![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
We have an article on an eccentric historical theory New Chronology (Fomenko) which includes a section on relevant astronomical considerations. This section would benefit from knowledgeable attention -- criticism of claims and linking of astronomical terms. (It might possibly even be justified to apply the WikiProject Astronomy template to this article???) -- Writtenonsand ( talk) 12:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey. This topic is totally out of my league, so that's why I'm asking here. Yesterday, an article called Cosmic infrared background was created. I redirected it to Cosmic microwave background radiation since that seemed to be the same topic, but the author reverted my edits and added more information. The infrared page is totally OR and unsourced, and I'm wondering if I was right in doing the redirect, or if it really is a separate topic. Can someone take a glance at that page and figure out where it has to go? Thanks! — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to request input for three articles: Natural satellite, Sub-brown dwarf, and Dwarf planet. The editor Yisraelasper has added some text regarding sub-brown dwarf objects, but I'm not convinced that the references support the assertions. Could someone please take a look at these pages and offer some expert input? Thanks. -- Ckatz chat spy 20:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like more than expert input. I want detail. I can't be too wrong here. I want a response by tomorrow. Yisraelasper —Preceding comment was added at 21:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Wait a minute. Do they know you deleted what I put in?.[[User:Yisraelasper|Yisraelasper] —Preceding comment was added at 23:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
If I don't get a response tomorrow I want exact details from you then.[[User:Yisraelasper|Yisraelasper] —Preceding comment was added at 23:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I have tried to compromise. I deserve to be told in detail what I supposedly haven't demonstrated. I deserve alternate suggestions for compromise. Maybe these aren't Wikipedia rules but they should help reduce deletions and edit wars and encourage people to contribute rather than scare them off. Yisraelasper —Preceding comment was added at 01:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I put all the rest of my stuff in but commented them out pending discussion. Yisraelasper
Forget the whole thing. Yisraelasper —Preceding comment was added at 19:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I put some comments under Talk:Limb darkening - the dab page Limb mentions astronomy but didn't link to a page. I tried to make it informative, but I couldn't find information to help me. Thanks! 「 ѕʀʟ· ✎」 18:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I recently came across this, which is from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias#The_bias
Similarly, articles frequently take the perspective of a resident of the Northern Hemisphere and ignore the Southern Hemisphere perspective. Some articles on astronomy discuss the night sky as seen from the Northern Hemisphere without covering the Southern Hemisphere to a similar extent, and sometimes "not visible from the Northern Hemisphere" is used as a synonym of "not visible at all". Generally, Northern Hemisphere astronomical topics are covered in greater depth than Southern Hemisphere astronomy. Obscure constellations in the Northern sky such as Scutum and Camelopardalis are covered in more depth than prominent Southern constellations such as Grus and Carina.
Something to keep in mind while editing. -- mikeu ( talk) 03:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at the newly-created Blue blobs article? I know enough to know that the concept doesn't quite fit into the Star cluster article - or any of the other cluster articles comfortably, so if y'all can take a look? FlowerpotmaN·( t) 00:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, I am working up the Dog Star for FAC sometime soon and feel reasonably happy with content. Don't mind too much about modern pop cult refs at bottom, what I can't ref will go. The rest of the article I'd be happy to see what folks thought of it. cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. You may be familiar with the Philip Greenspun Illustration Project. $20,000 has been donated to pay for the creation of high quality diagrams for Wikipedia and its sister projects.
Requests are currently being taken at m:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests and input from members of this project would be very welcome. If you can think of any diagrams (not photos or maps) that would be useful then I encourage you to suggest them at this page. If there is any free content material that would assist in drawing the diagram then it would be great if you could list that, too.
If there are any related (or unrelated) WikiProjects you think might have some suggestions then please pass this request over. Thanks. -- Cherry blossom tree 16:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Anyone keen to cleanup and impove this article? I know littel about it. cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 19:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This issue original discussed here has been raised again on on the Astrophysics talk page here. Presently, the astrophysics article is back again and not a redirect anymore to Astronomy. I think we should have an engaged discussion to bring this to a consensus one way or another. As I understand it, there are two positions:
WilliamKF ( talk) 16:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
People here may be interested i the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/16 August 2008 lunar eclipse. I've said there what i think needs saying. DGG ( talk) 02:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The article is now FA candidate. Please, participate. Ruslik ( talk) 14:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
What is the process for reviewing articles of these lower ratings?
In particular, I've been looking into 2007 WD5, a former DYK topic. The article is still rated stub. It might not be ready for GA, but I think it has outgrowth its stub rating. Dspark76 ( talk) 11:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
user:Sardanaphalus has suggested at WP:CFD to rename Category:Astronomical templates to Category:Astronomy templates, Category:Astronomical infobox templates to Category:Astronomy infobox templates, Category:Astronomical navigation templates to Category:Astronomy infobox templates. 132.205.44.5 ( talk) 20:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I know there used to be a WikiProject Telescopes that was merged into this one, so I figure this might be of interest to a few folks here – I've recently proposed the creation of a WikiProject on Microscopy. If interested, add your name here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Microscopy. Peter G Werner ( talk) 18:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I should probably have mentioned a few days ago that List of space telescopes is a Featured List Candidate. Comments are welcome. Mike Peel ( talk) 20:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Can someone come up with a definitive list of the asteroids discovered by Tombaugh, and a citation to boot? They've been changed recently and I have no idea which version to believe. Mangoe ( talk) 21:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Geographical articles have long had geodata tags which generate links to a variety of geographic data sources. Would it be possible to do something similar for astronomical objects, using the existing data in templates to provide links into sky browsers and other astronomical data resources? -- The Anome ( talk) 14:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Hubble Space Telescope has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Kaypoh ( talk) 05:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, this is a request for comments on the Archaeoastronomy article which is listed under this and a few other WikiProjects. It used to be a good article, then it was reassessed. It's been re-written. Suggestions for improvements to regain GA status and move on further are extremely welcome.
In particular you may want to examine the article for POV. There is an argument put forward that current article is biased in a way that the previous version was not. You may want to see the Talk Page for more on that. Sometimes an outsider's view can bring a fresh perspective on such arguments.
Thanks, Alunsalt ( talk) 22:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The discussion mentioned above has developed into a formal Rfc. Further comments are welcome.
Thanks, SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 13:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The discussion has now moved further to the No original research noticeboard. Any light that could be shed on this problem would be appreciated.
SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 16:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi all - ClueBotII's been making thousands of stub articles on Asteroids, and Category:Asteroid stubs is now enormous. I've made a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals as to splitting it, but it would be good to get some input from this project as to what is the best way to split them up. Grutness... wha? 23:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Please verify that my (bugfix) updates are ok to be implemented. See Template talk:WPAstronomy. -- Sverdrup ( talk) 17:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The article has been nominated for peer review. Please, participate. Ruslik ( talk) 09:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, galactic core currently redirects to active galactic nucleus. Maybe Galactic Center would be a better target... What do you think? I'm asking because in the Known Space stories of Larry Niven, the Galactic Center is often referred to as the galactic core. -- Kjoon lee 15:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I've mentioned this on the religion project, and thought I would do so here too. It seems to me like a good topic for an article, though I don't know enough about either to even attempt to write one. What do you think? Richard001 ( talk) 05:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Mercury (planet) has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Kaldari ( talk) 21:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated this article to featured article. Ruslik ( talk) 10:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that the article Lilith (hypothetical moon) would benefit from attention by astronomy buffs.
"Lilith is a hypothetical natural satellite of Earth whose existence is not supported by scientific evidence."
-- Writtenonsand ( talk) 21:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rocketry, there is discussion on moving M-100 (rocket) on top of M-100 at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rocketry/Titles. 70.55.84.13 ( talk) 05:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I should probably have mentioned earlier that I've nominated the WMAP 5-year image of the Cosmic Microwave Background, Image:WMAP 2008.png, for Featured Picture status at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:WMAP 2008.png. To date it's received a mixture of support and oppose votes. Mike Peel ( talk) 17:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
News alert: SN 2008D is the first supernova seen while its explosion began. -- SEWilco ( talk) 02:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
After visiting the project page, I realised that the page is very outdated (e.g. the list of featured articles). I would like to update this, but also would like to update the general format to a format that would be easier to maintain. (See Wikipedia:ANIME for an example what I have in mind). Would there be any objections to this? (Please indicate with support or oppose) G.A.S 06:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, a few days ago, User:Keeper76 kindly began helping me with a small project to hopefully improve content - starting to offload the list of pages on Wikipedia that are not being watched by anybody. This means not only are they prime targets for vandalism, but they are also unlikely to improve. In the course of the first couple of dozens articles, I found these, which are tagged as being within your scope:
10004 Igormakarov 10007 Malytheatre 10009 Hirosetanso 10021 Henja 10024 Marthahazen 10029 Hiramperkins 10034 Birlan
Could some people from this wikiproject please watchlist these, as I am currently the only person watching them! Also,I hope to be able to continue this work in a few weeks, and I expect that the early stuff will include a lot of asteroids, etc. Can I ask if I am able to continue trying to offload these onto you? Best wishes Fritzpoll ( talk) 22:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I just looked in on the Granat article, which is a fine thing, but with the best will in the world, I noticed and fixed several errors in there. I have the good fortune[? a mixed blessing, to be sure] to have worked in gamma-ray astronomy for a number of years. It is not reasonable to expect a non-expert editor to be able to catch all of these (one was propagated from a GSFC web page document). Details of experimental technology are kind of an arcane subject, and I am grateful that there is a GRANAT article of such quality. (NASA's HEAO Program satellites need a lot of work still....) So I congratulate those responsible. Still, I hope we can get other experienced folks to help out with proofreading etc, as I have only given it a cursory once-over, and suppose there must be other cases out there waiting to be discovered. Wwheaton ( talk) 21:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
On May 1, the Extragalactic Distance Scale article was created and it significantly overlaps the 2002 created Cosmic distance ladder article. To make things worse, we also have overlaps with 2003 created standard candle. Please help discuss and possibly merge or cleanup these articles at the discussion here. WilliamKF ( talk) 23:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
All,
For those of you that don't know, 2009 has been proclaimed to be the International Year of Astronomy, celebrating the 400th anniversary of the telescope. A whole load of astronomy-related events around the world are currently being planned for that year. It would be good if we could tie into this on the various wikimedia websites (wikipedia, wikinews, commons, etc.), both to help with the aims of the international year, and to spur extra improvements to Wikipedia's coverage of astronomy.
There are a variety of things that we could do, most of which we do already to some extent:
This wikiproject is the obvious place to coordinate all of this from. There are a couple of things that we could do to spur things on that we don't currently do:
What does everyone think about this? We have 7 months before 2009, which should be more than enough to set things up and have them ticking over. Mike Peel ( talk) 19:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Added a lot of filters and filter letters to this page. Asking for a review for the accuracy. Majority of the items are sited. Thanks, Marasama ( talk) 00:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Folks,
I just put the following notice on the Wikipedia discussion page for the disambiguation of " strong", and I hope others in astronomy and the sciences might want to join in:
Best, Wwheaton ( talk) 02:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Minimum mass has been placed at WP:PROD. This article is about exoplanet minimum estimated detected mass. 70.51.11.156 ( talk) 04:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I submitted this article for a peer review. You can comment here. Ruslik ( talk) 08:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The widely-used artist's conception of the Milky Way Galaxy (based on the GLIMPSE project of NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope) has gotten an update, announced at this press conference. Any objection if I replace the old image with the new one, or is there a good reason to keep the old one around as well?
The old image was designed to showcase the bar of the Milky Way when its presence was firmly established by the GLIMPSE team in 2005 ( press release), but was deficient in that little care was taken in the placement of the spiral arms. Therefore, the old image has far more, better-defined spiral arms than we think are there in reality. ASHill ( talk | contribs) 13:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and made the replacement. ASHill ( talk | contribs) 04:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Super Galaxy has been nominated for deletion. 74.15.104.182 ( talk) 06:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Some work could be done on this article, HD 181433 is a newly discovered star with several planets oribiting it (discovered recently). Argentium ( talk) 17:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Can someone review this change and other changes by same user? Thanks friendlystar ( talk) 18:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
It is suppose to be Solar Twin? You can find the link in this page, Category:Star_types. Thanks, Marasama ( talk) 18:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I know there is already a Barnstar for math and "hard" sciences, but does anyone else believe we should make a barnstar for ourselves exclusive to this wikiproject? I for one, do, plus, and Wikiproject Astronomy Barnstar could be designed to look really, really, cool. Scapler ( talk) 16:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
There is an ongoing dispute regarding the basic definition of parallax. It's a minor, pedantic point, but we're not getting anywhere, so I think an outsider's view would be helpful.
The question is whether parallax is generically the meeting of two lines of sight, or whether it is the meeting of two lines of sight caused by the motion of the observer. Please comment at Talk:parallax. Thanks in advance! ASHill ( talk | contribs) 18:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I "took over" WP Physics a while ago and we're doing some efforts to assess all articles in quality and importance. It's been noticed that the {{ WPAstronomy}} template often tagged articles to be within the scope of WP Physics (by imputting |astrophysics=yes), which leads to some problems, namely that {{ WPAstronomy}} doesn't support the same classes as {{ physics}} and that it doesn't support importance ratings as well. This can lead to some conflict if an article is tagged as a C-class article in WP Astrophysics and a List-Class article in WP Physics. There is also the problem that assessed articles of WP Physics show in both assessed and unsassed classes if astrophysics=yes is used in the WP Astronomy banner.
