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 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
I put this list right here because for me this list has many issues:
For me this list is fascinating. One simple reader be extremely fascinated to look for it. However, when I saw it, it was a very poor list, with no references and poor details. For astronomers they will simply laugh at the list since galaxies don't have boundaries. Besides stars a huge dark matter halo is considered to be part of the galaxy. Not to mention that the Milky Way has a million light year dark matter halo. Plus, there are very few galaxies. To be honest I was planning to create the article and I was almost finished with my survey of BCGs of Abell clusters and now found 260 galaxies bigger than one million light years until Asyulus created this article with its current condition, with just 10 galaxies. And I was surprised that IC 1101 is at the top at 6 Mly. To be honest the largest I've found in the 260 I've surveyed is in Camelopardalis and is 15 Mly across. So I think this list must be expanded. More galaxies must be added, with reliable refs. Plus, let's put more precise definitions of the boundary of the galaxy. I need extra help. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 03:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Anyone seen this? No, that's not an artist's simulation, that thing is a directly visualized protoplanetary disk!!! But we don't have an article on HL Tau - we have one on HL Tau 76, but I assume this isn't a white dwarf they're talking about! I've never started a star article, so it would be faster if someone here would do that. Also ALMA should be updated to explain the high-resolution mechanism they're calibrating (which I assume is something after the 2013 developments mentioned in the article?). I think this would make a great In The News because it really demonstrates something brand new in astronomy - though I admit, the politics of that process is more than daunting. Wnt ( talk) 19:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Three new lists of astronomical objects are created by an obviously well-intended user. Those are for nebulae, galaxies and planets. However, those lists have no references. Plus, so many wrong info are within it. I don't think that is right for those lists, especially to Wikipedia. I think all of the orders of objects on the list are original research.
But I think it is also my fault, since I created the largests for black holes and cosmic structures, which may "inspired" him. Anyway, I know you guys know this so much. Please add refs to those lists. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 22:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
But I think it would be useless even if I reminded him. I've already messaged him a lot in his talk and he's still unresponsive. I think it must be to the point that he will mention it greatly. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 11:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)w
Here's another GTRC. It's on Gliese 876. GamerPro64 22:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
User:JonathanD has been posting huge textwalls of what looks like original research on Talk:Magnetospheric_eternally_collapsing_object, and adding a lot of OR content, linking MECOs to other topics. A little assistance would be appreciated. - Parejkoj ( talk)
Here's another GTRC. It's on Gliese 876. GamerPro64 22:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
User:JonathanD has been posting huge textwalls of what looks like original research on Talk:Magnetospheric_eternally_collapsing_object, and adding a lot of OR content, linking MECOs to other topics. A little assistance would be appreciated. - Parejkoj ( talk)
I think the List of largest known galaxies be a section of List of galaxies since it is extremely inaccurate and has no precise definition. For instance radio lobes are part of galaxies since the ejected matter came from the galaxy with some ranging to 16 Mly. Also propose List of largest known nebulae merge to List of nebulae. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 00:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
FYI, there's a discussion at WT:PHYSICS#Featured error? concerning the accuracy of the image and whether it should be nominated for deletion -- 67.70.35.44 ( talk) 06:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Now I just don't get how Markarian 177 was nominated for deletion by the fact that it was a big news this week. Here's a link:
This is the first evidence of an SMBH outside a galaxy. It could provide the first evidence of recoil of gravitational waves. And it will be a sight for Hubble next year. So please tell me, why an object in worldwide news is being nominated for deletion? That is very foolish.
I amend to lift the deletion and since I have no more time, I also want for other greater experts to improve the article. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 21:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, I have made a posting to the talkpage of WikiProject Moon, but have failed to get any responses (the project seems rather stagnant). As this WikiProject is similar in scope, but appears to be far more active, I was hoping that some people could pop over and comment on the issue I have raised. The discussion pertains to the use of doctored images in lunar sample articles, and is located at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Moon#Use of fake images in lunar sample articles. Thanks for your time and consideration. ColonialGrid ( talk) 13:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
FYI, Yorkernews ( talk · contribs) has been inserting links to what seems to be his own blogspot (yorkerpress.blogspot) into an astronomy article multiple times. This might need tracking. -- 67.70.35.44 ( talk) 21:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I noticed this "Nature makes all articles free to view" which allows those that are subscribed to give a read-only PDF to people who are not subscribed. This should be helpful with the paywalled Nature papers that articles use for references, as the free-access PDF can be used as the URL link -- 67.70.35.44 ( talk) 14:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
There has been a discussion at Talk:Earth about whether or not to use the definite article when talking about planet Earth. That discussion has seen remarkably little input from people listed in this WikiProject. Anyone interested in chiming in? -- JorisvS ( talk) 12:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, this is to let you know that we've launched WikiProject Wikidata for research in order to stimulate a closer interaction between Wikidata and research, both on a technical and a community level. As a first activity, we are drafting a research proposal on the matter (cf. blog post). Your thoughts on and contributions to that would be most welcome! Thanks, -- Daniel Mietchen ( talk) 02:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I think List of largest known galaxies should disappear. It's far to hard to properly curate, contains quite a bit of incorrect information with no references, and is poorly defined. Comments welcome. - Parejkoj ( talk) 00:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering if I could get some comments on the Nibiru article and the section dealing with Nancy Lieder putting down her 18 month old puppy. -- Kheider ( talk) 21:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
The List of most massive black holes is what I'm working right now. But it's very small, and has few entries. Of all the 200,000 quasars known, plus some other giant galaxies, only those are in the list. The majority of black holes above 1 billion M☉ is in quasars. For instance, a hoax about a 73 billion M☉ in a very luminous quasar in the far universe.
