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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Per the previous section, as both images discussed there reside on WikiCommons, should we set up a WikiProject Astronomy on Commons? There are already spin-off projects of other en.Wikipedia projects on commons, such as Commons:Commons:WikiProject Aviation -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 04:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I just pushed a new small article on the Blanketing effect that would need someone else to give it a review. Anybody up to it? Cheers. Gaba (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I assume that astronomic type software (anything from star positions to enhancing images of observations to seti-online) come within this project (but I may be wrong, please tell me :-). Is there a general article, maintained by this project, about the variety of software available, and articles about software in particular application areas (as opposed to articles about particular computer programs) ? Thanks. -- Tony Wills ( talk) 01:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
File:Sidereus Nuncius Medicean Stars.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 05:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
This submission is of relevance to this Project. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 01:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
image:Long Hertzsprung Russell Diagram.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 07:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
There is a deletion discussion about the pseudoscientific idea Stellar metamorphosis. More input from experts is welcome, IRWolfie- ( talk) 10:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Regarding this, what about image:Differing Matter Content of the Milky Way Galaxy.png ? It's been tagged as viable to move to commoons. Shouldn't this be deleted? -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 07:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I have started an RfC on a proposed new policy for the notability of extrasolar planets. A link to the discussion is here. Wer900 • talk 04:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I am currently working to make the list of planets discovered by the Kepler spacecraft a featured list. To start, I have made significant progress in bringing the article up-to-date and have removed extraneous prose. Would anyone here be willing to help add in the remaining planets (Kepler-70 to Kepler-76), improve the color scheme for the table, fix our unnecessarily long sea of references, or add new prose as required? I would be grateful for anyone's involvement. Thanks, Wer900 • talk 22:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Did anyone notice that List of IC objects was deleted, for reason that could be used to delete our asteroid and NGC lists? -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 10:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
To let people know, I've nominated Perseus (constellation) for FA. Any feedback is appreciated. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 18:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I have nominated circumstellar habitable zone for FA; as with StringTheory11's Perseus (constellation), any feedback will be appreciated. Wer900 • talk 20:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm doing prod cleanup, and I noticed a number of star articles which are being proposed for deletion because they may not meet WP:NASTRO, all the articles in question are sourced by the Autostar Suite CD. Is this a WP:RS? -- wL< speak· check> 02:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I've managed to sort out the references for this article and added a link to a recording of the pulsar. Re-assessment is needed. Also I've added a note to the talk page that a dramatization of the discovery was made around the 40th anniversary of the pulsars discovery. I cannot remember any details other than those I noted on the talk page. Help finding it and thus adding to the detailing of the cultural history of the discovery would be most appreciated. Graham1973 ( talk) 07:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I have spent considerable time mofifying two sections in the Observable Universe topic (Mass and Matter Content). However, the revisions are in Microsoft Word. I do not understand "wiki markup" language. Can someone convert it for me so it can be submitted? I could paste in this area or email the three pages. Thanks, Jim Johnson Jim Johnson 23:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjohnson2222 ( talk • contribs)
{{workpage}}
This is why the modifications are needed. Jim Johnson 21:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC) The documentation on the four methods of computing mass (atoms) is confusing for a couple of reasons. It should be clear that the first and fourth methods include ISM and IGM; the second and third do not. The third method uses a radius of 13.7 billion light years but does not acknowledge that the expanded radius would produce 39 times more mass. I believe the fourth method also implies the smaller radius. The average mass of stars based on their distribution in the Milky Way is E33 gm not 2 x E33 gm. (One point of possible contention is the number of stars, the existing quotes four sources with up to 100 times more stars than I assume, 1022 (which is actually at the low end of the references). There may exist more small stars than traditional estimates but if so there mass would be considerably less than 1030 kg so I think my number is preferred.) In method two, dark matter and dark energy are mentioned as if they apply only to this method; this should precede the method discussion. And last, calculating atoms rather than just mass adds to the confusion. The revision is simpler and accurate. The editing is based on a reference document I recently published. The main reference “The Cosmic Energy Inventory” Astro-Physics, 2004
Why change Matter Content and Mass? A. Matter Content has the following issues/inconsistencies: 1. In method 1, the two methods are calculating mass which is the same objective as the Mass section. Thus is redundant and confusing. Once mass is estimated the number of atoms is straightforward. 2. In method 1, the value of the Hubble constant and the values ordinary matter are outdated (WAMP rather than ESA). 3. In method 2, the mass of an average star is wrong, two times too large. 4. In method 2, the reference to number of galaxies is outdated by NASA's current estimates. B. Mass has the following issues/inconsistencies: 1. Introduction is confusing because of mass energy reference and "space time curvatute' which does not belong in section. 2. Critical density section is based on outdated values (WAMP rather than ESA). The reference on the fraction of stars is outdated, the best estimate in the Cosmic Energy Inventory article. Uusing both the visible and observable volumes is confusing and not relevant. The section uses results from method 1 which is duplication. 3. The Stellar density section uses an obscure reference on density rather than the NASA recent references. It does not correct for the Hubble distance (comoving radius). It also uses the wrong mass for an average star and outdated values (WAMP rather than ESA). 4. The Steady-state section uses an outdated value for Hubble constant and does not correct for a comoving radius. The revised version, corrects all these inconsistencies. Appreciate your thoughts. Jim Johnson 23:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
In an effort to get other editors involved I am placing a link to the RFC Observable universe here. Relevant diffs have been posted. Thanks. (I have also posted this over at WP:PHYS) ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Many star articles that have been on wikipedia for some years are getting WP:PRODed. I just saved one of these articles. But realised the guidelines are not clear about what should or should not be kept.