Could it be possible for you folks to tag physics articles with the {{ physics}} template instead, and to either deprecate |astrophysics=yes in the {{ WPAstronomy}} template, or to somehow rewrite the code so that {{ WPAstronomy}} doesn't overlap the {{ physics}} code?
I will point out that it is possible that the reason for the overlap is because of the Bot and not because of the {{ WPAstronomy}} banner, but I can't tell where the problem is right now. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 02:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Just a heads up, I noticed Extrasolar planets#Nomenclature has changed recently to emphasize a particular naming method, and also a few extrasolar planets are getting their article names changed, one using that recent change as justification. Apologies if I missed the discussion, but this seems like a big change that might be in progress. Shouldn't the change be by consensus of wikipedia editors? - 84user ( talk) 03:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 530 of the articles assigned to this project, or 3.1%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 18:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 22:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
This project's subject has a page in the set of Lists of basic topics.
See the proposal at the Village pump to change the names of all those pages.
The Transhumanist 09:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
On July 1 someone redirected blue shift to redshift. 70.51.9.237 ( talk) 11:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I could make it handle
Add classes: FL, List, Template, Disambig
Make: "Category" and "NA" display on the banner, as well as "List", "Template", "Disambig" if you want them
Add support for importances: Top, High, Mid, Low, NA and lump unrated importance articles into "Unknown-importance" category as appropriate
Handle a wider array of input (for example for category class, you could type any of CAT, cat, Cat, Category, category)
Add a "need infobox" section
Add a "need attention" section
Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 02:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I've written it. It's on Template:WPAstronomy/Expansion (now on Template:WPAstronomy). I didn't write the documentation yet, but basically arguments are:
class: FA, FL, GA, A, B, C, Start, Stub, List, Category, Template, Disambig, NA
importance: Top, High, Mid, Low, NA
needs-infobox = yes
needs-image= yes
attention= yes
object= yes
astrophysics=yes
Here's an example with everything filled (note the categories added at the bottom of the page):
{{WPAstronomy|class=NA |importance=High |object=yes |astrophysics=yes |attention=yes |needs-image=yes |needs-infobox=yes}}
Here's one with the bare "minimum":
{{tl|WPAstronomy|class=List |importance=mid}}
Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 03:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Astronomy articles by quality and importance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | ||||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | Bottom | NA | Total | |
![]() |
50 | 26 | 57 | 12 | 6 | 151 | |
![]() |
3 | 9 | 5 | 1 | 18 | ||
![]() |
160 | 160 | |||||
![]() |
15 | 24 | 82 | 132 | 23 | 276 | |
B | 63 | 111 | 231 | 205 | 13 | 623 | |
C | 93 | 215 | 947 | 1,245 | 55 | 2,555 | |
Start | 7 | 135 | 1,926 | 12,777 | 160 | 1 | 15,006 |
Stub | 151 | 8,393 | 106 | 8,650 | |||
List | 15 | 223 | 2,082 | 12 | 2,332 | ||
Category | 4,318 | 4,318 | |||||
Disambig | 85 | 85 | |||||
File | 517 | 517 | |||||
Portal | 332 | 332 | |||||
Project | 82 | 82 | |||||
Redirect | 41,726 | 41,726 | |||||
Template | 946 | 946 | |||||
NA | 1 | 1 | |||||
Other | 62 | 62 | |||||
Assessed | 228 | 529 | 3,626 | 24,851 | 376 | 48,230 | 77,840 |
Unassessed | 1 | 1 | |||||
Total | 228 | 529 | 3,626 | 24,851 | 377 | 48,230 | 77,841 |
WikiWork factors ( ?) | ω = 139,571 | Ω = 5.12 |
? Ruslik ( talk) 13:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm yeah that one, I guess I missed it. Didn't particularly look for it either. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 13:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Anyway, I don't think anyone will mind me uploading the code right now, as it's completely backwards compatible, it's tidier and more functionnal. If people don't like importance ratings, then they won't used them. WP Physics overlapping is still there for now, as now one talked about it, but I've made it so that WP Physics overlaps are put in a special category, so WP Physics can give them appropriate importance ratings for WP Physics and remove the astrophysics=yes tag.
If you don't like the rating comment section, I can disable it. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 13:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The lists of stars by constellation articles for the 88 IAU constellation should have a second table, for the stars that form the pattern, since it is very likely that the average person would be looking for that in such a list. 70.55.85.31 ( talk) 13:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The article is a featured article candidate now. You can comment here. Ruslik ( talk) 13:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
This page is getting rather long. Could someone set up some form of bot-archiving? Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 13:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I wonder whether it would be appropriate to add the template of WikiProject Astronomy (or of any of its related WikiProjects) to Extraterrestrial life. Discussion? -- Writtenonsand ( talk) 14:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi there - a while back I started watchlisting asteroids from Special:UnwatchedPages. One thing that seems to be happening to them is that they are being prodded as permastubs. I was wondering if it might be better to compile these into tables within "List of..." articles and making the current articles redirects to the entry in the list. The table could have the few snippets of information available in the current articles, but allow the casual reader more access to a wider list from the same article, perhaps affording more exposure to the content.
I'd be happy to add a task to my bot to help with this if the idea of doing it manually were too daunting. Let me know what you think Fritzpoll ( talk) 10:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
List of academic_disciplines#Space sciences is part of a page that is supposed to reflect how the academic disciplines are organized. This page is linked under Portal:Contents (upper left of every page) and then List of academic disciplines. Do you think it is a good reflection of reality? Seems like it would be worthwhile to make sure that set up properly. Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 14:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
User:NuclearVacuum has made an exoplanet naming guideline proposal at Talk:Extrasolar planet/Naming 70.51.9.5 ( talk) 06:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Does somebody can tell me what is the difference between NEO and NEA projects? Please concact me @: pl:Dyskusja Wikipedysty:MonteChristof. Or my talk page. MonteChristof ( talk) 16:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Telescope regarding the proper treatment of the pre-telescope era and whether and how the optics theories necessary to design a telescope should be mentioned in the history summary section. The discussion has wandered off into accusations of reprehensible ignorance, bad faith, and cultural hegemony, and the attention of patient and experienced editors would be welcome. I rendered a third opinion on the matter earlier this week before the canvassing began, but must go offline for the weekend with matters unresolved. - Eldereft ( cont.) 20:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated 5 recently created pages related to planetary mass classification for deletion on the grounds that they appear to be neologisms/original research. However, I would appreciate other astronomically interested parties having a look.
