![]() | 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
So this question has likely been answered before but I can't find an answer to it right now. I'm considering writing an article on the EAGLE simulation, on which there are some published papers. These are written by the people making the simulations though, so are they considered primary sources, or does the refereeing and publishing process mean they can be used to establish notability? I ask this on a level applicable to all such situations rather than this one in particular. Thanks, Sam Walton ( talk) 19:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
If it makes sense to include results from the EAGLE simulation in a relevant article, like galaxy formation and evolution, there's no need to establish notability (since it's not a separate article), and published papers are certainly fine (and best) for that. —Alex ( ASHill | talk | contribs) 15:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
There was a discussion started at WP Physics regarding some 116 IP edits of unknown accuracy, that could probably use some WP:AST attention. Primefac ( talk) 20:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 25. Nominated so far are Category:Objects named with variable star designations, Category:Flamsteed objects, and Category:Bayer objects, if anyone has opinions on this. I hope they survive, though I cannot really express a reason to keep other than ILIKEIT. — Huntster ( t @ c) 21:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I have just reverted massive changes to Zero-energy universe. I would welcome an alternate point of view at the article talk page. -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 15:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Note:discussion originally placed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 118#Reference Formula Policy for Exoplanets Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 15:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC) Proxima Centauri#References
This reference section has a formula in it, which in most cases would be considered Original Research and purged from the article ASAP. But apparently there are exceptions to the rule/policy. What I don't understand is why Wikipedians continue to allow Wikipedia to look foolish with articles that claim many newly discovered planets are a "twin of earth" when there are simple formulas, just like the one used in the Proxima article, that show the solar constant or Flux (Irradiance/Isolation) of the planet. Article after article with new planets in the "habitable zone" that are actually receiving much more heat than Venus or much less heat than Mars, but since they are very technically in the "habitiable zone," editors over look that and reference article that call it a twin of Earth, or reference articles that call them a twin of Earth.
Planetary equilibrium temperature#Calculation for extrasolar planets
I know some articles are showing the flux received in the planet's stats box but it should be a policy.
It should be standard if the Semi-major axis and the Luminosity (or Radius & Temperature) of the star are known.
f = L/d2
...or...
f = [(R2)(
sbc)(T4)]/d2
σ = 5.670374419...×10−8 W⋅m−2⋅K−4
[1] , ...
Stefan-Boltzmann constant
because
then...
An example in HD 85512 b which shows it receives more heat than Earth, 1366.078/1683.678 = 123%.
Can someone explain how I can start a committee or a policy review or whatever it takes to solve this problem?
So that we don't continue to see these articles that get away with false claims of discovered Earth twins.
Calculating the Flux received by a planet is not problematic. As I've illustrated it can be done with two or three known values.
You want an example of planets that aren't what the are supposed to be,
Gliese 581 c used to have references saying it is a Earth-like,
where as now it's more truthfully saying it's more likely a Super-Venus. An extra solar planet article should certainly never start like
this
There is no reason why the "Planetbox" shouldn't contain the Flux by now,
as other stats boxes (eg.
Kepler-186f) are starting to include them for other exoplanets.
This list of
"Confirmed small exoplanets in habitable zones" is one that can be checked for misleading suggestions.
Kepler-186 f could receive as little as 10% of the heat the Earth receives and the Planet Characteristics portion of the stat box don't add up.
It says 41% while the Equilibrium Temperature is -30°C.
Kepler-438b is another one with contradictory stats,
"announced as being located within the habitable zone of Kepler-438." Where as at every point in its orbit it receives much less heat than Mars.
To me it simply a matter of stating the mathematical facts, rather than only speculations of Astronomers.
A policy that insisted the Flux can be calculated before habitability can be discussed in a article would go a long way to establish truthful rather than overly speculative articles. This is a simple solution to a problem I find distressing.
