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 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
So I enjoy making lists and and organizing catalogs. Right now I have wikified the complete list of all 100,000+ stars in the Hipparcos catalog. Here is a small sample of the list with a reduced number of columns:
Star | Other designation | RAhms | DEdms | Vmag | Stellar type |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
HIP 1 | HD 224700 | 00 00 00.22 | +01 05 20.4 | 9.1 | F5 |
HIP 2 | HD 224690 | 00 00 00.91 | -19 29 55.8 | 9.27 | K3V |
HIP 3 | HD 224699 | 00 00 01.20 | +38 51 33.4 | 6.61 | B9 |
HIP 4 | HD 224707 | 00 00 02.01 | -51 53 36.8 | 8.06 | F0V |
HIP 5 | HD 224705 | 00 00 02.39 | -40 35 28.4 | 8.55 | G8III |
HIP 6 | LP 524-8 | 00 00 04.35 | +03 56 47.4 | 12.31 | M0V: |
I intended to create the list article, however, I'm afraid there are way too many redlinks. There are bigger lists, like List of minor planets, but most links there are clickable. What do you think? Any idea on what I should do with my list? Thanks. Huritisho ( talk) 02:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Huritisho: I had at some point meant to make a table of the brightest stars (say down to mag 1.5) with their article rating (FA, GA, start, stub etc.) and stick it at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astronomy/Popular_pages. If you could do one there that'd be great. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 03:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
You can follow up on #Listification of nearby star navboxes, specifically the stars in the range 25-30 ly, since the 20-25 ly range looks A-OK. -- Izno ( talk) 13:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
What I would like to see is a list of the 20 brightest red dwarfs. That would be a list a backyard astronomer could use. But it would still be similar to List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs sorted by apmag. -- Kheider ( talk) 19:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Huritisho: are you interested in the Solar System? There's DRAFT:Extremes of the Solar System which you could bring to articlespace (and update with data from Messenger, New Horizons and Dawn) ; IMO it's currently in a state that is already acceptable for articlespace. -- 70.51.202.113 ( talk) 00:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
In the interest of not interfering too much with the above discussion, I'd like to bring light to List of exoplanets and List of historic comet close approaches. The former is a list dump and the latter is a direct copy (with no attribution) of this NASA page. I know NASA websites are not copyrighted, but the fact that it's a perfect match is slightly unsettling. What should be done with these two pages? Primefac ( talk) 03:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
FYI, active astronomy editor Huritisho ( talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked. Anything we have been relying on him/her for will no longer be forthcoming. -- 70.51.44.60 ( talk) 06:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
We currently don't have an article on K2's version of K1's KIC, called EPIC, should this be a new article, or should K1IC be expanded to cover the K2IC? -- 70.51.44.60 ( talk) 06:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
There is a merge discussion at Talk:Alpha Centauri Bb#Merge. The article was merged but this has been reverted. Fdfexoex ( talk) 11:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
As there seemed to be some confusion centered around the use of km3 s−2 vs m3 s−2 in the tabulated data in Standard gravitational parameter, I've standardized everything to m3. But since my math fu is weak, someone might want to double-check that table to make sure I didn't drop an order of magnitude somewhere. Cheers - Elmidae 12:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I have updated this SSS page, and several related pages, regarding its closure back in July 2013 due to lack of funding, which wasn't mentioned on that page. This is not my area of expertise, so a check by more savvy editors may be useful. If anyone has better sources, or I have made any error please let me know.
My main source is an article in The Guardian newspaper. [1] and SEN TV for the exact month the Survey ended. [2]
References
Regards, 220 of Borg 08:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Solar System has been requested to be renamed by someone, see talk:Solar System -- 70.51.44.60 ( talk) 09:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
See WT:PHYSICS and Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Wright State University/Introduction to Astronomy (Spring 2016) for a new education linked effort -- 70.51.44.60 ( talk) 05:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated Enceladus 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. DrKay ( talk) 16:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The page Pioneer 11 (See here if fixed although you probably dont want to see it) Has recently been vandalized. I tried to revert the edit but it still seems to be messed up? Davidbuddy9 Talk 23:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Are you freaking kidding me moved many lists and their associated talk pages to add the word "known" to them (search
contributions for "known").
