response suggested I ask WT:AST for updated sources, and thus far it is the only response, therefore and thusly, I ask this August Assembly to Ponder this Imponderable, Yours etc, -- 174.118.1.24 ( talk) 19:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering if this should be renamed to some other capitalization? -- 70.24.250.26 ( talk) 09:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
See Talk:WISEPC J150649.97+702736.0 where a large number of articles are up for renaming. -- 70.24.250.26 ( talk) 06:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
{{ Virgo}} has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.26 ( talk) 08:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
This might be useful http://www.cbc.ca/player/Shows/ID/2305106236/ in expanding the radial velocity method planet detection, since it covers some of the engineering/technical details of an early form. -- 70.24.250.26 ( talk) 11:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I've been working on the category tree of Category:Meteorites for the last few days and have now requested that a bot check that all the articles and categories in the tree are tagged with {{ WikiProject Geology}} (amongst other things). Full details at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 51#Meteorites. -Arb. ( talk) 00:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
So far only one article links to Orbit modeling, a new article. Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
While doing some assessments, I ran across this article today: March equinox. I thought it odd for it to be a stand-alone article, and sure enough, I found September equinox, which is pretty much an identical article. The fun doesn't stop there, though. There's also Equinox, again with much of the same information, and Equinox (celestial coordinates). For a laugh, take a look at the comical disambiguation language on Equinox. These pages seem to have been created a long time ago, and there was even some discussion of mergers in the talk pages for March equinox…but nothing happened. The same story occurs again with Solstice - there are a handful of redundant pages.
I think these pages ought to be merged into just two: Equinox and Solstice. What do fellow astro editors think? Should discussions happen on each article, or can we do one discussion for a bulk merge into the two relevant articles? Cheers, AstroCog ( talk) 03:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
the merge proposal was placed on the Winter Solstice page. Both the Winter Solstice, and Midsummer Pages address the connection between solstices and symbolic ceremonies, rituals, holidays, and traditions that have come to define each solstice and thus should not be merged into one article. The sheer volume of cultural data in each of these articles would overwhelm the scientific subject of the Solstice/equinox pages. winter solstice addresses the physics of the solstice and provide links to the main article in it's intro but the bulk of the article is history and anthropology, which is appropriate for a specific holiday page. Some thing ( talk) 17:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Astronomy for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot ( talk) 01:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Over at WikiProject Geology they're running a December collaboration to improve articles in Category:Meteorites and its sub-categories.
WikiProject Astronomy members are welcome to participate.
There is a task list and discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology#Collaboration for December.
-Arb. ( talk) 23:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Can someone help me make sense of the spectral type of Delta Normae? I can't figure out what is being said here, and it would be nice to know for categorization purposes. Thanks in advance. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 20:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Having a bit of a disagreement on Talk that could really do with other interested voices chipping in. It concerns the reporting of certain exoplanet names as "official". ChiZeroOne ( talk) 20:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Category:Meteorite journals has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.247.127 ( talk) 20:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I figure that astronomers are as likely to know as much about this as anyone. A question has arisen at Talk:Equator#Not sure about these statements about whether places on the Equator have theoretically exactly 12 hours of day throughout the year, measured by when the centre of the sun crosses the horizon, and ignoring refraction effects. Any expert comments there would be welcome. 86.160.216.227 ( talk) 03:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Apparently the article on Upsilon Andromedae c wants to claim this object is a star. I'm not sure any serious source has claimed this object should not be regarded as a planet, and certainly the "13 Jupiter masses = brown dwarf boundary" is not a hard-and-fast rule, even some of the exoplanet catalogues use higher masses (usually based on the brown dwarf desert). Not sure how best to proceed with this.
Also it looks like the astrometric masses have been systematically replaced with RV minimum masses in the infoboxes, not sure what's going on there... 84.73.25.195 ( talk) 19:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
See the above link - Talk:List_of_brightest_stars#Request_for_comment:_Listing_individual_components_of_stars_which_are_seen_as_single_points_from_earth
and vote discuss away....
Casliber (
talk ·
contribs) 05:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, there's a discussion going on at Talk:Perseus (constellation) about a particular section - people here may be interested. Keilana| Parlez ici 01:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, here's an interesting development: 274301_Wikipedia.