24.79.36.94 ( talk) 10:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The naming, usage and primary topic of Stargazer is under discussion, see talk:Stargazer (disambiguation) -- 70.51.200.101 ( talk) 06:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I have a post on the WP Solar System talk page regarding Martian craters. I know that project is not as active as this one so I thought I'd garner more opinions. Primefac ( talk) 12:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated Planetary habitability for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKiernan ( talk) 10:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
This topic really confuses me. It first came from M104 when it is stated distanced 28 "megalight-years" away. Personally I oppose adding prefixes on the light year because it sounds crazy. There is no even "megalight" thing. Given that parsec is the standard, it's OK for me. However, is it acceptable to add prefixes on light year (i.e. Kilolight-years, Gigalight-years)? SkyFlubbler ( talk) 02:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I found the statement "An appropriate unit of length for studies of structure of the Galaxy is the parsec (pc), which is defined in terms of the astronomical unit of length (au). The unit known as the light-year is appropriate to popular expositions on astronomy and is sometimes used in scientific papers as an indicator of distance." at [1], which strengthens my feeling that there is no internationally accepted symbol for light year. Dondervogel 2 ( talk) 21:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Why can't we change the {{ convert}} to display "lightyear" instead of "light-year"? Then "megalightyear" wouldn't have that weird dash problem. -- 70.51.200.101 ( talk) 08:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the main source of the problem is a paragraph on the Light year article. It's stated as this:
:"Metric prefixes are occasionally applied to the light-year. Thus one thousand, one million and one billion light-years are sometimes called a "kilolight-year", a "megalight-year" and a "gigalight-year" (abbreviated "kly", "Mly" and "Gly") respectively."
Unfortunately, this paragraph doesn't have any sources or references. Is the statement reliable enough? SkyFlubbler ( talk) 10:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I've just noticed a problem with NGC 3267. That article uses "megalight-years", but when I tried to rewrite as "million light-years" I was unable to, as the problem seems to be embedded in the convert template. Does anyone know how to fix that? Dondervogel 2 ( talk) 18:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I came across the bizarre Category:Objects within 100 Gly of Earth, which would logically include every object in the observable universe. It's an extension of other categories at other distances. There's a discussion going on at CfD on all of them, which would benefit from involvement from those familiar with astronomy. Modest Genius talk 23:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I have noticed that some articles have excellent astronomy diagrams and I thought if I could ask somebody for a diagram depicting pre- and post-encounter orbit of the Earth-grazing meteoroid of 13 October 1990, as was required at its talk page. I agree it would help the article, but I am not able to do it myself. Would this be possible? Thanks very much. -- Jan Kameníček ( talk) 13:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I find this one practically confusing, as to what simplification is correct. What is the standard for LQG? SkyFlubbler ( talk) 00:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
If anyone can help tidy up the article Lyc photon it would be helpful. There are no references at the moment on what could become a very useful article, given the research taking place on Reionization. Richard Nowell ( talk) 12:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Thought I'd share a laugh. We say the following in our article on Mikebrown:
I'm waiting for the audio version. Poor Mike! — kwami ( talk) 18:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Template:Star systems within 20–25 light-years, and several related templates, have been
nominated for deletion. As these templates are within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, you are invited to comment on the discussion at
these templates' entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk) 23:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The meaning and title of the article and pagename " Nova" is under discussion, see talk:Nova -- 65.94.43.89 ( talk) 20:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Magnitude of eclipse#Definition of magnitude. The definition as given takes it for granted that the reader will realize that the geometry is to be done in an imaginary plane of the visible eclipse rather than in 3-dimensional space. -- Thnidu ( talk) 03:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Could someone correct the size of Venus in File:Venus, Earth size comparison.jpg? It is currently as big as Earth. -- JorisvS ( talk) 09:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
An RfC has been commenced at MOSCAPS Request for comment - Capitalise universe.
Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
The {{ Cite arXiv}} template is being updated to be more consistent with other citation templates. This is likely to introduce some red error messages in existing Cite arXiv templates that use unsupported parameters or that should be converted to {{ Cite journal}}. Please see this discussion. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 15:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
FYI, the diameter in the text and infobox conflict. Looks from the article history that some of the data may be for the wrong object. — kwami ( talk) 23:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
FYI, there's a notice at
WT:PHYSICS about changes being implemented at {{
cite arxiv}}
--
65.94.43.89 (
talk) 05:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
A discussion has arisen at IC 1101 on the use of scientific notation for the light-year, e.g. 103 light-years vs 1 kly vs one thousand light-years. The issue is relevant to many other astronomy-related articles. If you have an opinion, please comment on the article talk page. Dondervogel 2 ( talk) 14:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I have brought User:156.61.250.250 to the attention of the Edit Warring Noticeboard for putting the claim that GMT is defined as UT1, or equivalent wording, into articles such as Greenwich Mean Time, Universal Time, and Coordinated Universal Time. If you have a view about this you might want to look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:156.61.250.250 reported by User:Jc3s5h (Result: ). Jc3s5h ( talk) 16:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Could someone check the the relative sizes of File:Eros, Vesta and Ceres size comparison.jpg and improve if necessary? Especially Eros is tricky because it deviates greatly from an ellipsoid and is not photographed from a convenient angle. -- JorisvS ( talk) 11:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I also noticed that Vesta is kind of too large compared to Ceres. Exoplanet Expert ( talk/ contribs)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Exoplanet Expert ( talk • contribs) 12:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
A quick commencement about the figures of the numbers in the article R136a1 shows a lot of errors. First, the temperature:
"The star was described to have a temperature of 56,000 K (55,700 °C; 100,300 °F), more than ten times hotter than the sun."