To start the conversation going, I suggested that if someone took the trouble of adding the article, then it is probably interesting enough to keep, and so should not be WP:PRODed, and if it needs to be deleted, an AfD is more appropriate.
Interested to hear what you all think?
I realise, a more appropriate place for this conversation is here on the talk page for the guidelines so have reposted this question here:
Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(astronomical_objects)#WP:PRODed_star_articles Robert Walker ( talk) 20:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
This term appears in articles about Jovian moons and other objects. I don't see a definition or general description. Ought it have one? Jim.henderson ( talk) 14:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I've created a new template which automatically adds a ref with links to various sections of SIMBAD. Work in progress.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertinventor ( talk • contribs) 14:37, 19 July 2013? (UTC)
{{ CelestialRef | Barnard's Star }}
Yields: Barnard's Star [1]
{{ CelestialRef | Barnard's Star | bib=show }} adds link to pre-expanded bibliography
Yields: Barnard's Star [2]
{{ CelestialRef | HD 189733b | plot=5 }} adds link to plot of all stars within 5 arcmins
Yields: HD 189733b [3]
{{ CelestialRef | Crab nebula | image=show }} adds link to Aladin preview image
Yields: Crab nebula [4]
{{ CelestialRef | Gliese 146 | siblings = show }} adds link to siblings
Yields: Gliese 146 [5]
For other examples and documentation see Template:CelestialRef
Robert Walker ( talk) 15:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
More options etc can easily be added. Interested to hear any suggestions or comments, thanks!
(removed links to StarRef - to make it easy to delete with speedy delete, has been moved to CelestialRef) Robert Walker ( talk) 22:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
If anyone is keen, Habitability of red dwarf systems, Phoenix (constellation) and Triangulum are three articles which will probably be nominated for GA at some stage in the short- to mid-term future. I find balancing the prose on these can be tricky, so all input on prose (and comprehensiveness) much appreciated. It might spur me on working on more constellations. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
In the article entitled " Magellanic Stream" the cleanup tag says "this article appears to contradict the article ' Magellanic Bridge' (February 2013)".
It appears to me that this article The Magellanic System's Interactive Formations (Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia 17 (1) 1 - 5. 2000. PDF download here. ) might clear up this issue, if anyone is interested.
There is also a comment on "Magellanic Stream" Talk page that clarifies the issue:
We received the following OTRS email (ticket 2013072910001292), and the sender specifically asked that the information be forwarded to those who can do something about it. So, here you are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Erigone_Regulus_path.png
The following new updated much more accurate interactive google map should be used in its place:
I do not know how to put this kind of a map on your webpages. I hope that you do.Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Here's another message from the same guy:
The following map of the Regulus occultation by 163 Erigone on 2014 March 20 is inaccurate, outdated and needs to be replaced on all of the webpages you have placed this outdated map from the year 2004:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Erigone_Regulus_path.png
The following map is much better:
http://www.asteroidoccultation.com/observations/RegulusOcc/
The following new updated interactive google map which has the best accuracy should alsobe used:
http://www.poyntsource.com/New/Google/20140320_32317.HTM
Enjoy! ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Could someone in the project assess this one on its Talk please ? Thanks. Acabashi ( talk) 22:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Perseid which is part of this project has gotten 48225 views in the last 30 days. Can we do something to improve it? For example introduce some sections? X Ottawahitech ( talk) 19:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, |
[1] [2] - it would be good if we can source this to NASA, so we can upload the nice images -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 14:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I just moved Constellation Family (with a capital "F") to Constellation family (with a lower-case "f", and accordingly I corrected the links to that page. At several places in the article the word "family" with a lower-case initial "f" occurred, so probably the only reason a capital was used in the title is that someone didn't realize that WP:MOS prescribes lower case in that situation. Along the way, I changed Heavenly Waters from a redirect to an article about a pop music album into a disambiguation page. That page links to Heavenly Waters (astronomy), which redirects to a section in Constellation family. I think the link to the redirect page should be kept intact in case someone expands the Heavenly Waters (astronomy) redirect page into an article in its own right.