See the five noms starting here. Dragons flight ( talk) 21:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
User:BlueEarth has created Category:Sub-Earths, Category:Sub-Jupiters, Category:Jovial planets and User:NuclearVacuum has created Category:Super-Earths, Category:Super-Jupiters. It has occured to me that this might not be the most appropriate way to divide planets up, since that's not how we usually do it. "Jovial planet" means "happy planet", which is obviously a typo for "Jovian planet". But Jovian planets are better known as gas giants or giant planets. The two different IAU planet definitions (exoplanet draft, and accepted 2006 Solar) defines dwarf planet, planet, brown dwarf, and sub-brown dwarf. The traditional definition includes giant planets, terrestrial planets, and ice dwarfs... with gas giants and ice giants subtype. Since the division at Earth mass and Jupiter mass is entirely arbitrary (and we don't divide stars by whether they are more than or less than one solar mass) we should get rid of these categories. 70.55.85.40 ( talk) 06:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been through a number of sites, and changed many of them, and noted some were ranked as "start" or "good-article" class. I'd like someone else to review these articles and revisit their ratings.
HD 149026 b for instance was ranked as 'start', although I'd like to think I've brought it closer to "good" now (it's at least as good as was 16 Cygni Bb when I found it). It should also be rated as important. HD 189733 b is also "start", although now deserves at least a C and probably B; it is also important. I'd also like a second look at Gliese 436 b and tau Boötis b, for quality and importance. 51 Pegasi b is (despite its iconic status) not important, until the measurements come in; but it should be re-rated for quality.
Where do we go to request a re-rating by a project member? Here? If not then I can strike out the middle paragraph of this entry.-- Zimriel ( talk) 20:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm gradually improving an article in celestial mechanics — Newton's theorem of revolving orbits — with the intention of bringing it to WP:GA or FA. If you could go to the peer review here, that would be wonderful and much appreciated. Thank you! :) Willow ( talk) 20:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
As part of the Good Article sweeps conducted by Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, I have completed a reassessment of 2 Pallas and placed the reassessment on hold for one week to allow some minor things to be fixed. I would appreciate it if editors from this project could visit the reassessment, which can be found here. Please contact me with any concerns or questions. Thank you, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 19:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, it is my impression that astronomy articles are underrepresented at DYK, so if anyone wans to make any...Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Is there such or is that a different project? Thanks. Saintrain ( talk) 22:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Has any thought ever been given to a template that would link a set of celestial coordinates to online sky "charts" (assuming such charts are/will soon be readily available)? This would be similar to how template:coor works. (Example: 19°49′28″N 155°28′24″W / 19.82444°N 155.47333°W). Likewise with selenographic coordinates. — Eoghanacht talk 17:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The page Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects)#Stars says "If the star has a traditional name that has been approved by International Astronomical Union...". Where can I find that list of "approved by IAU" star names? -- Anton Gutsunaev ( talk) 23:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I've nominated Category:Sub-Jupiter mass planets, Category:Sub-Earth mass planets, Category:Super-Jupiters, to WP:CFD, because they are totally arbitrary and non-defining characteristics, and should not be categorized in such a manner. 70.51.9.124 ( talk) 06:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Should Radio source be merged somewhere? Not really my area. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
{{ MinorPlanets Navigator}} is up for deletion at WP:TFD 70.51.8.158 ( talk) 08:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Dunno if you guys have been assaulted with this already, but could somebody please take a look at Lilith (hypothetical moon)?
Astronomically, Dark Moon Lilith is supposed to have a geocentric period of 119 days and to orbit at three times the distance of the Moon.[8] Its diameter is said to be about one quarter that of the Moon.[8] Despite many criticisms as bad science, proponents of the idea maintain it follows an orbit stationary to the opposing side of the Moon, rendering it invisible except when crossing the sun. This conception of one orbiting object being hidden by its position behind another is often likened to the Counter-Earth of Pythagorean philosophy, which would be at the (unstable) Lagrange Point, L3.
The article says that "The majority of scientists object to all of these theories", but I think that this could be made stronger. -- 201.53.7.16 ( talk) 04:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
The Optical magnitude article seems to duplicate Apparent magnitude, but with some misinformation. The former article says the Sun is 1025 times brighter than Vega, but the latter article, while agreeing that the Sun is about magnitude -25, says that means 1005 which is only 1010 times brighter than Vega. Do we need an Optical magnitude article at all, or should it just be redirected to Apparent magnitude? Art LaPella ( talk) 06:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
M-100 (rocket) has been proposed to be renamed to M-100, a redirect to the dab page, which also lists Messier 100. This is part of a renaming of rocket articles. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry/Titles/Poll 70.55.203.112 ( talk) 12:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. Anyone who can contribute to the article about Australia's new Chief Scientist will be most welcome. Cheers, Mattinbgn\ talk 04:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
2006 definition of planet has been nominated for renaming 70.55.203.112 ( talk) 04:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
|
I was just noticing that the totals for the astronomy article ratings look a little uneven. We have more than 2,000 at high, but only 18 at the top and 73 in the middle. Compare to the Physics articles by quality statistics, for example, which have a more even distribution. The physics ratings also include a number of prominent physicists among their top pages.— RJH ( talk) 18:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
This might help to build some criterias. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Category:Sub-Jupiter mass planets, Category:Sub-Earth mass planets, Category:Super-Jupiters are awaiting closure on CfD. I don't know if there is recognised ways of classifying them. Comments welcome (quickly). -- Salix ( talk): 16:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
For each article, the WPAstronomy template generates a red link to a "ratings summary page". I thought it would make more sense to have a single page that explains the ratings in general. For example:
The importance of an astronomy article is determined as follows:
Thoughts?— RJH ( talk) 22:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
A discussion at Talk:Gliese 581 c revolves around the OR-ness of converting data tables to diagrams of orbits. This might be of interest to you. 70.51.8.75 ( talk) 08:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The following two moves have been requested at WP:RM ; See Talk:List_of_asteroids#Requested_move
70.51.10.188 ( talk) 04:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Whatever you do, please don't add the |astrophysics=yes tag to them. It was a real pain to remove. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 07:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
These are the lowest-rated WPAstronomy articles that are also in the top class:
outer space,
physical cosmology and
standard candle.—
RJH (
talk) 16:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand how to change the distance data in the Starbox (astrometry) at Betelgeuse. It seems to be transcluded from somewhere. Can anyone help me out? Thanks. Gwen Gale ( talk) 10:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately it looks like that paper is subscription locked at the moment. However, it is possible that Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to help.— RJH ( talk) 16:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Comet Hale-Bopp has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Marskell ( talk) 15:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Can someone look at user:CarloscomB? I just found that he recently copyvio'd a research paper (see Okayama Planet Search Program ) 70.55.200.131 ( talk) 23:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Could someone with a bit of experience please have a look at and comment on this AFD please. Pointers to guidelines for notability of Observatories and/or Astronomers also welcome. - SimonLyall ( talk) 18:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Here. Thanks, -- Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 04:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Skygazing has been sent to PROD 70.55.200.131 ( talk) 08:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