The Sun has a surface temperature of exactly 5,778 K. Dividing it, 56000/5778 gives ~9.7, which is less than ten times.
Next, the volume:
"R136a1's volume was calculated to be 25,000 suns, or approximately 25,000,000,000 Earths."
The Sun has the volume of approximately 1.41×1018 km3, . A quick scientific calculator gives the volume of R136a1 at 3.366×1022 km3. Dividing it gives 23,874, close but not exactly from 25,000. The Earth has the volume of 1.08321×1012 km3. Dividing it to R136a1's gives 31,074,306,921.1, or more than 31.07 billion; far larger than 25 billion.
If you think I am wrong please comment. No hard feelings. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 01:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Lithopsian@ SkyFlubbler Just fix any errors that you find. I'm sorry for the errors. hi ( talk) 12:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I noticed on the latest astronomy news that they have discovered a void about two billion light years across in the vicinity of the cold spot of the CMB:
http://www.vox.com/2015/4/21/8461329/supervoid-cold-spot
I am not a void expert, I am only expert on stars and galaxies. Can someone update them? And please Wikipedia needs to counter their claims that it is the biggest object in the universe, since the biggest object is more likely the supercluster within the vicinity of the NQ2-NQ4 GRB overdensity and is 10 billion light years across.
Thank you! SkyFlubbler ( talk) 01:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Astronomy people!
So: someone has gone to
a website where you can get a star named after yourself - and for free! and
named a star after themself or someone they know.
I was about to tag this for speedy deletion as a hoax, but this may have been counter-productive. There may well be a star answering its description.
I do note that there is some confusion about whether
Emily (Star) is a star or a planet; it is described as "Distance: 0 LY". 0 RLY? Aside from
this one, the
closest star to us is 4.24 light-years away.
Your thoughts about this? Pete AU aka --
Shirt58 (
talk) 09:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1692 Subbotina were a large list of asteroid articles have been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.43.89 ( talk) 06:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
A number of editors working on reducing the notability backlog (7 years!) are working through these at the moment. If you want to follow them, please see the AfDs at the moment and/or look at Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from February 2012. Alternatively, they all seem to be listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy bottom half of the page. Pinging Tom.Reding, Avicennasis. Boleyn ( talk) 07:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Can I please particularly draw people's attention to this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1702 Kalahari (2nd nomination). Thanks in advance for any opinions, either way, that anyone can offer. Best wishes, Boleyn ( talk) 08:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Many articles in Wiki state that the Andromeda Galaxy is the nearest spiral galaxy. However, apparently the nearer Large Magellanic Cloud is also classified as a spiral. Problem is so many articles state that Andromeda is the nearest spiral. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 05:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated this File:Stellar Spectral Types by NOAO.jpg for deletion as it should be able to be replaced by a freely licensed image. Is anyone here capable of finding or making an image that shows spectra of different spectral type stars? Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 10:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I came across this newly created category (March 2015) and wondered if it passed muster with WikiProject Astronomy folks. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
File:Stellar Spectral Types by NOAO.jpg was tagged as replacable and I have nominated it for deletion rather than making a unilateral decision on the {{ di-replacable fair use}} tag. Since this is a rather complicated issue, some assistance from editors who understand stellar spectra would be appreciated. Please see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 May 4 for the discussion if interested. -- B ( talk) 00:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
This edit caught my attention [2], where the author converts the description of Uranus and Neptune from " gas giants" to " ice giants". I know they were definitely "gas giants" when I was in school, but perhaps things change. Is this "ice giant" nomenclature widely used and accepted now? Dragons flight ( talk) 08:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not even sure it needs its own article ... Lithopsian ( talk) 19:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
In the cite journal templates, there is a display-authors option to limit the number of authors that appear on the page. What is the standard for this? Citation bot seems to stick a limit in at 29, but fills in all the authors names. Some citations have a limit of 1 (manually added?), and then sometimes just one of many authors is included in the tag with "display-authors=etal". I'm tempted to leave it with what citation bot fills in, but is 29 authors a pointless waste of screen space? Lithopsian ( talk) 20:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