But on more pressing matters: Only one page, other than redirects, currently links to Constellation family. Should there be more links than that? Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
FYI, we are having a discussion at WT:WikiProject Astronomical objects about this -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 06:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I have updated Missing topics about astronomy and other space-related topics - Skysmith ( talk) 08:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I believe this is a submission relevant to this Project. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 16:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I posted a comment on WP:NASTRO and I would be happy to see some input: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(astronomical_objects)#NASTRO_possible_failures. Thanks!-- cyclopia speak! 09:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at the contributions of Qxfard ( talk · contribs)? I think that person has been posting their own papers on certain articles. No idea if they actually belong, or are a case of undue weight. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello! About a month ago, I nominated the article AdS/CFT correspondence for good article status. I was wondering if anyone here would be willing to review it. Eventually, I'd like to bring the article to featured article status, but first I want to see if it meets the good article criteria. Thanks. Polytope24 ( talk) 15:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
FYI, there's a discussion on the use of the term "burning" in stellar nucleosynthesis on WT:PHYSICS -- 70.24.249.39 ( talk) 10:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
image:Fauth.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.249.39 ( talk) 11:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The Royal Society, the UK's science academy, is recruiting a Wikimedian-in-Residence to help them work more closely with Wikipedia. The position is part-time (one day per week) for a fixed term of 6 months. See here for more information and details of how to apply. For additional information please contact me at francis.bacon [AT] royalsociety.org Andeggs ( talk) 14:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
New user here :) Have noted a change in paths to both Jim Kaler's site and ARICNS. Have edited one star... But to do all such links manually seems to be a bit of over effort since some wiki guru could probably do a global change. Possible? Beyond my amateur capabilities anyway:
ARICNS Global change
http://www.ari.uni-heidelberg.de/datenbanken/aricns/cnspages/4c01326.htm OLD defunct
http://wwwadd.zah.uni-heidelberg.de/datenbanken/aricns/cnspages/4c01326.htm NEW
Kaler Global change
http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/zetaher.html OLD defunct
http://stars.astro.illinois.edu/sow/zetaher.html NEW
Please feel free to move or delete as appropriate. Brobof ( talk) 14:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
{{ Infobox Lunar eclipse}} has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.181.39 ( talk) 12:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
{{ Infobox Solar eclipse2}} has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.181.39 ( talk) 13:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Y Centauri ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for deletion. Prior to July 2013, this title was about "y Centauri" instead of "Y Centauri". -- 76.65.131.217 ( talk) 09:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm a 4th-year physics w/ astrophysics student. For my final-year project I've been tasked with bringing a physics-related article on Wikipedia from stub/start class to at least B if not GA class. I have chosen Astronomical spectroscopy as it is one of my primary interests. As I work on the article I may ask for feedback and/or suggestions on improvements here and on the project's talk page, so if you're also keen on spectroscopy please watch that page. Cheers. Primefac ( talk) 10:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Chrisrus, is debating that List of minor planets should be deleted and/or combined with List of notable asteroids. See: Talk:List of minor planets#Delete?. -- Kheider ( talk) 17:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, I just made a question over at MOS [3] about whether there should be a prescription on which units to enforce as default in all astronomy related articles: lightyears or parsecs. For what I've seen there's no clear guideline with some articles using light years and others using parsecs. Do you think we need to decide on a unit to use as default all across WP? The other unit can of course still appear in parenthesis after the quantity in default units. So if say parsecs is decided as the default unit, a distance would look like this: 3 Kpc (9.78 ly). What do you guys think? Regards. Gaba (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we need to establish a project-wide standard; we don't even have a project-wide standard for English variant. The important thing is to be consistent within an article. There's no sourcing problem with converting units from a source, a concern some have brought up – being consistent within an article is more important than using the same units as each source.
(Being an astronomer, I personally prefer parsecs because of their useful relation to an observable (parallax). Though lay readers are certainly more likely to have heard of light years, I'm not sure typical lay readers have a real concept of what a light year is. Even those who know it's a distance probably only know that it's a really big distance and don't intuitively know whether a light year is ~the typical distance between planets, between stars, between galaxies, or the size of the Universe.) —Alex ( ASHill | talk | contribs) 23:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think either parsec or lightyear is a very good thing to use across all astronomy articles. For distances; A very large class of these articles use AUs, and won't be very sensible to use ly or pc. Another large class of articles use redshift, and the conversion to ly or pc depends on whatever value of the Hubble constant we chose, and on whether we use comoving distance or light travel distance, so also not a sensible conversion to do. Then there's the articles that use dimensional measurements in redshiftspace... As for which unit is better, I've seen some astronomers argue that the parsec is a bad unit to use, because it is conceptually based on an angle, which is immeasurably small when you get to megaparsecs. Both light year and parsec are based on the terrestrial orbit, as is the AU, so fundamentally, are not very fundamental. While our other choices, miles and kilometers only work within the solar system, but are frequently requested by many readers of astronomy material as they are what the lay person is familiar with. ... so... if an article is using "z" (redshift), keep it that way. Otherwise, I see no reason not to use {{ convert}} to leave both light years and parsecs in the article, for things beyond the Solar System, but closer than that where cosmological expansion significantly affects the difference in measurement between comoving distance and light travel distance. -- 70.24.244.158 ( talk) 05:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Our readers are familiar with light years, so we need those. But it's important to keep the units of the source due to rounding errors. So if the source uses parsecs, we should have pc (ly), and if they use light years, we should have ly (pc). That's the general approach suggested by the MOS, and is designed to prevent someone taking an estimated figure of 300 ly, converting to 90 pc, and then having that auto-converted back to a spuriously precise 290 ly. Actually, with pc and ly the rounding errors are fairly minimal, but it's a good approach in general . — kwami ( talk) 20:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Looks to me like coming to consensus. Outsiders have heard of ly; insiders prefer pc (any reason besides it's a badge of insiderness?). We're writing primarily for outsiders but insiders will also be reading, so it's pc (ly) or ly (pc) depending on source. In most contexts where one of these measures is good, the other also belongs. Naturally there's seldom a need for either when we're inside something as small as a planetary system, and not much need when discussing distant quasars. Jim.henderson ( talk) 02:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm a 4th year Physics with Astrophysics student and Honours project is taking a wikipedia article and bringing it to "good article" status. The article I chose is Seyfert galaxy, and I'd really appreciate any tips and comments I can get about the article. In the article's talk page I wrote about how I plan to structure my article and I did some work on it already. Thank you, Careless Torque ( talk) 12:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
The z8_GND_5296 article has been reverted back and forth to change the distance from 30 billion light years to 13.1 billion and back. The difference refers of course to the difference between the observed redshift × Hubble constant distance, and the distance referred to the position of the galaxy "now", after moving at nearly the speed of light since it was last observed. I believe that the 30 G lt-yr figure is not the standard way astronomers quote distances to objects near the cosmic horizon, confusing to lay readers, and something which should not be perpetuated in a standard reference work like Wikipedia. It seems to have appeared in a press release from the University of Texas, but does not appear in the refereed journal article, and a more recent UT news article quotes the first author Finkelstein as saying 13.1 G lt-yr. I have argued this in the talk pages, and announced that I plan to revert the 30 to 13.1 in a day or two, which has now passed.