...I'm not touching this with the notability stick, no way, no how. But I will sit back and watch any discussion. Cheers, AstroCog ( talk) 21:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC) ....That made me chuckle I must concede...... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
WPAST members may be interested in talk:Luminous blue variable star#Suggested move. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 04:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
file:XingXiu(2).png has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 07:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
It's my belief that authors and editors should only use one unit (either ly or pc) when referring to distances from Earth, or radii of nebulae, in the infobox. For example, in the infobox for the Carina Nebula, the radius is shown as being "~10 pc." Conversely, in the article about the Tarantula Nebula, the radius is given as being "300 ly." Despite the fact that both units are commonly used in the field of astronomy, I think we should define guidelines denoting standards, for consistency's sake. I personally cast my vote for using ly as the standard. Julesmazur ( talk) 01:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
FYI, there's a notice at WT:PHYSICS about a query at Talk:Optical telescope about the strength limitations of telescopes. -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 23:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
WPAST members may be interested in the discussion here, about an element of our notability guidelines. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 02:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I couldn't find the answer to this anywhere, but why don't the infoboxes on stars contain their distance in light years from earth? Wouldn't this be information someone might want to quickly reference? I notice that most articles mention the distance in the body, but not the infobox. -- BHC ( talk) 05:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I've recently learned that stars that are visible to the naked eye are automatically notable. I'm curious as to what the policy is for stars that aren't visible to the naked eye. Can someone point me to the relevant policy? I tried searching for WP:NSTAR but that didn't take me anywhere. Ryan Vesey 20:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
There's some discussion on object notability generally and the application of Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#Megamerge. Comments very welcome there. Andrewa ( talk) 14:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
What is the name of the hypothesis that says the big bang was sparked by an event in another universe? Pass a Method talk 13:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Astronomical transit ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been proposed to be renamed to Transit (astronomy) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 23:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Is File:VtransitsJ.jpg correct? Would the apparent dimensions of Jupiter and Venus allow for such a configuration to occur? (Do you have to be at the distance of Proxima to see this being the relative sizes of the discs overlapping? ; obviously, if you're close to Venus, Venus would be much larger than Jupiter, and Jupiter would be a dot in the sky) -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 23:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from February 2012 has something like 5000 articles (mainly stubs?) tagged as questionable notability. That is an astronomical number of tagged articles. (sorry...) It would be good to get a decision on what to do with them. Listify maybe? -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 08:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed that there's a {{ chemical-importance}} so perhaps we should have a {{ astronomical-object-importance}} template, with corresponding category Category: Astronomical object articles with topics of unclear importance -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 07:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
{{
Notability|Astro}}
does the same thing. And I notice that the chemistry version is currently a candidate to be merged into {{
notability}}.
Modest Genius
talk 22:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Project Daedalus is the name chosen for the British Interplanetary Society's Starship study. - apparently this article from British Interplanetary Society, but I can not find the original. please help. Vyacheslav84 ( talk) 15:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Can an admin move the current Comet Siding Spring to C/2007 Q3? There are 11 comets + 1 asteroid known as Siding Spring, and the potential Mars impactor C/2013 A1 (Siding Spring) is drawing a lot of attention. -- Kheider ( talk) 16:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello! I was reviewing the page Hypothetical types of stars and I wondered if it qualified as a list and should be called List of hypothetical types of stars. — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I've added the brown dwarf WISE 1049-5319 to Template:Star systems within 5 – 10 light-years however it doesn't appear on the template. I don't know why it doesn't work. I've used the same format as appears in other templates - for example L-class dwarfs appear ok in the template Template:Star systems within 15 – 20 light-years. Nestrs ( talk) 15:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I have several questions, but I'll start with this one –
Mercury's orbital inclination is 7° to the ecliptic. Its axial tilt is nearly 0°. How then can its north pole declination be 61°? Based on this idea, is it not logical that the declination be 81°? Same goes for all the planets. BigSteve ( talk) 15:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Another question – Longitude of ascending node is measured against the ecliptic. But wouldn't it be more logical if it were measured against the Invariable plane? Does anyone know where such data for the planets' orbits can be found? After all, if the earth's own "–11.3°" is (I'm assuming???) based on the Invariable plane. Surely then the other planets' ascending node longitudes can be, too...? BigSteve ( talk) 15:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
So, we have Grey hole ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and a different Gray hole ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), should we just redirect the prodded grey hole to Gray hole ? -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 23:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
List of cloud types has a section on "other planets", but it's rather sparse, do we have an article for Clouds outside the Earth ? Particularly, the cloud types article is missing Titan, Triton (cryovolcanic clouds), Io (volcanic clouds); not to mention clouds on brown dwarfs. -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 21:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
U Andromedae has been prodded for deletion. I think it's probably better to keep it around, to prevent someone from misconceiving it as Upsilon Andromedae, since inevitably it will end up as a typo-redirect to υ And - if it is deleted. -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 02:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
The templates like {{ Stars of Andromeda}} are unsatisfactory, as they don't give a full list of notable stars in the constellation. In addition, the layout for non-bayer and non-flamsteed stars is a problem; simply lumping them into a "nearby" and "other" category is not good, as if all notable stars were to be added, the "other" category would become extremely large. At User:StringTheory11/sandbox, I have put together a draft layout for the template that I think works much better. It would be appreciated if someone could give me feedback on it, so that we can figure out what to improve. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 19:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I have finished the templates for all constellations starting with "A". I was thinking of deploying them on these constellations as a sort of test to see how they work. If they seem to work well, I will make templates for the other constellations (slowly). What do other people think of this? StringTheory11 ( t • c) 04:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Can someone rebuild the recently PROD-deleted asteroid articles as redirects to the list, such as they are supposed to be?