|display-authors=6
if I'm the first to enumerate an author listing on the page to 7 and no |display-authors=
exists; otherwise I adopt whichever value of |display-authors=
exists IIF there are 3 or more instances of that value.|display-authors=
parameter was implemented, {{
cite arXiv}} (used to/maybe still does) auto-truncates to 8 because it's only-recently been updated to use the CS1 module, and |vauthors=
turncates to 6, but that might be removed, pending discussion at
Help talk:Citation Style 1#vauthors. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
contribs ⋅
dgaf) 12:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)I've created a discussion at Talk:List of most massive black holes to move it to List of black holes by mass to include a greater range of masses (intermediate and stellar mass) plus more data. Comments will be extremely appreciated at the talk page. Thank you! SkyFlubbler ( talk) 11:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I've recently (since December) been editing this article, and have already trimmed it quite a lot. However, I'm beginning to think that to bring it up to WP's quality standards, it will need basically a complete rewrite. One thing I have been thinking of doing is making this article focus mainly on the OBAFGKM, while moving the extensions such as WR, C, and T to a new article titled "Extensions to the Morgan-Keenan spectral classification", and moving the white dwarf stuff to an article titled "White dwarf classification", or simply moving it to the white dwarf article. Thoughts on the issue? StringTheory11 ( t • c) 04:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I just approved this article from WP:AFC, but have concerns about how it overlaps with Planetary science. Also, it seems a lot like an essay.... Please have a look and merge or nominate for deletion if you think it's appropriate. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:22, 18 May 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
So this question has likely been answered before but I can't find an answer to it right now. I'm considering writing an article on the EAGLE simulation, on which there are some published papers. These are written by the people making the simulations though, so are they considered primary sources, or does the refereeing and publishing process mean they can be used to establish notability? I ask this on a level applicable to all such situations rather than this one in particular. Thanks, Sam Walton ( talk) 19:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
If it makes sense to include results from the EAGLE simulation in a relevant article, like galaxy formation and evolution, there's no need to establish notability (since it's not a separate article), and published papers are certainly fine (and best) for that. —Alex ( ASHill | talk | contribs) 15:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
There was a discussion started at WP Physics regarding some 116 IP edits of unknown accuracy, that could probably use some WP:AST attention. Primefac ( talk) 20:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 25. Nominated so far are Category:Objects named with variable star designations, Category:Flamsteed objects, and Category:Bayer objects, if anyone has opinions on this. I hope they survive, though I cannot really express a reason to keep other than ILIKEIT. — Huntster ( t @ c) 21:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I have just reverted massive changes to Zero-energy universe. I would welcome an alternate point of view at the article talk page. -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 15:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Note:discussion originally placed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 118#Reference Formula Policy for Exoplanets Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 15:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC) Proxima Centauri#References
This reference section has a formula in it, which in most cases would be considered Original Research and purged from the article ASAP. But apparently there are exceptions to the rule/policy. What I don't understand is why Wikipedians continue to allow Wikipedia to look foolish with articles that claim many newly discovered planets are a "twin of earth" when there are simple formulas, just like the one used in the Proxima article, that show the solar constant or Flux (Irradiance/Isolation) of the planet. Article after article with new planets in the "habitable zone" that are actually receiving much more heat than Venus or much less heat than Mars, but since they are very technically in the "habitiable zone," editors over look that and reference article that call it a twin of Earth, or reference articles that call them a twin of Earth.
Planetary equilibrium temperature#Calculation for extrasolar planets
I know some articles are showing the flux received in the planet's stats box but it should be a policy.