What should I do with the list? Can it be expanded, or just state it's incomplete? SkyFlubbler ( talk) 09:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I've been thinking... Sirius B is an individual star. It should have its own article. In fact, I've created it ( Sirius_B), but made it redirect to Sirius#Sirius_B, so don't worry. The idea is to cut all the information about Sirius B from the main Sirius article and paste it there and add more information as well. After all, the main article is about the brightest star, and it should remain this way
Here is a link to the sirius B article with no redirect: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sirius_B&redirect=no
Tetra quark ( talk) 18:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Is there a list of all the ~35,700 pages
WikiProject Astronomy cleanup listing looks at? Or a unique list of articles in Category:Astronomy? Using {{
Category tree all}}
is an endless task. Thanks! ~
Tom.Reding (
talk|
contribs|
dgaf) 23:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
{{
cmn|3|...}}
, but I'm not sure if that's worth doing for anyone that wants to copy the list directly from the page. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk|
contribs|
dgaf) 04:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)The Infobox galaxy template has been that bright green (#6C0) for quite a long time. In my opinion, that color is a bad choice because is not so astronomy-related. Light purple (#c9c) would be better. I had changed it to that color a few days ago and now StringTheory11 reverted my edit claiming that it is the same color as the nebula templates. I suggested to switch the colors. The nebula templates could be green because 1)they are viewed less times and 2)some nebulae have green in it (crab nebula, pillars of creation etc), so it would match.
I know this isn't a big deal but tell me what you think. Tetra quark ( talk) 01:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Recently, sentences containing terms such as "Earth mass", "Jupiter mass", "Solar mass" etc have been rewritten with symbols in many astronomy articles. There has been some discussion at Talk:Exoplanet#Mixed use of numerical suffixes. Since this affects more than just the Exoplanet article, I think it would be better to have the discussion here. These replacements were often done without regard to context, or the flow of a sentence or sufficent explanation to the reader of what the symbols meant. Also, ME would be a better match with MJ than the M⊕ that is used in the recent replacements. Astredita ( talk) 13:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I feel like I should post this here, lest it gets overlooked.
There's no point in discussing "should we make replacements without regard to context?"; the answer is obvious and not up for discussion. We should be discussing that context with examples:
This is assuming the symbols have been defined somewhere earlier in the text, of course. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk| contribs| dgaf) 13:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I noticed something about the List of largest known stars. First, recent edits done by Asyulus has produced some incorrect figures in the list. Example is VV Cephei A. The list states it as 1,475, although just to be honest when I checked the references I don't even saw that number. Another one is PZ Cassiopeiae, listed at 1,565, although like the former, no figure of 1,565 appeared in the references.
I come here to discuss. It's not really valid to get the middle point of stars' sizes if not stated in references. You cannot put 1,500 when the references say 1,000 to 2,000. References are very valid, we must not make our own views. I think more stars in the list are given the wrong sizes by Asyulus. Just to be honest, when I checked Asyulus on Google I've found out that he's a YouTube uploader of "Star Size Comparisons" Maybe he used Wikipedia in order to get his own benefit. Please judge me if I'm wrong, but the list has gone well worse since his edit. I now call on to people working on to that list to reimprove it.
Oh, next issue. The true list of largest stars, which is the top list, goes down to R Leporis at 500 R. But the top itself says "A survey of the Magellanic clouds...44 of them are larger than the 700 R...". Now why the list extends to 500 R when the 44 are not listed? The top itself says "...700 R cutoff point at this table". Now why the cutoff point is 500? I suggest to move the cutoff point back to 700 R since we don't list the 44 Magellanic cloud RSGs well.