CarloscomB has added unreferenced quotes from whom he attributes to be "Steve Gottlieb" on several articles, and no listing of permission for the extracts... I think these are beyond fair use sanction, but someone should take a look. [4] 70.55.200.131 ( talk) 11:24, 20 October 2008 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
We have an article on an eccentric historical theory New Chronology (Fomenko) which includes a section on relevant astronomical considerations. This section would benefit from knowledgeable attention -- criticism of claims and linking of astronomical terms. (It might possibly even be justified to apply the WikiProject Astronomy template to this article???) -- Writtenonsand ( talk) 12:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey. This topic is totally out of my league, so that's why I'm asking here. Yesterday, an article called Cosmic infrared background was created. I redirected it to Cosmic microwave background radiation since that seemed to be the same topic, but the author reverted my edits and added more information. The infrared page is totally OR and unsourced, and I'm wondering if I was right in doing the redirect, or if it really is a separate topic. Can someone take a glance at that page and figure out where it has to go? Thanks! — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to request input for three articles: Natural satellite, Sub-brown dwarf, and Dwarf planet. The editor Yisraelasper has added some text regarding sub-brown dwarf objects, but I'm not convinced that the references support the assertions. Could someone please take a look at these pages and offer some expert input? Thanks. -- Ckatz chat spy 20:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like more than expert input. I want detail. I can't be too wrong here. I want a response by tomorrow. Yisraelasper —Preceding comment was added at 21:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Wait a minute. Do they know you deleted what I put in?.[[User:Yisraelasper|Yisraelasper] —Preceding comment was added at 23:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
If I don't get a response tomorrow I want exact details from you then.[[User:Yisraelasper|Yisraelasper] —Preceding comment was added at 23:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I have tried to compromise. I deserve to be told in detail what I supposedly haven't demonstrated. I deserve alternate suggestions for compromise. Maybe these aren't Wikipedia rules but they should help reduce deletions and edit wars and encourage people to contribute rather than scare them off. Yisraelasper —Preceding comment was added at 01:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I put all the rest of my stuff in but commented them out pending discussion. Yisraelasper
Forget the whole thing. Yisraelasper —Preceding comment was added at 19:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I put some comments under Talk:Limb darkening - the dab page Limb mentions astronomy but didn't link to a page. I tried to make it informative, but I couldn't find information to help me. Thanks! 「 ѕʀʟ· ✎」 18:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I recently came across this, which is from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias#The_bias
Similarly, articles frequently take the perspective of a resident of the Northern Hemisphere and ignore the Southern Hemisphere perspective. Some articles on astronomy discuss the night sky as seen from the Northern Hemisphere without covering the Southern Hemisphere to a similar extent, and sometimes "not visible from the Northern Hemisphere" is used as a synonym of "not visible at all". Generally, Northern Hemisphere astronomical topics are covered in greater depth than Southern Hemisphere astronomy. Obscure constellations in the Northern sky such as Scutum and Camelopardalis are covered in more depth than prominent Southern constellations such as Grus and Carina.
Something to keep in mind while editing. -- mikeu ( talk) 03:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at the newly-created Blue blobs article? I know enough to know that the concept doesn't quite fit into the Star cluster article - or any of the other cluster articles comfortably, so if y'all can take a look? FlowerpotmaN·( t) 00:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, I am working up the Dog Star for FAC sometime soon and feel reasonably happy with content. Don't mind too much about modern pop cult refs at bottom, what I can't ref will go. The rest of the article I'd be happy to see what folks thought of it. cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. You may be familiar with the Philip Greenspun Illustration Project. $20,000 has been donated to pay for the creation of high quality diagrams for Wikipedia and its sister projects.
Requests are currently being taken at m:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests and input from members of this project would be very welcome. If you can think of any diagrams (not photos or maps) that would be useful then I encourage you to suggest them at this page. If there is any free content material that would assist in drawing the diagram then it would be great if you could list that, too.
If there are any related (or unrelated) WikiProjects you think might have some suggestions then please pass this request over. Thanks. -- Cherry blossom tree 16:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Anyone keen to cleanup and impove this article? I know littel about it. cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 19:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This issue original discussed here has been raised again on on the Astrophysics talk page here. Presently, the astrophysics article is back again and not a redirect anymore to Astronomy. I think we should have an engaged discussion to bring this to a consensus one way or another. As I understand it, there are two positions:
WilliamKF ( talk) 16:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
People here may be interested i the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/16 August 2008 lunar eclipse. I've said there what i think needs saying. DGG ( talk) 02:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The article is now FA candidate. Please, participate. Ruslik ( talk) 14:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
What is the process for reviewing articles of these lower ratings?
In particular, I've been looking into 2007 WD5, a former DYK topic. The article is still rated stub. It might not be ready for GA, but I think it has outgrowth its stub rating. Dspark76 ( talk) 11:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
user:Sardanaphalus has suggested at WP:CFD to rename Category:Astronomical templates to Category:Astronomy templates, Category:Astronomical infobox templates to Category:Astronomy infobox templates, Category:Astronomical navigation templates to Category:Astronomy infobox templates. 132.205.44.5 ( talk) 20:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I know there used to be a WikiProject Telescopes that was merged into this one, so I figure this might be of interest to a few folks here – I've recently proposed the creation of a WikiProject on Microscopy. If interested, add your name here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Microscopy. Peter G Werner ( talk) 18:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I should probably have mentioned a few days ago that List of space telescopes is a Featured List Candidate. Comments are welcome. Mike Peel ( talk) 20:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Can someone come up with a definitive list of the asteroids discovered by Tombaugh, and a citation to boot? They've been changed recently and I have no idea which version to believe. Mangoe ( talk) 21:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Geographical articles have long had geodata tags which generate links to a variety of geographic data sources. Would it be possible to do something similar for astronomical objects, using the existing data in templates to provide links into sky browsers and other astronomical data resources? -- The Anome ( talk) 14:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Hubble Space Telescope has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Kaypoh ( talk) 05:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, this is a request for comments on the Archaeoastronomy article which is listed under this and a few other WikiProjects. It used to be a good article, then it was reassessed. It's been re-written. Suggestions for improvements to regain GA status and move on further are extremely welcome.
In particular you may want to examine the article for POV. There is an argument put forward that current article is biased in a way that the previous version was not. You may want to see the Talk Page for more on that. Sometimes an outsider's view can bring a fresh perspective on such arguments.
Thanks, Alunsalt ( talk) 22:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The discussion mentioned above has developed into a formal Rfc. Further comments are welcome.
Thanks, SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 13:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The discussion has now moved further to the No original research noticeboard. Any light that could be shed on this problem would be appreciated.
SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 16:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi all - ClueBotII's been making thousands of stub articles on Asteroids, and Category:Asteroid stubs is now enormous. I've made a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals as to splitting it, but it would be good to get some input from this project as to what is the best way to split them up. Grutness... wha? 23:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Please verify that my (bugfix) updates are ok to be implemented. See Template talk:WPAstronomy. -- Sverdrup ( talk) 17:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The article has been nominated for peer review. Please, participate. Ruslik ( talk) 09:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, galactic core currently redirects to active galactic nucleus. Maybe Galactic Center would be a better target... What do you think? I'm asking because in the Known Space stories of Larry Niven, the Galactic Center is often referred to as the galactic core. -- Kjoon lee 15:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I've mentioned this on the religion project, and thought I would do so here too. It seems to me like a good topic for an article, though I don't know enough about either to even attempt to write one. What do you think? Richard001 ( talk) 05:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Mercury (planet) has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Kaldari ( talk) 21:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated this article to featured article. Ruslik ( talk) 10:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that the article Lilith (hypothetical moon) would benefit from attention by astronomy buffs.
"Lilith is a hypothetical natural satellite of Earth whose existence is not supported by scientific evidence."
-- Writtenonsand ( talk) 21:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rocketry, there is discussion on moving M-100 (rocket) on top of M-100 at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rocketry/Titles. 70.55.84.13 ( talk) 05:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I should probably have mentioned earlier that I've nominated the WMAP 5-year image of the Cosmic Microwave Background, Image:WMAP 2008.png, for Featured Picture status at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:WMAP 2008.png. To date it's received a mixture of support and oppose votes. Mike Peel ( talk) 17:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
News alert: SN 2008D is the first supernova seen while its explosion began. -- SEWilco ( talk) 02:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
After visiting the project page, I realised that the page is very outdated (e.g. the list of featured articles). I would like to update this, but also would like to update the general format to a format that would be easier to maintain. (See Wikipedia:ANIME for an example what I have in mind). Would there be any objections to this? (Please indicate with support or oppose) G.A.S 06:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, a few days ago, User:Keeper76 kindly began helping me with a small project to hopefully improve content - starting to offload the list of pages on Wikipedia that are not being watched by anybody. This means not only are they prime targets for vandalism, but they are also unlikely to improve. In the course of the first couple of dozens articles, I found these, which are tagged as being within your scope:
10004 Igormakarov 10007 Malytheatre 10009 Hirosetanso 10021 Henja 10024 Marthahazen 10029 Hiramperkins 10034 Birlan
Could some people from this wikiproject please watchlist these, as I am currently the only person watching them! Also,I hope to be able to continue this work in a few weeks, and I expect that the early stuff will include a lot of asteroids, etc. Can I ask if I am able to continue trying to offload these onto you? Best wishes Fritzpoll ( talk) 22:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I just looked in on the Granat article, which is a fine thing, but with the best will in the world, I noticed and fixed several errors in there. I have the good fortune[? a mixed blessing, to be sure] to have worked in gamma-ray astronomy for a number of years. It is not reasonable to expect a non-expert editor to be able to catch all of these (one was propagated from a GSFC web page document). Details of experimental technology are kind of an arcane subject, and I am grateful that there is a GRANAT article of such quality. (NASA's HEAO Program satellites need a lot of work still....) So I congratulate those responsible. Still, I hope we can get other experienced folks to help out with proofreading etc, as I have only given it a cursory once-over, and suppose there must be other cases out there waiting to be discovered. Wwheaton ( talk) 21:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
On May 1, the Extragalactic Distance Scale article was created and it significantly overlaps the 2002 created Cosmic distance ladder article. To make things worse, we also have overlaps with 2003 created standard candle. Please help discuss and possibly merge or cleanup these articles at the discussion here. WilliamKF ( talk) 23:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
All,
For those of you that don't know, 2009 has been proclaimed to be the International Year of Astronomy, celebrating the 400th anniversary of the telescope. A whole load of astronomy-related events around the world are currently being planned for that year. It would be good if we could tie into this on the various wikimedia websites (wikipedia, wikinews, commons, etc.), both to help with the aims of the international year, and to spur extra improvements to Wikipedia's coverage of astronomy.
There are a variety of things that we could do, most of which we do already to some extent:
This wikiproject is the obvious place to coordinate all of this from. There are a couple of things that we could do to spur things on that we don't currently do:
What does everyone think about this? We have 7 months before 2009, which should be more than enough to set things up and have them ticking over. Mike Peel ( talk) 19:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Added a lot of filters and filter letters to this page. Asking for a review for the accuracy. Majority of the items are sited. Thanks, Marasama ( talk) 00:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Folks,
I just put the following notice on the Wikipedia discussion page for the disambiguation of " strong", and I hope others in astronomy and the sciences might want to join in:
Best, Wwheaton ( talk) 02:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Minimum mass has been placed at WP:PROD. This article is about exoplanet minimum estimated detected mass. 70.51.11.156 ( talk) 04:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I submitted this article for a peer review. You can comment here. Ruslik ( talk) 08:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The widely-used artist's conception of the Milky Way Galaxy (based on the GLIMPSE project of NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope) has gotten an update, announced at this press conference. Any objection if I replace the old image with the new one, or is there a good reason to keep the old one around as well?
The old image was designed to showcase the bar of the Milky Way when its presence was firmly established by the GLIMPSE team in 2005 ( press release), but was deficient in that little care was taken in the placement of the spiral arms. Therefore, the old image has far more, better-defined spiral arms than we think are there in reality. ASHill ( talk | contribs) 13:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and made the replacement. ASHill ( talk | contribs) 04:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Super Galaxy has been nominated for deletion. 74.15.104.182 ( talk) 06:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Some work could be done on this article, HD 181433 is a newly discovered star with several planets oribiting it (discovered recently). Argentium ( talk) 17:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Can someone review this change and other changes by same user? Thanks friendlystar ( talk) 18:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
It is suppose to be Solar Twin? You can find the link in this page, Category:Star_types. Thanks, Marasama ( talk) 18:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I know there is already a Barnstar for math and "hard" sciences, but does anyone else believe we should make a barnstar for ourselves exclusive to this wikiproject? I for one, do, plus, and Wikiproject Astronomy Barnstar could be designed to look really, really, cool. Scapler ( talk) 16:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
There is an ongoing dispute regarding the basic definition of parallax. It's a minor, pedantic point, but we're not getting anywhere, so I think an outsider's view would be helpful.
The question is whether parallax is generically the meeting of two lines of sight, or whether it is the meeting of two lines of sight caused by the motion of the observer. Please comment at Talk:parallax. Thanks in advance! ASHill ( talk | contribs) 18:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I "took over" WP Physics a while ago and we're doing some efforts to assess all articles in quality and importance. It's been noticed that the {{ WPAstronomy}} template often tagged articles to be within the scope of WP Physics (by imputting |astrophysics=yes), which leads to some problems, namely that {{ WPAstronomy}} doesn't support the same classes as {{ physics}} and that it doesn't support importance ratings as well. This can lead to some conflict if an article is tagged as a C-class article in WP Astrophysics and a List-Class article in WP Physics. There is also the problem that assessed articles of WP Physics show in both assessed and unsassed classes if astrophysics=yes is used in the WP Astronomy banner.