It should be standard if the Semi-major axis and the Luminosity (or Radius & Temperature) of the star are known.
f = L/d2
...or...
f = [(R2)(
sbc)(T4)]/d2
σ = 5.670374419...×10−8 W⋅m−2⋅K−4
[1] , ...
Stefan-Boltzmann constant
because
then...
An example in HD 85512 b which shows it receives more heat than Earth, 1366.078/1683.678 = 123%.
Can someone explain how I can start a committee or a policy review or whatever it takes to solve this problem?
So that we don't continue to see these articles that get away with false claims of discovered Earth twins.
Calculating the Flux received by a planet is not problematic. As I've illustrated it can be done with two or three known values.
You want an example of planets that aren't what the are supposed to be,
Gliese 581 c used to have references saying it is a Earth-like,
where as now it's more truthfully saying it's more likely a Super-Venus. An extra solar planet article should certainly never start like
this
There is no reason why the "Planetbox" shouldn't contain the Flux by now,
as other stats boxes (eg.
Kepler-186f) are starting to include them for other exoplanets.
This list of
"Confirmed small exoplanets in habitable zones" is one that can be checked for misleading suggestions.
Kepler-186 f could receive as little as 10% of the heat the Earth receives and the Planet Characteristics portion of the stat box don't add up.
It says 41% while the Equilibrium Temperature is -30°C.
Kepler-438b is another one with contradictory stats,
"announced as being located within the habitable zone of Kepler-438." Where as at every point in its orbit it receives much less heat than Mars.
To me it simply a matter of stating the mathematical facts, rather than only speculations of Astronomers.
A policy that insisted the Flux can be calculated before habitability can be discussed in a article would go a long way to establish truthful rather than overly speculative articles. This is a simple solution to a problem I find distressing.
24.79.36.94 ( talk) 10:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The naming, usage and primary topic of Stargazer is under discussion, see talk:Stargazer (disambiguation) -- 70.51.200.101 ( talk) 06:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I have a post on the WP Solar System talk page regarding Martian craters. I know that project is not as active as this one so I thought I'd garner more opinions. Primefac ( talk) 12:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated Planetary habitability for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKiernan ( talk) 10:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
This topic really confuses me. It first came from M104 when it is stated distanced 28 "megalight-years" away. Personally I oppose adding prefixes on the light year because it sounds crazy. There is no even "megalight" thing. Given that parsec is the standard, it's OK for me. However, is it acceptable to add prefixes on light year (i.e. Kilolight-years, Gigalight-years)? SkyFlubbler ( talk) 02:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I found the statement "An appropriate unit of length for studies of structure of the Galaxy is the parsec (pc), which is defined in terms of the astronomical unit of length (au). The unit known as the light-year is appropriate to popular expositions on astronomy and is sometimes used in scientific papers as an indicator of distance." at [1], which strengthens my feeling that there is no internationally accepted symbol for light year. Dondervogel 2 ( talk) 21:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Why can't we change the {{ convert}} to display "lightyear" instead of "light-year"? Then "megalightyear" wouldn't have that weird dash problem. -- 70.51.200.101 ( talk) 08:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the main source of the problem is a paragraph on the Light year article. It's stated as this:
:"Metric prefixes are occasionally applied to the light-year. Thus one thousand, one million and one billion light-years are sometimes called a "kilolight-year", a "megalight-year" and a "gigalight-year" (abbreviated "kly", "Mly" and "Gly") respectively."