Next, the comparison list is not aligned with the actual list, making it look narrower and more confusing for me. (Sorry, this issue is not as heavy as the formers, please comment lightly) What do you think, can we still separate it or join it? There's a script "The following...of comparison", anyway.
Comments please. If my comments are wrong, please take it lightly. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 13:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Wait! This is urgent! Somehow Tetra quark was reverting again and again my edit in the list. I created that edit last few months ago and I was scolded. This is about adding some stars in the comparison list. Those stars are simply too small that they shouldn't be on the list. Plus, it dominates the main list. But somehow Tetra quark says it should be in there and in fact it needs more he says. I guess it was just a misinterpretation by Tetra quark.
Oh, I really need to move the cutoff point to 700 R. There are lots of stars beyond 500 R than those in the list. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 22:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I noticed though, the usage of galactic coordinates is fairly common, yet I've never seen any template infoboxes that puts the galactic coordinates of objects. As for me, galactic coordinates are also easy to read. Also, galactic coordinates can also be formatted to epoch J2000. Comments? SkyFlubbler ( talk) 10:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Restatement to what I've said: Why are galactic coordinates not included in astronomical infoboxes, like for stars, galaxies, nebulae, etc. Professional astronomy uses galactic coordinates, even SIMBAD and NED themselves. Does Wikipedia don't allow such "infamous" system even though it has been used by professionals?
Plus, instead of having a list of astronomical objects by galactic coordinate system, why not include it to all infoboxes, so people can see it in the infoboxes. Comment please! SkyFlubbler ( talk) 11:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
galactic coordinate system seems a bid odd, it doesn't have examples of locations using galactic coordinates. I would think a short list of examples of prominent night sky features should be given with galactic and equatorial coordinates. -- 67.70.35.44 ( talk) 05:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Somehow I've just stood up at the article of IC 434 and the first sentence says: "The Flame Nebula is a bright emission nebula..."
What's going on? I think the real "Flame Nebula" must be NGC 2024. Not only it does look more like a flame, but more sources say it was the Flame Nebula. So where did IC 434's distinction as "Flame Nebula" came from? SkyFlubbler ( talk) 13:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
As this is badly named, I've also nominated it for renaming, see template talk:infobox cluster -- 67.70.35.44 ( talk) 05:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello all. Now that WP:Featured articles has seen its first decade, we are working through our oldest FAs to bring them up to modern standards. Two WP:AST articles from 2006— Enceladus and Crab Nebula—need a bit of attention. They are really in quite excellent shape considering their age, but both articles have acquired some uncited statements and external linkcruft over the years, and gone a bit outdated, as their main authors are no longer active. Hoping that I can get some subject matter experts to tidy them up and bring them up to date. I have watchlisted both articles and will help however I can. Thank you! Maralia ( talk) 05:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa ( talk) 21:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, guys. Somehow a well-intended user has created a new project that is related to ours, the Cosmology WikiProject. There are only three members in it, so anyone in here is invited to join. This project needs discussion, improvement, and members.
And, I think it must be a branch of ours, like the WikiProject:Astronomical Objects. Do it on its talk. SkyFlubbler ( talk with me :-D) 20:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Whilst clearing the unassessed articles for this project I came across a lot of subpages for the List of minor planets. Almost all of these subpages (each containing 100 minor planets) are duplicated in the larger 1000-planet lists. Should these subpages be deleted as duplicates? Primefac ( talk) 05:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
People here may be interested in three lists I have just sent to AfD: List of stellar angular diameters, List of spiral galaxies, and List of unconfirmed exoplanets. Rationales can be found on the AfD pages. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 00:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
List of Solar System objects by size currently includes most of the uncertainties of the radii of the best-known objects, but notably lacking are those of Earth and the Moon, also from the infoboxes in their articles. More often, the uncertainties in those objects' densities and especially mass are missing.
Similarly, the uncertainty in the semi-major axes of those objects is normally missing. I have already found that the Moon's is known to near-millimeter precision and increasing at 3.8 cm/year, but strangely I have so far failed to dig up a more precise value of its semi-major axis than the one listed in its infobox. Moreover, the Moon's semi-major axis listed in orbit of the Moon is quite different from the one in its infobox, which means at least one of them is dead wrong.
Does anyone know of one or more sources that list these so that these can be added? -- JorisvS ( talk) 12:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Concerning Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 4, 2015, I've got a quick language question: if a star is "one of the strongest sources of ultraviolet radiation in the night sky", will a significant number of readers think that "strongest" means it puts out more UV than than other stars, not that its visibility from Earth in the UV spectrum is stronger? - Dank ( push to talk) 23:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I am an amateur astronomer trying to do a simple thing: determine the distance and magnitude of stars.