The problem is, this is a matter of what is "standard usage", as, both 13.1 and 30, and others, are possible subtly different numbers, eg. from the IPAC NED calculator (which goes back to Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial at UCLA). I claim that, while the 30 number might be mentioned informally among astronomers, the 13.1 is the standard observed distance that should be quoted, rather than something unobservable beyond the current horizon.
I am sensitized to the issue because two or three years ago I saw that a 7-year-old absurdity in a Wikipedia article (that the Van Allan Belts were caused by volcanoes...) had been referenced verbatim by almost 10,000 external articles and web sites, creating thousands of derived "reliable sources" to the veracity of that "false fact". This is not quite as outrageous as that, but the 30 number has been on the front page now for a week or so, and I am afraid we will have it as the most distant galaxy forever. (Richard Ellis showed several at distances beyond 13.1 in a public lecture at Caltech two weeks ago, but what lay person would notice 13.4, even when it comes out in a refereed journal article, when that's less than half 30?)
Not being prepared to do a usage survey of astronomical literature to back up my claim, I am looking for suggestions, or support on the talk page. I suppose most of the other editors have no professional experience in the field. Thanks Wwheaton ( talk) 09:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure this has been discussed before. Would it be possible to maintain (under lock preferably) a series of various astronomical constants. These would be to some agreed precision. They would need to be used by more than (say) five articles.
For example, earth's mass is User:Student7/earth's mass.
For this case, I put {{User:Student7/earth's mass}}.
I realize that there may be several methods of expressing mass. This would have to be allowed for in the named "constant." "earth's masskg."
These would have to be listed in an article so that readers and well as editors could see them.
The topic arose when an editor found a small discrepancy between articles about earth's mass, but it could have occurred anyplace. Student7 ( talk) 21:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed that Lorenzo Iorio has been recreated again, this time by 45 Wuz ( talk · contribs), who has also created Emilio Elizalde and Astrodicticum Simplex. None appear to be notable, and both biographies look like they fail WP:PROF to me. Iorio's article has been deleted twice before ( first AfD, second AfD), and it doesn't look like anything has changed since then. Those nominations were plagued by multiple single-person accounts, which I suspect were operated as sockpuppets.
I'm unwilling to open this particular can of worms by starting another deletion request, but could someone else take a look and decide if these articles should go to AfD? Modest Genius talk 20:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't see third party, independent sources sufficient to establish notability, though there is a case to be made that they do; improvements to the article replacing the long list of references with useful content could help there. He's had several press articles about his research (which tends to happen with fringe general relativity theorists), but none of the cited sources appear to be about him. It's not for Wikipedia editors to judge his reputability based upon his coauthors: if a reliable source doesn't draw the connection, it's synthesis. —Alex ( ASHill | talk | contribs) 17:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
My comments on the physics wikiproject:
"Lorenzo Iorio is a big name in the field he works in. He is notable enough for inclusion. The article summarizes his work in one sentence, a lot more can be written about this. Or does deserving an article about you require you to be a controversial figure like Luboš Motl or a well known Wikipedian like our very own William Connolley? Does Lorenzo Iorio need to take a time out from his physics work, start a blog and make controversial comments about some political topic or does he need to become a Wikipedian and make some friends here and let them write a great biography about him?"
So, I think a problem is that we don't apply the rules consistently, requiring a very high bar for people who are not well known outside of the academic field they work in, while having a very low bar for people who are well known on the blogosphere or who are well known Wikipedians. Count Iblis ( talk) 15:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I've made some improvements to
Emilio Elizalde. There is not doubt in my mind as to his notability.
Stigmatella aurantiaca (
talk) 22:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (astronomical objects)/Archive 1#Problems, relating to the proposed addition of exception clause to NCASTRO. Opinions are needed. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 16:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Considering that the Great Comet of 1680 ( Kirch's Comet) was the first comet discovered by a telescope, and the first comet to have its orbit calculated, shouldn't it rate higher than "low" importance?