4692 SIMBAD ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) , 19433 Naftz ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) , 18106 Blume ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) , 12909 Jaclifford ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
-- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 03:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
[12]: worthy of an article or not? I know him, so I'm probably not the best situated to make the decision, but I was a little surprised not to find a Wikipedia article on him. - Jmabel | Talk 03:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
{{ Starbox character 2s}} has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 00:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
See talk:Bortle Dark-Sky Scale where this has been proposed to be renamed -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 07:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
There's an FAC review currently in progress for Potential cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact. Anyone is welcome to join and contribute their thoughts. Wer900 • talk 18:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Can someone go over this wikibook? I just removed an entry for a 1-line stub article on a quasar from the list of pages to print to create this book. Shouldn't we be publishing the more substantive and/or important quasars only, and not just any old quasar article? -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 08:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Is http://phl.upr.edu/projects/habitable-exoplanets-catalog/top10 an acceptable source? It has a note
“ | A similar List of Extrasolar Planet Extremes is available in wikipedia but needs to be updated.
IMPORTANT NOTE: These lists were automatically generated by HEC for all confirmed exoplanets. Radius or mass was estimated when not available from mass-radius relationships. This page is only updated when necessary. |
” |
Which seems to make this a rather poor source to use. It's being used to update List of extrasolar planet extremes, which the source claims is in need of updating... so seems to be soliciting edits to Wikipedia... -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 09:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Besides, "updated when necessary" means that it is updated only when new planetary parameters are published. In short, your reasoning seems quite flawed, and the HEC is a perfectly reliable source. It is NOT WP:CIRCULAR with our own article. Wer900 • talk 01:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
File:C925ota.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 17:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I have a suggestion, that the stars in constellation x list articles be expanded to include HR and perhaps Gliese designations. Since they now contain traditional names, Bayer, Flamsteed, Gould, HD and HIP. Harvard Bright Star Catalogue is also rather widely used. -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 03:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please review recent changes to Copernican principle by Wyattmj ( talk · contribs) (see its history and last thread on the talk page). Grammar and formatting aside, I see it as WP:OR, where an editor draws conclusions from primary sources. Thanks. Materialscientist ( talk) 05:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Could someone verify the accuracy and relevance of this 2009 addition to Solar eclipse, which is still present in a slightly modified form in the article today. I've caught one of the authors spamming citations to his papers on Wikipedia for the past few years (the author in question also is a computer scientist, not an astronomer of physicist.) — Ruud 23:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
See http://earthsky.org/space/proposed-budget-includes-100m-to-place-asteroid-in-orbit-around-moon
Is this reflected anywhere in wiki? Tkuvho ( talk) 10:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
The Celestial observation article is in dire need of a rewrite. It is currently the result of a student's work, one who was unversed in the subject. I analyzed the first part of the lead (lede) on its talk page, but it is not my subject area. -- Bejnar ( talk) 04:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi
I was doing NPPs and came across this gem. I have had a quick look, but it may need a bit more going over - I will look in more detail later tonight though.
In any case it could do with a basic assessment (I have put the astronomy banner on the talk page but without params), and I have added a cl-span to the lead(/lede) and a note on the talk page for someone with more knowledge to have a look if someone can spare a few minutes.
Thanks Chaosdruid ( talk) 21:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
That might seem like a dumb question, but bear with me. The article long period variable was recently renamed to long-period variable and discussion on the merits of this doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. I have my own opinion, but I'll go along with what other astronomers think. Lithopsian ( talk) 18:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Although I didn't originate Kepler-62 and the pages related to its stellar system, I would like to ensure that building these pages is not the crusade of a small group. Please help to document the latest major exoplanet discovery. Wer900 • talk 01:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Suspected error in this file: .
I suggest switch colors of components, then all be correct.-- Abeshenkov ( talk) 13:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Certainly, a red giant overflowing it's roche lobe would be more luminous on basis of size than a similar mass star in an earlier phase of stellar evolution but a.) blue stars are almost always as big or bigger than red giants (excepting a few stages of young white dwarfs) and b.) in the animation the stars are the same size. Pretty much any way you look at the diagram right now it has something that doesn't add up, unfortunately...
Sailsbystars (
talk) 07:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
On 4 October 2012, I had removed a similar illustration by the same author ( File:Eclipsing binary star animation 2.gif) from the article Algol because, like the illustration currently under discussion, the illustration that I removed showed pronounced perspective effects, which are absolutely absurd to contemplate. Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk) 00:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)