The problem is: the figures for distance (LY) and magnitude (VIS) on the Wiki tables for constellations often, even for prominent visible stars, differ with the figures for same on the wiki links for the individual stars.
For example Jim Kaler publishes the distance to Beta Herculis as 148 light years, which agrees with the 'list of stars' distances published under the constellation maps in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stars_in_Hercules
However, when we click on the Wiki link for individual stars in the list, e.g.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Herculis
The page for the individual star reports a significantly different distance to the star (139 on 'star' page versus 148 on 'list of stars' page).
This is not an isolated example. I could cite dozens of cases where there is conflicting Wiki data.
Which distance is correct?
Is there a source that has the latest most accurate distances to stars? (e.g. Hubble parallax)
Thank you for your assistance.
Mark 23.29.196.252 ( talk) 06:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
BAYER | HIP | HD | W_Star | W_List | HYG LY | Diff | % Diff |
β Her | 80816 | 148856 | 139 | 148 | 139.2 | 8.8 | 6% |
ζ Her | 81693 | 150680 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 0 | 0% |
δ Her | 84379 | 156164 | 75.1 | 78 | 75.1 | 2.9 | 4% |
π Her | 84380 | 156283 | 377 | 367 | 376.7 | -9.7 | -3% |
α1 Her | 84345 | 156014 | 360 | 382 | bad data | ||
μ Her | 86974 | 161797 | 27.1 | 27 | bad data | ||
η Her | 81833 | 150997 | 112 | 112 | 108.7 | 3.3 | 3% |
ξ Her | 87933 | 163993 | 160 | 135 | 136.8 | -1.8 | -1% |
γ Her | 80170 | 147547 | 193 | 195 | 192.7 | 2.3 | 1% |
ι Her | 86414 | 160762 | 455 | 495 | 444.4 | 50.6 | 11% |
ο Her | 88794 | 166014 | 338 | 347 | 338 | 9 | 3% |
Can we put a link to the source of the distance data? And, the date? And the degree of scientific accuracy? (e.g. +/- %)
Thank you to whoever cleaned up my table.
Iamtoliman ( talk) 19:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The first thing we learned in Physics was every scientific measurement must come with a +/- range of its accuracy.
The second thing we learned was when you add two estimated figures, you must combine the +/- range of each estimate.
So 10 +/- 2 PLUS 3 +/- 4 EQUALS 13 +/- 6
The masses out there [awful pun] will not appreciate this nicety, but the boffins certainly will, along with any serious student actually trying to use the data, not just admire it like candy in a window.
23.29.196.252 ( talk) 02:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Full disclosure: I was a professional statistician by trade. Hence, squinting at data comes natural to me. But concerning the errors, "IF" means "(I) have not the (F)aintest idea". Iamtoliman ( talk) 13:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
As a general point to everyone here: distances need to be cited to reliable sources. At present the best source for most nearby stars is the 2007 re-reduction of the Hipparcos data. The catalogue is available online for free, as is the paper which describes it. The catalogue actually lists parallax rather than distance, but handily the star infobox accepts this as input and will automatically calculate the equivalent distance. I also encourage editors to include the uncertainty, which is also available in the catalogue and supported by the infobox. These data will of course change in future as research advances, particularly when the Gaia catalogue is published. Modest Genius talk 22:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
This image is a nice way to compare the sizes of natural satellites to each other and to the terrestrial planets, but some things are wrong. First, Pluto is in there. Secondly, Mars is too small relative to Ganymede, though roughly right relative to Earth. Is there someone who'd like to fix this? -- JorisvS ( talk) 17:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
To answer the size question - if Earth were to scale with everything else in this picture, Io would only be one pixel wide (and 3/4 of the bodies sub-pixel size). Therefore, either Earth becomes a larger-than-the-frame segment (like the Sun in most Planet pictures) or it gets nixed altogether. Best option is probably scaling everything relative to Nereid or similar-sized body. Primefac ( talk) 21:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully this meets the majority of the above comments. Everything is lined up, Pluto has been shifted, Rhea/Oberan switched, and the top row is sized properly. Primefac ( talk) 22:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm thinking of putting this image work of art up at each satellite's page, and maybe some of the planets' pages, as long as:
Decreasing in size (for the lazy) (not struck = missing some kind of size-comparison):
Anyone object/want to help? ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ dgaf) 14:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
If anyone can improve the astronomical content of Savilian Professor of Astronomy, then please comment at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Savilian Professor of Astronomy/archive1. Thanks, Bencherlite Talk 07:36, 12 January 2015 (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 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
I put this list right here because for me this list has many issues:
For me this list is fascinating. One simple reader be extremely fascinated to look for it. However, when I saw it, it was a very poor list, with no references and poor details. For astronomers they will simply laugh at the list since galaxies don't have boundaries. Besides stars a huge dark matter halo is considered to be part of the galaxy. Not to mention that the Milky Way has a million light year dark matter halo. Plus, there are very few galaxies. To be honest I was planning to create the article and I was almost finished with my survey of BCGs of Abell clusters and now found 260 galaxies bigger than one million light years until Asyulus created this article with its current condition, with just 10 galaxies. And I was surprised that IC 1101 is at the top at 6 Mly. To be honest the largest I've found in the 260 I've surveyed is in Camelopardalis and is 15 Mly across. So I think this list must be expanded. More galaxies must be added, with reliable refs. Plus, let's put more precise definitions of the boundary of the galaxy. I need extra help. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 03:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Anyone seen this? No, that's not an artist's simulation, that thing is a directly visualized protoplanetary disk!!! But we don't have an article on HL Tau - we have one on HL Tau 76, but I assume this isn't a white dwarf they're talking about! I've never started a star article, so it would be faster if someone here would do that. Also ALMA should be updated to explain the high-resolution mechanism they're calibrating (which I assume is something after the 2013 developments mentioned in the article?). I think this would make a great In The News because it really demonstrates something brand new in astronomy - though I admit, the politics of that process is more than daunting. Wnt ( talk) 19:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Three new lists of astronomical objects are created by an obviously well-intended user. Those are for nebulae, galaxies and planets. However, those lists have no references. Plus, so many wrong info are within it. I don't think that is right for those lists, especially to Wikipedia. I think all of the orders of objects on the list are original research.
But I think it is also my fault, since I created the largests for black holes and cosmic structures, which may "inspired" him. Anyway, I know you guys know this so much. Please add refs to those lists. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 22:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
But I think it would be useless even if I reminded him. I've already messaged him a lot in his talk and he's still unresponsive. I think it must be to the point that he will mention it greatly. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 11:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)w
Here's another GTRC. It's on Gliese 876. GamerPro64 22:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
User:JonathanD has been posting huge textwalls of what looks like original research on Talk:Magnetospheric_eternally_collapsing_object, and adding a lot of OR content, linking MECOs to other topics. A little assistance would be appreciated. - Parejkoj ( talk)
Here's another GTRC. It's on Gliese 876. GamerPro64 22:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
User:JonathanD has been posting huge textwalls of what looks like original research on Talk:Magnetospheric_eternally_collapsing_object, and adding a lot of OR content, linking MECOs to other topics. A little assistance would be appreciated. - Parejkoj ( talk)
I think the List of largest known galaxies be a section of List of galaxies since it is extremely inaccurate and has no precise definition. For instance radio lobes are part of galaxies since the ejected matter came from the galaxy with some ranging to 16 Mly. Also propose List of largest known nebulae merge to List of nebulae. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 00:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
FYI, there's a discussion at WT:PHYSICS#Featured error? concerning the accuracy of the image and whether it should be nominated for deletion -- 67.70.35.44 ( talk) 06:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Now I just don't get how Markarian 177 was nominated for deletion by the fact that it was a big news this week. Here's a link:
This is the first evidence of an SMBH outside a galaxy. It could provide the first evidence of recoil of gravitational waves. And it will be a sight for Hubble next year. So please tell me, why an object in worldwide news is being nominated for deletion? That is very foolish.
I amend to lift the deletion and since I have no more time, I also want for other greater experts to improve the article. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 21:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, I have made a posting to the talkpage of WikiProject Moon, but have failed to get any responses (the project seems rather stagnant). As this WikiProject is similar in scope, but appears to be far more active, I was hoping that some people could pop over and comment on the issue I have raised. The discussion pertains to the use of doctored images in lunar sample articles, and is located at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Moon#Use of fake images in lunar sample articles. Thanks for your time and consideration. ColonialGrid ( talk) 13:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
FYI, Yorkernews ( talk · contribs) has been inserting links to what seems to be his own blogspot (yorkerpress.blogspot) into an astronomy article multiple times. This might need tracking. -- 67.70.35.44 ( talk) 21:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I noticed this "Nature makes all articles free to view" which allows those that are subscribed to give a read-only PDF to people who are not subscribed. This should be helpful with the paywalled Nature papers that articles use for references, as the free-access PDF can be used as the URL link -- 67.70.35.44 ( talk) 14:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
There has been a discussion at Talk:Earth about whether or not to use the definite article when talking about planet Earth. That discussion has seen remarkably little input from people listed in this WikiProject. Anyone interested in chiming in? -- JorisvS ( talk) 12:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, this is to let you know that we've launched WikiProject Wikidata for research in order to stimulate a closer interaction between Wikidata and research, both on a technical and a community level. As a first activity, we are drafting a research proposal on the matter (cf. blog post). Your thoughts on and contributions to that would be most welcome! Thanks, -- Daniel Mietchen ( talk) 02:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I think List of largest known galaxies should disappear. It's far to hard to properly curate, contains quite a bit of incorrect information with no references, and is poorly defined. Comments welcome. - Parejkoj ( talk) 00:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering if I could get some comments on the Nibiru article and the section dealing with Nancy Lieder putting down her 18 month old puppy. -- Kheider ( talk) 21:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
The List of most massive black holes is what I'm working right now. But it's very small, and has few entries. Of all the 200,000 quasars known, plus some other giant galaxies, only those are in the list. The majority of black holes above 1 billion M☉ is in quasars. For instance, a hoax about a 73 billion M☉ in a very luminous quasar in the far universe.