Could it be possible for you folks to tag physics articles with the {{ physics}} template instead, and to either deprecate |astrophysics=yes in the {{ WPAstronomy}} template, or to somehow rewrite the code so that {{ WPAstronomy}} doesn't overlap the {{ physics}} code?
I will point out that it is possible that the reason for the overlap is because of the Bot and not because of the {{ WPAstronomy}} banner, but I can't tell where the problem is right now. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 02:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Just a heads up, I noticed Extrasolar planets#Nomenclature has changed recently to emphasize a particular naming method, and also a few extrasolar planets are getting their article names changed, one using that recent change as justification. Apologies if I missed the discussion, but this seems like a big change that might be in progress. Shouldn't the change be by consensus of wikipedia editors? - 84user ( talk) 03:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 530 of the articles assigned to this project, or 3.1%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 18:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 22:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
This project's subject has a page in the set of Lists of basic topics.
See the proposal at the Village pump to change the names of all those pages.
The Transhumanist 09:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
On July 1 someone redirected blue shift to redshift. 70.51.9.237 ( talk) 11:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I could make it handle
Add classes: FL, List, Template, Disambig
Make: "Category" and "NA" display on the banner, as well as "List", "Template", "Disambig" if you want them
Add support for importances: Top, High, Mid, Low, NA and lump unrated importance articles into "Unknown-importance" category as appropriate
Handle a wider array of input (for example for category class, you could type any of CAT, cat, Cat, Category, category)
Add a "need infobox" section
Add a "need attention" section
Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 02:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I've written it. It's on Template:WPAstronomy/Expansion (now on Template:WPAstronomy). I didn't write the documentation yet, but basically arguments are:
class: FA, FL, GA, A, B, C, Start, Stub, List, Category, Template, Disambig, NA
importance: Top, High, Mid, Low, NA
needs-infobox = yes
needs-image= yes
attention= yes
object= yes
astrophysics=yes
Here's an example with everything filled (note the categories added at the bottom of the page):
{{WPAstronomy|class=NA |importance=High |object=yes |astrophysics=yes |attention=yes |needs-image=yes |needs-infobox=yes}}
Here's one with the bare "minimum":
{{tl|WPAstronomy|class=List |importance=mid}}
Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 03:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Astronomy articles by quality and importance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | ||||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | Bottom | NA | Total | |
![]() |
50 | 26 | 57 | 12 | 6 | 151 | |
![]() |
3 | 9 | 5 | 1 | 18 | ||
![]() |
160 | 160 | |||||
![]() |
15 | 24 | 82 | 132 | 23 | 276 | |
B | 63 | 111 | 231 | 205 | 13 | 623 | |
C | 93 | 215 | 947 | 1,245 | 55 | 2,555 | |
Start | 7 | 135 | 1,926 | 12,777 | 160 | 1 | 15,006 |
Stub | 151 | 8,393 | 106 | 8,650 | |||
List | 15 | 223 | 2,082 | 12 | 2,332 | ||
Category | 4,318 | 4,318 | |||||
Disambig | 85 | 85 | |||||
File | 517 | 517 | |||||
Portal | 332 | 332 | |||||
Project | 82 | 82 | |||||
Redirect | 41,726 | 41,726 | |||||
Template | 946 | 946 | |||||
NA | 1 | 1 | |||||
Other | 62 | 62 | |||||
Assessed | 228 | 529 | 3,626 | 24,851 | 376 | 48,230 | 77,840 |
Unassessed | 1 | 1 | |||||
Total | 228 | 529 | 3,626 | 24,851 | 377 | 48,230 | 77,841 |
WikiWork factors ( ?) | ω = 139,571 | Ω = 5.12 |
? Ruslik ( talk) 13:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm yeah that one, I guess I missed it. Didn't particularly look for it either. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 13:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Anyway, I don't think anyone will mind me uploading the code right now, as it's completely backwards compatible, it's tidier and more functionnal. If people don't like importance ratings, then they won't used them. WP Physics overlapping is still there for now, as now one talked about it, but I've made it so that WP Physics overlaps are put in a special category, so WP Physics can give them appropriate importance ratings for WP Physics and remove the astrophysics=yes tag.
If you don't like the rating comment section, I can disable it. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 13:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The lists of stars by constellation articles for the 88 IAU constellation should have a second table, for the stars that form the pattern, since it is very likely that the average person would be looking for that in such a list. 70.55.85.31 ( talk) 13:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The article is a featured article candidate now. You can comment here. Ruslik ( talk) 13:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
This page is getting rather long. Could someone set up some form of bot-archiving? Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 13:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I wonder whether it would be appropriate to add the template of WikiProject Astronomy (or of any of its related WikiProjects) to Extraterrestrial life. Discussion? -- Writtenonsand ( talk) 14:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi there - a while back I started watchlisting asteroids from Special:UnwatchedPages. One thing that seems to be happening to them is that they are being prodded as permastubs. I was wondering if it might be better to compile these into tables within "List of..." articles and making the current articles redirects to the entry in the list. The table could have the few snippets of information available in the current articles, but allow the casual reader more access to a wider list from the same article, perhaps affording more exposure to the content.
I'd be happy to add a task to my bot to help with this if the idea of doing it manually were too daunting. Let me know what you think Fritzpoll ( talk) 10:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
List of academic_disciplines#Space sciences is part of a page that is supposed to reflect how the academic disciplines are organized. This page is linked under Portal:Contents (upper left of every page) and then List of academic disciplines. Do you think it is a good reflection of reality? Seems like it would be worthwhile to make sure that set up properly. Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 14:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
User:NuclearVacuum has made an exoplanet naming guideline proposal at Talk:Extrasolar planet/Naming 70.51.9.5 ( talk) 06:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Does somebody can tell me what is the difference between NEO and NEA projects? Please concact me @: pl:Dyskusja Wikipedysty:MonteChristof. Or my talk page. MonteChristof ( talk) 16:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Telescope regarding the proper treatment of the pre-telescope era and whether and how the optics theories necessary to design a telescope should be mentioned in the history summary section. The discussion has wandered off into accusations of reprehensible ignorance, bad faith, and cultural hegemony, and the attention of patient and experienced editors would be welcome. I rendered a third opinion on the matter earlier this week before the canvassing began, but must go offline for the weekend with matters unresolved. - Eldereft ( cont.) 20:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated 5 recently created pages related to planetary mass classification for deletion on the grounds that they appear to be neologisms/original research. However, I would appreciate other astronomically interested parties having a look.