Unfortunately, this paragraph doesn't have any sources or references. Is the statement reliable enough? SkyFlubbler ( talk) 10:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I've just noticed a problem with NGC 3267. That article uses "megalight-years", but when I tried to rewrite as "million light-years" I was unable to, as the problem seems to be embedded in the convert template. Does anyone know how to fix that? Dondervogel 2 ( talk) 18:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I came across the bizarre Category:Objects within 100 Gly of Earth, which would logically include every object in the observable universe. It's an extension of other categories at other distances. There's a discussion going on at CfD on all of them, which would benefit from involvement from those familiar with astronomy. Modest Genius talk 23:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I have noticed that some articles have excellent astronomy diagrams and I thought if I could ask somebody for a diagram depicting pre- and post-encounter orbit of the Earth-grazing meteoroid of 13 October 1990, as was required at its talk page. I agree it would help the article, but I am not able to do it myself. Would this be possible? Thanks very much. -- Jan Kameníček ( talk) 13:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I find this one practically confusing, as to what simplification is correct. What is the standard for LQG? SkyFlubbler ( talk) 00:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
If anyone can help tidy up the article Lyc photon it would be helpful. There are no references at the moment on what could become a very useful article, given the research taking place on Reionization. Richard Nowell ( talk) 12:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Thought I'd share a laugh. We say the following in our article on Mikebrown:
I'm waiting for the audio version. Poor Mike! — kwami ( talk) 18:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Template:Star systems within 20–25 light-years, and several related templates, have been
nominated for deletion. As these templates are within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, you are invited to comment on the discussion at
these templates' entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk) 23:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The meaning and title of the article and pagename " Nova" is under discussion, see talk:Nova -- 65.94.43.89 ( talk) 20:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Magnitude of eclipse#Definition of magnitude. The definition as given takes it for granted that the reader will realize that the geometry is to be done in an imaginary plane of the visible eclipse rather than in 3-dimensional space. -- Thnidu ( talk) 03:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Could someone correct the size of Venus in File:Venus, Earth size comparison.jpg? It is currently as big as Earth. -- JorisvS ( talk) 09:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
An RfC has been commenced at MOSCAPS Request for comment - Capitalise universe.
Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
The {{ Cite arXiv}} template is being updated to be more consistent with other citation templates. This is likely to introduce some red error messages in existing Cite arXiv templates that use unsupported parameters or that should be converted to {{ Cite journal}}. Please see this discussion. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 15:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
FYI, the diameter in the text and infobox conflict. Looks from the article history that some of the data may be for the wrong object. — kwami ( talk) 23:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
FYI, there's a notice at
WT:PHYSICS about changes being implemented at {{
cite arxiv}}
--
65.94.43.89 (
talk) 05:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
A discussion has arisen at IC 1101 on the use of scientific notation for the light-year, e.g. 103 light-years vs 1 kly vs one thousand light-years. The issue is relevant to many other astronomy-related articles. If you have an opinion, please comment on the article talk page. Dondervogel 2 ( talk) 14:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I have brought User:156.61.250.250 to the attention of the Edit Warring Noticeboard for putting the claim that GMT is defined as UT1, or equivalent wording, into articles such as Greenwich Mean Time, Universal Time, and Coordinated Universal Time. If you have a view about this you might want to look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:156.61.250.250 reported by User:Jc3s5h (Result: ). Jc3s5h ( talk) 16:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Could someone check the the relative sizes of File:Eros, Vesta and Ceres size comparison.jpg and improve if necessary? Especially Eros is tricky because it deviates greatly from an ellipsoid and is not photographed from a convenient angle. -- JorisvS ( talk) 11:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I also noticed that Vesta is kind of too large compared to Ceres. Exoplanet Expert ( talk/ contribs)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Exoplanet Expert ( talk • contribs) 12:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
A quick commencement about the figures of the numbers in the article R136a1 shows a lot of errors. First, the temperature:
"The star was described to have a temperature of 56,000 K (55,700 °C; 100,300 °F), more than ten times hotter than the sun."
The Sun has a surface temperature of exactly 5,778 K. Dividing it, 56000/5778 gives ~9.7, which is less than ten times.
Next, the volume:
"R136a1's volume was calculated to be 25,000 suns, or approximately 25,000,000,000 Earths."
The Sun has the volume of approximately 1.41×1018 km3, . A quick scientific calculator gives the volume of R136a1 at 3.366×1022 km3. Dividing it gives 23,874, close but not exactly from 25,000. The Earth has the volume of 1.08321×1012 km3. Dividing it to R136a1's gives 31,074,306,921.1, or more than 31.07 billion; far larger than 25 billion.
If you think I am wrong please comment. No hard feelings. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 01:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Lithopsian@ SkyFlubbler Just fix any errors that you find. I'm sorry for the errors. hi ( talk) 12:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I noticed on the latest astronomy news that they have discovered a void about two billion light years across in the vicinity of the cold spot of the CMB:
http://www.vox.com/2015/4/21/8461329/supervoid-cold-spot
I am not a void expert, I am only expert on stars and galaxies. Can someone update them? And please Wikipedia needs to counter their claims that it is the biggest object in the universe, since the biggest object is more likely the supercluster within the vicinity of the NQ2-NQ4 GRB overdensity and is 10 billion light years across.