What should I do with the list? Can it be expanded, or just state it's incomplete? SkyFlubbler ( talk) 09:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I've been thinking... Sirius B is an individual star. It should have its own article. In fact, I've created it ( Sirius_B), but made it redirect to Sirius#Sirius_B, so don't worry. The idea is to cut all the information about Sirius B from the main Sirius article and paste it there and add more information as well. After all, the main article is about the brightest star, and it should remain this way
Here is a link to the sirius B article with no redirect: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sirius_B&redirect=no
Tetra quark ( talk) 18:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Is there a list of all the ~35,700 pages
WikiProject Astronomy cleanup listing looks at? Or a unique list of articles in Category:Astronomy? Using {{
Category tree all}}
is an endless task. Thanks! ~
Tom.Reding (
talk|
contribs|
dgaf) 23:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
{{
cmn|3|...}}
, but I'm not sure if that's worth doing for anyone that wants to copy the list directly from the page. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk|
contribs|
dgaf) 04:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)The Infobox galaxy template has been that bright green (#6C0) for quite a long time. In my opinion, that color is a bad choice because is not so astronomy-related. Light purple (#c9c) would be better. I had changed it to that color a few days ago and now StringTheory11 reverted my edit claiming that it is the same color as the nebula templates. I suggested to switch the colors. The nebula templates could be green because 1)they are viewed less times and 2)some nebulae have green in it (crab nebula, pillars of creation etc), so it would match.
I know this isn't a big deal but tell me what you think. Tetra quark ( talk) 01:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Recently, sentences containing terms such as "Earth mass", "Jupiter mass", "Solar mass" etc have been rewritten with symbols in many astronomy articles. There has been some discussion at Talk:Exoplanet#Mixed use of numerical suffixes. Since this affects more than just the Exoplanet article, I think it would be better to have the discussion here. These replacements were often done without regard to context, or the flow of a sentence or sufficent explanation to the reader of what the symbols meant. Also, ME would be a better match with MJ than the M⊕ that is used in the recent replacements. Astredita ( talk) 13:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I feel like I should post this here, lest it gets overlooked.
There's no point in discussing "should we make replacements without regard to context?"; the answer is obvious and not up for discussion. We should be discussing that context with examples:
This is assuming the symbols have been defined somewhere earlier in the text, of course. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk| contribs| dgaf) 13:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I noticed something about the List of largest known stars. First, recent edits done by Asyulus has produced some incorrect figures in the list. Example is VV Cephei A. The list states it as 1,475, although just to be honest when I checked the references I don't even saw that number. Another one is PZ Cassiopeiae, listed at 1,565, although like the former, no figure of 1,565 appeared in the references.
I come here to discuss. It's not really valid to get the middle point of stars' sizes if not stated in references. You cannot put 1,500 when the references say 1,000 to 2,000. References are very valid, we must not make our own views. I think more stars in the list are given the wrong sizes by Asyulus. Just to be honest, when I checked Asyulus on Google I've found out that he's a YouTube uploader of "Star Size Comparisons" Maybe he used Wikipedia in order to get his own benefit. Please judge me if I'm wrong, but the list has gone well worse since his edit. I now call on to people working on to that list to reimprove it.
Oh, next issue. The true list of largest stars, which is the top list, goes down to R Leporis at 500 R. But the top itself says "A survey of the Magellanic clouds...44 of them are larger than the 700 R...". Now why the list extends to 500 R when the 44 are not listed? The top itself says "...700 R cutoff point at this table". Now why the cutoff point is 500? I suggest to move the cutoff point back to 700 R since we don't list the 44 Magellanic cloud RSGs well.