-- 70.24.244.51 ( talk) 08:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Just to let people know, Perseus (constellation) is at FAC again ( WP:Featured article candidates/Perseus (constellation)/archive2), after undergoing some revisions to the Chinese mythology section and a copyedit that were requested at the last FAC. Any input is appreciated. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 18:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi folks, after much much work done by Careless Torque I've upgraded the Seyfert galaxy article to B-class so I thought I'd let you know. Please have a look at it and do tell me if you disagree with my judgment. Regards. Gaba (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, I've been editing astronomical spectroscopy for the better part of the last three months as part of my final year physics project. I have already spoken to Modest Genius and he has given me some great feedback on further ways to improve the article to GA-status, but I was wondering if it made sense to upgrade it to a lower level such as B-class in the meantime. Thoughts (and further suggestions for improvement of the article) are always appreciated. Cheers, Primefac ( talk) 14:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Triangulum recently promoted. Tucana could do with some pre-FAC feedback if anyone has time.... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 03:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Specifically Aabrucadubraa ( talk · contribs), an advocate of Ruggero Santilli, is accusing us / a bunch of people from censoring Santilli, yadda yadda yadda. Some help on the Talk:Ruggero Santilli would also be appreciated. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:15, 14 December 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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Per the previous section, as both images discussed there reside on WikiCommons, should we set up a WikiProject Astronomy on Commons? There are already spin-off projects of other en.Wikipedia projects on commons, such as Commons:Commons:WikiProject Aviation -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 04:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I just pushed a new small article on the Blanketing effect that would need someone else to give it a review. Anybody up to it? Cheers. Gaba (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I assume that astronomic type software (anything from star positions to enhancing images of observations to seti-online) come within this project (but I may be wrong, please tell me :-). Is there a general article, maintained by this project, about the variety of software available, and articles about software in particular application areas (as opposed to articles about particular computer programs) ? Thanks. -- Tony Wills ( talk) 01:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
File:Sidereus Nuncius Medicean Stars.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 05:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
This submission is of relevance to this Project. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 01:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
image:Long Hertzsprung Russell Diagram.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 07:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
There is a deletion discussion about the pseudoscientific idea Stellar metamorphosis. More input from experts is welcome, IRWolfie- ( talk) 10:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Regarding this, what about image:Differing Matter Content of the Milky Way Galaxy.png ? It's been tagged as viable to move to commoons. Shouldn't this be deleted? -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 07:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I have started an RfC on a proposed new policy for the notability of extrasolar planets. A link to the discussion is here. Wer900 • talk 04:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I am currently working to make the list of planets discovered by the Kepler spacecraft a featured list. To start, I have made significant progress in bringing the article up-to-date and have removed extraneous prose. Would anyone here be willing to help add in the remaining planets (Kepler-70 to Kepler-76), improve the color scheme for the table, fix our unnecessarily long sea of references, or add new prose as required? I would be grateful for anyone's involvement. Thanks, Wer900 • talk 22:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Did anyone notice that List of IC objects was deleted, for reason that could be used to delete our asteroid and NGC lists? -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 10:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
To let people know, I've nominated Perseus (constellation) for FA. Any feedback is appreciated. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 18:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I have nominated circumstellar habitable zone for FA; as with StringTheory11's Perseus (constellation), any feedback will be appreciated. Wer900 • talk 20:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm doing prod cleanup, and I noticed a number of star articles which are being proposed for deletion because they may not meet WP:NASTRO, all the articles in question are sourced by the Autostar Suite CD. Is this a WP:RS? -- wL< speak· check> 02:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I've managed to sort out the references for this article and added a link to a recording of the pulsar. Re-assessment is needed. Also I've added a note to the talk page that a dramatization of the discovery was made around the 40th anniversary of the pulsars discovery. I cannot remember any details other than those I noted on the talk page. Help finding it and thus adding to the detailing of the cultural history of the discovery would be most appreciated. Graham1973 ( talk) 07:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I have spent considerable time mofifying two sections in the Observable Universe topic (Mass and Matter Content). However, the revisions are in Microsoft Word. I do not understand "wiki markup" language. Can someone convert it for me so it can be submitted? I could paste in this area or email the three pages. Thanks, Jim Johnson Jim Johnson 23:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjohnson2222 ( talk • contribs)
{{workpage}}
This is why the modifications are needed. Jim Johnson 21:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC) The documentation on the four methods of computing mass (atoms) is confusing for a couple of reasons. It should be clear that the first and fourth methods include ISM and IGM; the second and third do not. The third method uses a radius of 13.7 billion light years but does not acknowledge that the expanded radius would produce 39 times more mass. I believe the fourth method also implies the smaller radius. The average mass of stars based on their distribution in the Milky Way is E33 gm not 2 x E33 gm. (One point of possible contention is the number of stars, the existing quotes four sources with up to 100 times more stars than I assume, 1022 (which is actually at the low end of the references). There may exist more small stars than traditional estimates but if so there mass would be considerably less than 1030 kg so I think my number is preferred.) In method two, dark matter and dark energy are mentioned as if they apply only to this method; this should precede the method discussion. And last, calculating atoms rather than just mass adds to the confusion. The revision is simpler and accurate. The editing is based on a reference document I recently published. The main reference “The Cosmic Energy Inventory” Astro-Physics, 2004
Why change Matter Content and Mass? A. Matter Content has the following issues/inconsistencies: 1. In method 1, the two methods are calculating mass which is the same objective as the Mass section. Thus is redundant and confusing. Once mass is estimated the number of atoms is straightforward. 2. In method 1, the value of the Hubble constant and the values ordinary matter are outdated (WAMP rather than ESA). 3. In method 2, the mass of an average star is wrong, two times too large. 4. In method 2, the reference to number of galaxies is outdated by NASA's current estimates. B. Mass has the following issues/inconsistencies: 1. Introduction is confusing because of mass energy reference and "space time curvatute' which does not belong in section. 2. Critical density section is based on outdated values (WAMP rather than ESA). The reference on the fraction of stars is outdated, the best estimate in the Cosmic Energy Inventory article. Uusing both the visible and observable volumes is confusing and not relevant. The section uses results from method 1 which is duplication. 3. The Stellar density section uses an obscure reference on density rather than the NASA recent references. It does not correct for the Hubble distance (comoving radius). It also uses the wrong mass for an average star and outdated values (WAMP rather than ESA). 4. The Steady-state section uses an outdated value for Hubble constant and does not correct for a comoving radius. The revised version, corrects all these inconsistencies. Appreciate your thoughts. Jim Johnson 23:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
In an effort to get other editors involved I am placing a link to the RFC Observable universe here. Relevant diffs have been posted. Thanks. (I have also posted this over at WP:PHYS) ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Many star articles that have been on wikipedia for some years are getting WP:PRODed. I just saved one of these articles. But realised the guidelines are not clear about what should or should not be kept.