See the five noms starting here. Dragons flight ( talk) 21:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
User:BlueEarth has created Category:Sub-Earths, Category:Sub-Jupiters, Category:Jovial planets and User:NuclearVacuum has created Category:Super-Earths, Category:Super-Jupiters. It has occured to me that this might not be the most appropriate way to divide planets up, since that's not how we usually do it. "Jovial planet" means "happy planet", which is obviously a typo for "Jovian planet". But Jovian planets are better known as gas giants or giant planets. The two different IAU planet definitions (exoplanet draft, and accepted 2006 Solar) defines dwarf planet, planet, brown dwarf, and sub-brown dwarf. The traditional definition includes giant planets, terrestrial planets, and ice dwarfs... with gas giants and ice giants subtype. Since the division at Earth mass and Jupiter mass is entirely arbitrary (and we don't divide stars by whether they are more than or less than one solar mass) we should get rid of these categories. 70.55.85.40 ( talk) 06:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been through a number of sites, and changed many of them, and noted some were ranked as "start" or "good-article" class. I'd like someone else to review these articles and revisit their ratings.
HD 149026 b for instance was ranked as 'start', although I'd like to think I've brought it closer to "good" now (it's at least as good as was 16 Cygni Bb when I found it). It should also be rated as important. HD 189733 b is also "start", although now deserves at least a C and probably B; it is also important. I'd also like a second look at Gliese 436 b and tau Boötis b, for quality and importance. 51 Pegasi b is (despite its iconic status) not important, until the measurements come in; but it should be re-rated for quality.
Where do we go to request a re-rating by a project member? Here? If not then I can strike out the middle paragraph of this entry.-- Zimriel ( talk) 20:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm gradually improving an article in celestial mechanics — Newton's theorem of revolving orbits — with the intention of bringing it to WP:GA or FA. If you could go to the peer review here, that would be wonderful and much appreciated. Thank you! :) Willow ( talk) 20:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
As part of the Good Article sweeps conducted by Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, I have completed a reassessment of 2 Pallas and placed the reassessment on hold for one week to allow some minor things to be fixed. I would appreciate it if editors from this project could visit the reassessment, which can be found here. Please contact me with any concerns or questions. Thank you, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 19:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, it is my impression that astronomy articles are underrepresented at DYK, so if anyone wans to make any...Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Is there such or is that a different project? Thanks. Saintrain ( talk) 22:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Has any thought ever been given to a template that would link a set of celestial coordinates to online sky "charts" (assuming such charts are/will soon be readily available)? This would be similar to how template:coor works. (Example: 19°49′28″N 155°28′24″W / 19.82444°N 155.47333°W). Likewise with selenographic coordinates. — Eoghanacht talk 17:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The page Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects)#Stars says "If the star has a traditional name that has been approved by International Astronomical Union...". Where can I find that list of "approved by IAU" star names? -- Anton Gutsunaev ( talk) 23:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I've nominated Category:Sub-Jupiter mass planets, Category:Sub-Earth mass planets, Category:Super-Jupiters, to WP:CFD, because they are totally arbitrary and non-defining characteristics, and should not be categorized in such a manner. 70.51.9.124 ( talk) 06:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Should Radio source be merged somewhere? Not really my area. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
{{ MinorPlanets Navigator}} is up for deletion at WP:TFD 70.51.8.158 ( talk) 08:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Dunno if you guys have been assaulted with this already, but could somebody please take a look at Lilith (hypothetical moon)?
Astronomically, Dark Moon Lilith is supposed to have a geocentric period of 119 days and to orbit at three times the distance of the Moon.[8] Its diameter is said to be about one quarter that of the Moon.[8] Despite many criticisms as bad science, proponents of the idea maintain it follows an orbit stationary to the opposing side of the Moon, rendering it invisible except when crossing the sun. This conception of one orbiting object being hidden by its position behind another is often likened to the Counter-Earth of Pythagorean philosophy, which would be at the (unstable) Lagrange Point, L3.
The article says that "The majority of scientists object to all of these theories", but I think that this could be made stronger. -- 201.53.7.16 ( talk) 04:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
The Optical magnitude article seems to duplicate Apparent magnitude, but with some misinformation. The former article says the Sun is 1025 times brighter than Vega, but the latter article, while agreeing that the Sun is about magnitude -25, says that means 1005 which is only 1010 times brighter than Vega. Do we need an Optical magnitude article at all, or should it just be redirected to Apparent magnitude? Art LaPella ( talk) 06:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
M-100 (rocket) has been proposed to be renamed to M-100, a redirect to the dab page, which also lists Messier 100. This is part of a renaming of rocket articles. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry/Titles/Poll 70.55.203.112 ( talk) 12:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. Anyone who can contribute to the article about Australia's new Chief Scientist will be most welcome. Cheers, Mattinbgn\ talk 04:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
2006 definition of planet has been nominated for renaming 70.55.203.112 ( talk) 04:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
|
I was just noticing that the totals for the astronomy article ratings look a little uneven. We have more than 2,000 at high, but only 18 at the top and 73 in the middle. Compare to the Physics articles by quality statistics, for example, which have a more even distribution. The physics ratings also include a number of prominent physicists among their top pages.— RJH ( talk) 18:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
This might help to build some criterias. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Category:Sub-Jupiter mass planets, Category:Sub-Earth mass planets, Category:Super-Jupiters are awaiting closure on CfD. I don't know if there is recognised ways of classifying them. Comments welcome (quickly). -- Salix ( talk): 16:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
For each article, the WPAstronomy template generates a red link to a "ratings summary page". I thought it would make more sense to have a single page that explains the ratings in general. For example:
The importance of an astronomy article is determined as follows:
Thoughts?— RJH ( talk) 22:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
A discussion at Talk:Gliese 581 c revolves around the OR-ness of converting data tables to diagrams of orbits. This might be of interest to you. 70.51.8.75 ( talk) 08:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The following two moves have been requested at WP:RM ; See Talk:List_of_asteroids#Requested_move
70.51.10.188 ( talk) 04:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Whatever you do, please don't add the |astrophysics=yes tag to them. It was a real pain to remove. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 07:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
These are the lowest-rated WPAstronomy articles that are also in the top class:
outer space,
physical cosmology and
standard candle.—
RJH (
talk) 16:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand how to change the distance data in the Starbox (astrometry) at Betelgeuse. It seems to be transcluded from somewhere. Can anyone help me out? Thanks. Gwen Gale ( talk) 10:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately it looks like that paper is subscription locked at the moment. However, it is possible that Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to help.— RJH ( talk) 16:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Comet Hale-Bopp has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Marskell ( talk) 15:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Can someone look at user:CarloscomB? I just found that he recently copyvio'd a research paper (see Okayama Planet Search Program ) 70.55.200.131 ( talk) 23:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Could someone with a bit of experience please have a look at and comment on this AFD please. Pointers to guidelines for notability of Observatories and/or Astronomers also welcome. - SimonLyall ( talk) 18:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Here. Thanks, -- Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 04:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Skygazing has been sent to PROD 70.55.200.131 ( talk) 08:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
CarloscomB has added unreferenced quotes from whom he attributes to be "Steve Gottlieb" on several articles, and no listing of permission for the extracts... I think these are beyond fair use sanction, but someone should take a look. [4] 70.55.200.131 ( talk) 11:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)