Next, the comparison list is not aligned with the actual list, making it look narrower and more confusing for me. (Sorry, this issue is not as heavy as the formers, please comment lightly) What do you think, can we still separate it or join it? There's a script "The following...of comparison", anyway.
Comments please. If my comments are wrong, please take it lightly. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 13:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Wait! This is urgent! Somehow Tetra quark was reverting again and again my edit in the list. I created that edit last few months ago and I was scolded. This is about adding some stars in the comparison list. Those stars are simply too small that they shouldn't be on the list. Plus, it dominates the main list. But somehow Tetra quark says it should be in there and in fact it needs more he says. I guess it was just a misinterpretation by Tetra quark.
Oh, I really need to move the cutoff point to 700 R. There are lots of stars beyond 500 R than those in the list. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 22:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I noticed though, the usage of galactic coordinates is fairly common, yet I've never seen any template infoboxes that puts the galactic coordinates of objects. As for me, galactic coordinates are also easy to read. Also, galactic coordinates can also be formatted to epoch J2000. Comments? SkyFlubbler ( talk) 10:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Restatement to what I've said: Why are galactic coordinates not included in astronomical infoboxes, like for stars, galaxies, nebulae, etc. Professional astronomy uses galactic coordinates, even SIMBAD and NED themselves. Does Wikipedia don't allow such "infamous" system even though it has been used by professionals?
Plus, instead of having a list of astronomical objects by galactic coordinate system, why not include it to all infoboxes, so people can see it in the infoboxes. Comment please! SkyFlubbler ( talk) 11:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
galactic coordinate system seems a bid odd, it doesn't have examples of locations using galactic coordinates. I would think a short list of examples of prominent night sky features should be given with galactic and equatorial coordinates. -- 67.70.35.44 ( talk) 05:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Somehow I've just stood up at the article of IC 434 and the first sentence says: "The Flame Nebula is a bright emission nebula..."
What's going on? I think the real "Flame Nebula" must be NGC 2024. Not only it does look more like a flame, but more sources say it was the Flame Nebula. So where did IC 434's distinction as "Flame Nebula" came from? SkyFlubbler ( talk) 13:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
As this is badly named, I've also nominated it for renaming, see template talk:infobox cluster -- 67.70.35.44 ( talk) 05:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello all. Now that WP:Featured articles has seen its first decade, we are working through our oldest FAs to bring them up to modern standards. Two WP:AST articles from 2006— Enceladus and Crab Nebula—need a bit of attention. They are really in quite excellent shape considering their age, but both articles have acquired some uncited statements and external linkcruft over the years, and gone a bit outdated, as their main authors are no longer active. Hoping that I can get some subject matter experts to tidy them up and bring them up to date. I have watchlisted both articles and will help however I can. Thank you! Maralia ( talk) 05:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa ( talk) 21:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, guys. Somehow a well-intended user has created a new project that is related to ours, the Cosmology WikiProject. There are only three members in it, so anyone in here is invited to join. This project needs discussion, improvement, and members.
And, I think it must be a branch of ours, like the WikiProject:Astronomical Objects. Do it on its talk. SkyFlubbler ( talk with me :-D) 20:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Whilst clearing the unassessed articles for this project I came across a lot of subpages for the List of minor planets. Almost all of these subpages (each containing 100 minor planets) are duplicated in the larger 1000-planet lists. Should these subpages be deleted as duplicates? Primefac ( talk) 05:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
People here may be interested in three lists I have just sent to AfD: List of stellar angular diameters, List of spiral galaxies, and List of unconfirmed exoplanets. Rationales can be found on the AfD pages. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 00:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
List of Solar System objects by size currently includes most of the uncertainties of the radii of the best-known objects, but notably lacking are those of Earth and the Moon, also from the infoboxes in their articles. More often, the uncertainties in those objects' densities and especially mass are missing.
Similarly, the uncertainty in the semi-major axes of those objects is normally missing. I have already found that the Moon's is known to near-millimeter precision and increasing at 3.8 cm/year, but strangely I have so far failed to dig up a more precise value of its semi-major axis than the one listed in its infobox. Moreover, the Moon's semi-major axis listed in orbit of the Moon is quite different from the one in its infobox, which means at least one of them is dead wrong.
Does anyone know of one or more sources that list these so that these can be added? -- JorisvS ( talk) 12:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Concerning Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 4, 2015, I've got a quick language question: if a star is "one of the strongest sources of ultraviolet radiation in the night sky", will a significant number of readers think that "strongest" means it puts out more UV than than other stars, not that its visibility from Earth in the UV spectrum is stronger? - Dank ( push to talk) 23:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I am an amateur astronomer trying to do a simple thing: determine the distance and magnitude of stars.