Thank you! SkyFlubbler ( talk) 01:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Astronomy people!
So: someone has gone to
a website where you can get a star named after yourself - and for free! and
named a star after themself or someone they know.
I was about to tag this for speedy deletion as a hoax, but this may have been counter-productive. There may well be a star answering its description.
I do note that there is some confusion about whether
Emily (Star) is a star or a planet; it is described as "Distance: 0 LY". 0 RLY? Aside from
this one, the
closest star to us is 4.24 light-years away.
Your thoughts about this? Pete AU aka --
Shirt58 (
talk) 09:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1692 Subbotina were a large list of asteroid articles have been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.43.89 ( talk) 06:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
A number of editors working on reducing the notability backlog (7 years!) are working through these at the moment. If you want to follow them, please see the AfDs at the moment and/or look at Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from February 2012. Alternatively, they all seem to be listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy bottom half of the page. Pinging Tom.Reding, Avicennasis. Boleyn ( talk) 07:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Can I please particularly draw people's attention to this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1702 Kalahari (2nd nomination). Thanks in advance for any opinions, either way, that anyone can offer. Best wishes, Boleyn ( talk) 08:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Many articles in Wiki state that the Andromeda Galaxy is the nearest spiral galaxy. However, apparently the nearer Large Magellanic Cloud is also classified as a spiral. Problem is so many articles state that Andromeda is the nearest spiral. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 05:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated this File:Stellar Spectral Types by NOAO.jpg for deletion as it should be able to be replaced by a freely licensed image. Is anyone here capable of finding or making an image that shows spectra of different spectral type stars? Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 10:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I came across this newly created category (March 2015) and wondered if it passed muster with WikiProject Astronomy folks. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
File:Stellar Spectral Types by NOAO.jpg was tagged as replacable and I have nominated it for deletion rather than making a unilateral decision on the {{ di-replacable fair use}} tag. Since this is a rather complicated issue, some assistance from editors who understand stellar spectra would be appreciated. Please see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 May 4 for the discussion if interested. -- B ( talk) 00:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
This edit caught my attention [2], where the author converts the description of Uranus and Neptune from " gas giants" to " ice giants". I know they were definitely "gas giants" when I was in school, but perhaps things change. Is this "ice giant" nomenclature widely used and accepted now? Dragons flight ( talk) 08:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not even sure it needs its own article ... Lithopsian ( talk) 19:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
In the cite journal templates, there is a display-authors option to limit the number of authors that appear on the page. What is the standard for this? Citation bot seems to stick a limit in at 29, but fills in all the authors names. Some citations have a limit of 1 (manually added?), and then sometimes just one of many authors is included in the tag with "display-authors=etal". I'm tempted to leave it with what citation bot fills in, but is 29 authors a pointless waste of screen space? Lithopsian ( talk) 20:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
|display-authors=6
if I'm the first to enumerate an author listing on the page to 7 and no |display-authors=
exists; otherwise I adopt whichever value of |display-authors=
exists IIF there are 3 or more instances of that value.|display-authors=
parameter was implemented, {{
cite arXiv}} (used to/maybe still does) auto-truncates to 8 because it's only-recently been updated to use the CS1 module, and |vauthors=
turncates to 6, but that might be removed, pending discussion at
Help talk:Citation Style 1#vauthors. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
contribs ⋅
dgaf) 12:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)I've created a discussion at Talk:List of most massive black holes to move it to List of black holes by mass to include a greater range of masses (intermediate and stellar mass) plus more data. Comments will be extremely appreciated at the talk page. Thank you! SkyFlubbler ( talk) 11:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I've recently (since December) been editing this article, and have already trimmed it quite a lot. However, I'm beginning to think that to bring it up to WP's quality standards, it will need basically a complete rewrite. One thing I have been thinking of doing is making this article focus mainly on the OBAFGKM, while moving the extensions such as WR, C, and T to a new article titled "Extensions to the Morgan-Keenan spectral classification", and moving the white dwarf stuff to an article titled "White dwarf classification", or simply moving it to the white dwarf article. Thoughts on the issue? StringTheory11 ( t • c) 04:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I just approved this article from WP:AFC, but have concerns about how it overlaps with Planetary science. Also, it seems a lot like an essay.... Please have a look and merge or nominate for deletion if you think it's appropriate. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)