To start the conversation going, I suggested that if someone took the trouble of adding the article, then it is probably interesting enough to keep, and so should not be WP:PRODed, and if it needs to be deleted, an AfD is more appropriate.
Interested to hear what you all think?
I realise, a more appropriate place for this conversation is here on the talk page for the guidelines so have reposted this question here:
Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(astronomical_objects)#WP:PRODed_star_articles Robert Walker ( talk) 20:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
This term appears in articles about Jovian moons and other objects. I don't see a definition or general description. Ought it have one? Jim.henderson ( talk) 14:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I've created a new template which automatically adds a ref with links to various sections of SIMBAD. Work in progress.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertinventor ( talk • contribs) 14:37, 19 July 2013? (UTC)
{{ CelestialRef | Barnard's Star }}
Yields: Barnard's Star [1]
{{ CelestialRef | Barnard's Star | bib=show }} adds link to pre-expanded bibliography
Yields: Barnard's Star [2]
{{ CelestialRef | HD 189733b | plot=5 }} adds link to plot of all stars within 5 arcmins
Yields: HD 189733b [3]
{{ CelestialRef | Crab nebula | image=show }} adds link to Aladin preview image
Yields: Crab nebula [4]
{{ CelestialRef | Gliese 146 | siblings = show }} adds link to siblings
Yields: Gliese 146 [5]
For other examples and documentation see Template:CelestialRef
Robert Walker ( talk) 15:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
More options etc can easily be added. Interested to hear any suggestions or comments, thanks!
(removed links to StarRef - to make it easy to delete with speedy delete, has been moved to CelestialRef) Robert Walker ( talk) 22:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
If anyone is keen, Habitability of red dwarf systems, Phoenix (constellation) and Triangulum are three articles which will probably be nominated for GA at some stage in the short- to mid-term future. I find balancing the prose on these can be tricky, so all input on prose (and comprehensiveness) much appreciated. It might spur me on working on more constellations. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
In the article entitled " Magellanic Stream" the cleanup tag says "this article appears to contradict the article ' Magellanic Bridge' (February 2013)".
It appears to me that this article The Magellanic System's Interactive Formations (Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia 17 (1) 1 - 5. 2000. PDF download here. ) might clear up this issue, if anyone is interested.
There is also a comment on "Magellanic Stream" Talk page that clarifies the issue:
We received the following OTRS email (ticket 2013072910001292), and the sender specifically asked that the information be forwarded to those who can do something about it. So, here you are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Erigone_Regulus_path.png
The following new updated much more accurate interactive google map should be used in its place:
I do not know how to put this kind of a map on your webpages. I hope that you do.Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Here's another message from the same guy:
The following map of the Regulus occultation by 163 Erigone on 2014 March 20 is inaccurate, outdated and needs to be replaced on all of the webpages you have placed this outdated map from the year 2004:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Erigone_Regulus_path.png
The following map is much better:
http://www.asteroidoccultation.com/observations/RegulusOcc/
The following new updated interactive google map which has the best accuracy should alsobe used:
http://www.poyntsource.com/New/Google/20140320_32317.HTM
Enjoy! ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Could someone in the project assess this one on its Talk please ? Thanks. Acabashi ( talk) 22:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Perseid which is part of this project has gotten 48225 views in the last 30 days. Can we do something to improve it? For example introduce some sections? X Ottawahitech ( talk) 19:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, |
[1] [2] - it would be good if we can source this to NASA, so we can upload the nice images -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 14:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I just moved Constellation Family (with a capital "F") to Constellation family (with a lower-case "f", and accordingly I corrected the links to that page. At several places in the article the word "family" with a lower-case initial "f" occurred, so probably the only reason a capital was used in the title is that someone didn't realize that WP:MOS prescribes lower case in that situation. Along the way, I changed Heavenly Waters from a redirect to an article about a pop music album into a disambiguation page. That page links to Heavenly Waters (astronomy), which redirects to a section in Constellation family. I think the link to the redirect page should be kept intact in case someone expands the Heavenly Waters (astronomy) redirect page into an article in its own right.