The problem is: the figures for distance (LY) and magnitude (VIS) on the Wiki tables for constellations often, even for prominent visible stars, differ with the figures for same on the wiki links for the individual stars.
For example Jim Kaler publishes the distance to Beta Herculis as 148 light years, which agrees with the 'list of stars' distances published under the constellation maps in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stars_in_Hercules
However, when we click on the Wiki link for individual stars in the list, e.g.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Herculis
The page for the individual star reports a significantly different distance to the star (139 on 'star' page versus 148 on 'list of stars' page).
This is not an isolated example. I could cite dozens of cases where there is conflicting Wiki data.
Which distance is correct?
Is there a source that has the latest most accurate distances to stars? (e.g. Hubble parallax)
Thank you for your assistance.
Mark 23.29.196.252 ( talk) 06:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
BAYER | HIP | HD | W_Star | W_List | HYG LY | Diff | % Diff |
β Her | 80816 | 148856 | 139 | 148 | 139.2 | 8.8 | 6% |
ζ Her | 81693 | 150680 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 0 | 0% |
δ Her | 84379 | 156164 | 75.1 | 78 | 75.1 | 2.9 | 4% |
π Her | 84380 | 156283 | 377 | 367 | 376.7 | -9.7 | -3% |
α1 Her | 84345 | 156014 | 360 | 382 | bad data | ||
μ Her | 86974 | 161797 | 27.1 | 27 | bad data | ||
η Her | 81833 | 150997 | 112 | 112 | 108.7 | 3.3 | 3% |
ξ Her | 87933 | 163993 | 160 | 135 | 136.8 | -1.8 | -1% |
γ Her | 80170 | 147547 | 193 | 195 | 192.7 | 2.3 | 1% |
ι Her | 86414 | 160762 | 455 | 495 | 444.4 | 50.6 | 11% |
ο Her | 88794 | 166014 | 338 | 347 | 338 | 9 | 3% |
Can we put a link to the source of the distance data? And, the date? And the degree of scientific accuracy? (e.g. +/- %)
Thank you to whoever cleaned up my table.
Iamtoliman ( talk) 19:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The first thing we learned in Physics was every scientific measurement must come with a +/- range of its accuracy.
The second thing we learned was when you add two estimated figures, you must combine the +/- range of each estimate.
So 10 +/- 2 PLUS 3 +/- 4 EQUALS 13 +/- 6
The masses out there [awful pun] will not appreciate this nicety, but the boffins certainly will, along with any serious student actually trying to use the data, not just admire it like candy in a window.
23.29.196.252 ( talk) 02:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Full disclosure: I was a professional statistician by trade. Hence, squinting at data comes natural to me. But concerning the errors, "IF" means "(I) have not the (F)aintest idea". Iamtoliman ( talk) 13:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
As a general point to everyone here: distances need to be cited to reliable sources. At present the best source for most nearby stars is the 2007 re-reduction of the Hipparcos data. The catalogue is available online for free, as is the paper which describes it. The catalogue actually lists parallax rather than distance, but handily the star infobox accepts this as input and will automatically calculate the equivalent distance. I also encourage editors to include the uncertainty, which is also available in the catalogue and supported by the infobox. These data will of course change in future as research advances, particularly when the Gaia catalogue is published. Modest Genius talk 22:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
This image is a nice way to compare the sizes of natural satellites to each other and to the terrestrial planets, but some things are wrong. First, Pluto is in there. Secondly, Mars is too small relative to Ganymede, though roughly right relative to Earth. Is there someone who'd like to fix this? -- JorisvS ( talk) 17:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
To answer the size question - if Earth were to scale with everything else in this picture, Io would only be one pixel wide (and 3/4 of the bodies sub-pixel size). Therefore, either Earth becomes a larger-than-the-frame segment (like the Sun in most Planet pictures) or it gets nixed altogether. Best option is probably scaling everything relative to Nereid or similar-sized body. Primefac ( talk) 21:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully this meets the majority of the above comments. Everything is lined up, Pluto has been shifted, Rhea/Oberan switched, and the top row is sized properly. Primefac ( talk) 22:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm thinking of putting this image work of art up at each satellite's page, and maybe some of the planets' pages, as long as:
Decreasing in size (for the lazy) (not struck = missing some kind of size-comparison):
Anyone object/want to help? ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ dgaf) 14:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
If anyone can improve the astronomical content of Savilian Professor of Astronomy, then please comment at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Savilian Professor of Astronomy/archive1. Thanks, Bencherlite Talk 07:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)