But on more pressing matters: Only one page, other than redirects, currently links to Constellation family. Should there be more links than that? Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
FYI, we are having a discussion at WT:WikiProject Astronomical objects about this -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 06:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I have updated Missing topics about astronomy and other space-related topics - Skysmith ( talk) 08:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I believe this is a submission relevant to this Project. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 16:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I posted a comment on WP:NASTRO and I would be happy to see some input: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(astronomical_objects)#NASTRO_possible_failures. Thanks!-- cyclopia speak! 09:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at the contributions of Qxfard ( talk · contribs)? I think that person has been posting their own papers on certain articles. No idea if they actually belong, or are a case of undue weight. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello! About a month ago, I nominated the article AdS/CFT correspondence for good article status. I was wondering if anyone here would be willing to review it. Eventually, I'd like to bring the article to featured article status, but first I want to see if it meets the good article criteria. Thanks. Polytope24 ( talk) 15:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
FYI, there's a discussion on the use of the term "burning" in stellar nucleosynthesis on WT:PHYSICS -- 70.24.249.39 ( talk) 10:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
image:Fauth.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.249.39 ( talk) 11:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The Royal Society, the UK's science academy, is recruiting a Wikimedian-in-Residence to help them work more closely with Wikipedia. The position is part-time (one day per week) for a fixed term of 6 months. See here for more information and details of how to apply. For additional information please contact me at francis.bacon [AT] royalsociety.org Andeggs ( talk) 14:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
New user here :) Have noted a change in paths to both Jim Kaler's site and ARICNS. Have edited one star... But to do all such links manually seems to be a bit of over effort since some wiki guru could probably do a global change. Possible? Beyond my amateur capabilities anyway:
ARICNS Global change
http://www.ari.uni-heidelberg.de/datenbanken/aricns/cnspages/4c01326.htm OLD defunct
http://wwwadd.zah.uni-heidelberg.de/datenbanken/aricns/cnspages/4c01326.htm NEW
Kaler Global change
http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/zetaher.html OLD defunct
http://stars.astro.illinois.edu/sow/zetaher.html NEW
Please feel free to move or delete as appropriate. Brobof ( talk) 14:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
{{ Infobox Lunar eclipse}} has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.181.39 ( talk) 12:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
{{ Infobox Solar eclipse2}} has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.181.39 ( talk) 13:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Y Centauri ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for deletion. Prior to July 2013, this title was about "y Centauri" instead of "Y Centauri". -- 76.65.131.217 ( talk) 09:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm a 4th-year physics w/ astrophysics student. For my final-year project I've been tasked with bringing a physics-related article on Wikipedia from stub/start class to at least B if not GA class. I have chosen Astronomical spectroscopy as it is one of my primary interests. As I work on the article I may ask for feedback and/or suggestions on improvements here and on the project's talk page, so if you're also keen on spectroscopy please watch that page. Cheers. Primefac ( talk) 10:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Chrisrus, is debating that List of minor planets should be deleted and/or combined with List of notable asteroids. See: Talk:List of minor planets#Delete?. -- Kheider ( talk) 17:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, I just made a question over at MOS [3] about whether there should be a prescription on which units to enforce as default in all astronomy related articles: lightyears or parsecs. For what I've seen there's no clear guideline with some articles using light years and others using parsecs. Do you think we need to decide on a unit to use as default all across WP? The other unit can of course still appear in parenthesis after the quantity in default units. So if say parsecs is decided as the default unit, a distance would look like this: 3 Kpc (9.78 ly). What do you guys think? Regards. Gaba (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we need to establish a project-wide standard; we don't even have a project-wide standard for English variant. The important thing is to be consistent within an article. There's no sourcing problem with converting units from a source, a concern some have brought up – being consistent within an article is more important than using the same units as each source.
(Being an astronomer, I personally prefer parsecs because of their useful relation to an observable (parallax). Though lay readers are certainly more likely to have heard of light years, I'm not sure typical lay readers have a real concept of what a light year is. Even those who know it's a distance probably only know that it's a really big distance and don't intuitively know whether a light year is ~the typical distance between planets, between stars, between galaxies, or the size of the Universe.) —Alex ( ASHill | talk | contribs) 23:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think either parsec or lightyear is a very good thing to use across all astronomy articles. For distances; A very large class of these articles use AUs, and won't be very sensible to use ly or pc. Another large class of articles use redshift, and the conversion to ly or pc depends on whatever value of the Hubble constant we chose, and on whether we use comoving distance or light travel distance, so also not a sensible conversion to do. Then there's the articles that use dimensional measurements in redshiftspace... As for which unit is better, I've seen some astronomers argue that the parsec is a bad unit to use, because it is conceptually based on an angle, which is immeasurably small when you get to megaparsecs. Both light year and parsec are based on the terrestrial orbit, as is the AU, so fundamentally, are not very fundamental. While our other choices, miles and kilometers only work within the solar system, but are frequently requested by many readers of astronomy material as they are what the lay person is familiar with. ... so... if an article is using "z" (redshift), keep it that way. Otherwise, I see no reason not to use {{ convert}} to leave both light years and parsecs in the article, for things beyond the Solar System, but closer than that where cosmological expansion significantly affects the difference in measurement between comoving distance and light travel distance. -- 70.24.244.158 ( talk) 05:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Our readers are familiar with light years, so we need those. But it's important to keep the units of the source due to rounding errors. So if the source uses parsecs, we should have pc (ly), and if they use light years, we should have ly (pc). That's the general approach suggested by the MOS, and is designed to prevent someone taking an estimated figure of 300 ly, converting to 90 pc, and then having that auto-converted back to a spuriously precise 290 ly. Actually, with pc and ly the rounding errors are fairly minimal, but it's a good approach in general . — kwami ( talk) 20:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Looks to me like coming to consensus. Outsiders have heard of ly; insiders prefer pc (any reason besides it's a badge of insiderness?). We're writing primarily for outsiders but insiders will also be reading, so it's pc (ly) or ly (pc) depending on source. In most contexts where one of these measures is good, the other also belongs. Naturally there's seldom a need for either when we're inside something as small as a planetary system, and not much need when discussing distant quasars. Jim.henderson ( talk) 02:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm a 4th year Physics with Astrophysics student and Honours project is taking a wikipedia article and bringing it to "good article" status. The article I chose is Seyfert galaxy, and I'd really appreciate any tips and comments I can get about the article. In the article's talk page I wrote about how I plan to structure my article and I did some work on it already. Thank you, Careless Torque ( talk) 12:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
The z8_GND_5296 article has been reverted back and forth to change the distance from 30 billion light years to 13.1 billion and back. The difference refers of course to the difference between the observed redshift × Hubble constant distance, and the distance referred to the position of the galaxy "now", after moving at nearly the speed of light since it was last observed. I believe that the 30 G lt-yr figure is not the standard way astronomers quote distances to objects near the cosmic horizon, confusing to lay readers, and something which should not be perpetuated in a standard reference work like Wikipedia. It seems to have appeared in a press release from the University of Texas, but does not appear in the refereed journal article, and a more recent UT news article quotes the first author Finkelstein as saying 13.1 G lt-yr. I have argued this in the talk pages, and announced that I plan to revert the 30 to 13.1 in a day or two, which has now passed.
The problem is, this is a matter of what is "standard usage", as, both 13.1 and 30, and others, are possible subtly different numbers, eg. from the IPAC NED calculator (which goes back to Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial at UCLA). I claim that, while the 30 number might be mentioned informally among astronomers, the 13.1 is the standard observed distance that should be quoted, rather than something unobservable beyond the current horizon.
I am sensitized to the issue because two or three years ago I saw that a 7-year-old absurdity in a Wikipedia article (that the Van Allan Belts were caused by volcanoes...) had been referenced verbatim by almost 10,000 external articles and web sites, creating thousands of derived "reliable sources" to the veracity of that "false fact". This is not quite as outrageous as that, but the 30 number has been on the front page now for a week or so, and I am afraid we will have it as the most distant galaxy forever. (Richard Ellis showed several at distances beyond 13.1 in a public lecture at Caltech two weeks ago, but what lay person would notice 13.4, even when it comes out in a refereed journal article, when that's less than half 30?)
Not being prepared to do a usage survey of astronomical literature to back up my claim, I am looking for suggestions, or support on the talk page. I suppose most of the other editors have no professional experience in the field. Thanks Wwheaton ( talk) 09:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure this has been discussed before. Would it be possible to maintain (under lock preferably) a series of various astronomical constants. These would be to some agreed precision. They would need to be used by more than (say) five articles.
For example, earth's mass is User:Student7/earth's mass.
For this case, I put {{User:Student7/earth's mass}}.
I realize that there may be several methods of expressing mass. This would have to be allowed for in the named "constant." "earth's masskg."
These would have to be listed in an article so that readers and well as editors could see them.
The topic arose when an editor found a small discrepancy between articles about earth's mass, but it could have occurred anyplace. Student7 ( talk) 21:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed that Lorenzo Iorio has been recreated again, this time by 45 Wuz ( talk · contribs), who has also created Emilio Elizalde and Astrodicticum Simplex. None appear to be notable, and both biographies look like they fail WP:PROF to me. Iorio's article has been deleted twice before ( first AfD, second AfD), and it doesn't look like anything has changed since then. Those nominations were plagued by multiple single-person accounts, which I suspect were operated as sockpuppets.
I'm unwilling to open this particular can of worms by starting another deletion request, but could someone else take a look and decide if these articles should go to AfD? Modest Genius talk 20:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't see third party, independent sources sufficient to establish notability, though there is a case to be made that they do; improvements to the article replacing the long list of references with useful content could help there. He's had several press articles about his research (which tends to happen with fringe general relativity theorists), but none of the cited sources appear to be about him. It's not for Wikipedia editors to judge his reputability based upon his coauthors: if a reliable source doesn't draw the connection, it's synthesis. —Alex ( ASHill | talk | contribs) 17:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
My comments on the physics wikiproject:
"Lorenzo Iorio is a big name in the field he works in. He is notable enough for inclusion. The article summarizes his work in one sentence, a lot more can be written about this. Or does deserving an article about you require you to be a controversial figure like Luboš Motl or a well known Wikipedian like our very own William Connolley? Does Lorenzo Iorio need to take a time out from his physics work, start a blog and make controversial comments about some political topic or does he need to become a Wikipedian and make some friends here and let them write a great biography about him?"
So, I think a problem is that we don't apply the rules consistently, requiring a very high bar for people who are not well known outside of the academic field they work in, while having a very low bar for people who are well known on the blogosphere or who are well known Wikipedians. Count Iblis ( talk) 15:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I've made some improvements to
Emilio Elizalde. There is not doubt in my mind as to his notability.
Stigmatella aurantiaca (
talk) 22:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (astronomical objects)/Archive 1#Problems, relating to the proposed addition of exception clause to NCASTRO. Opinions are needed. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 16:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Considering that the Great Comet of 1680 ( Kirch's Comet) was the first comet discovered by a telescope, and the first comet to have its orbit calculated, shouldn't it rate higher than "low" importance?
-- 70.24.244.51 ( talk) 08:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Just to let people know, Perseus (constellation) is at FAC again ( WP:Featured article candidates/Perseus (constellation)/archive2), after undergoing some revisions to the Chinese mythology section and a copyedit that were requested at the last FAC. Any input is appreciated. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 18:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi folks, after much much work done by Careless Torque I've upgraded the Seyfert galaxy article to B-class so I thought I'd let you know. Please have a look at it and do tell me if you disagree with my judgment. Regards. Gaba (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, I've been editing astronomical spectroscopy for the better part of the last three months as part of my final year physics project. I have already spoken to Modest Genius and he has given me some great feedback on further ways to improve the article to GA-status, but I was wondering if it made sense to upgrade it to a lower level such as B-class in the meantime. Thoughts (and further suggestions for improvement of the article) are always appreciated. Cheers, Primefac ( talk) 14:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Triangulum recently promoted. Tucana could do with some pre-FAC feedback if anyone has time.... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 03:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Specifically Aabrucadubraa ( talk · contribs), an advocate of Ruggero Santilli, is accusing us / a bunch of people from censoring Santilli, yadda yadda yadda. Some help on the Talk:Ruggero Santilli would also be appreciated. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)