Graeme Bartlett promptly reverted one pair with the reason revert move, no need to include the word "known" Wikipedia only has known information in it
, which I support. The only lists which had already contained the word "known", prior to kidding me's edits, were
List of most massive known stars,
List of largest known stars, and
List of most luminous known stars, so removing "known" from those lists is the most obvious solution, instead of adding "known" to all lists. Since this is a good time to gauge consensus, what does everyone else think? ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
contribs ⋅
dgaf) 15:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Good enough; seems WP:SNOWy. I'll remove errant "known"s from list article names in Category:Astronomy in the near future, with a link back to this discussion. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ dgaf) 21:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I was able to move all but 2 pages:
List of largest known stars because it's semi-protected, so I made a move-request
here; and
List of most massive known stars because
List of most massive stars already exists as a #REDIRECT, so I submitted an RfD
here made a speedy deletion request at
List of most massive stars. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
contribs ⋅
dgaf) 15:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Can someone check the contribution list for edits made by User 148.246.100.138 who was blocked temporarily in the month of November 2015 on my ARV request. Looking at his edits, he is interested in changing the timings of Eclipse events without citations. - Ninney ( talk) 22:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
WPSS got a note about an interesting query regarding Martian and Earth time at the Timekeeping on Mars talk page, thought I would cross-post here to expand the sphere of influence. Primefac ( talk) 03:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I have nominated Venus 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. Anon 09:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I found these exceptions buried in
Category:Minor planets. I put 10 of them up at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 8 and will put the rest up tomorrow if the first lot gets approved for deletion (it's not looking good). 17 of them follow the form
12818Tomhanks,
12820Robinwilliams, etc., with no space between the number and name, and all corresponding redirects-with-a-space exist. The 18th is
3962 Valyaev (asteroid), which doesn't require the "(asteroid)" distinction, as far as I can tell. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 05:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
It's been a few months since
exoplanetaryscience brought up the
point that most of the
~19,200 numbered asteroids are not contained in
Category:Numbered asteroids (current population = 1,605).
This bot request was made shortly after, but never performed. The archived WT:AST discussion we had alongside the botreq is
here (I'm only concerned with point #1 at the moment); the consensus of which was to add a 0-padded 7-digit sort key to the end ([[Category:Numbered asteroids|0000001]]
) while adding the category to all of the ~19k pages. I'm thinking about taking up this request in the near future (as I did with the then-incomplete request to selectively redirect the many asteroid stubs), so I'll ping all those previously involved to see if any opinions have changed or been added, since I haven't really kept up with WP:AST, nor WP in general, over the last 6 months. [@
Exoplanetaryscience:, @
StringTheory11:, @
Kheider:, @
JorisvS:, @
Primefac:, @
Casliber:, @
Headbomb:] ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
contribs ⋅
dgaf) 19:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I would be adding an extra 0 to the front of any existing {{DEFAULTSORT:000001}}
6-digit entries too. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
contribs ⋅
dgaf) 19:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Since this won't be as all-encompassing a change as I thought it'd be, {{DEFAULTSORT}}
will remain 0-padded 6-digit, and a similar sortkey will be added to the category, if necessary. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 20:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Category:Numbered asteroids is now completely sterilized (in a good way).
~2,100 pages were added (current population = 3,721).
201 minor planet redirects already in the cat had their sortkey changed from alphabetic/non-existent to numeric, instead of removing the cat (sorry).
Unfortunately, there were quite a few more #redirect-worthy minor planets than I expected... I'd say between 200 and 500, while I was expecting maybe 100. But, at least now they're easier to find :) ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 04:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I propose that WikiProject Astronomy/Constellations Task Force be merged with WikiProject Eclipses. Since they only have 4 active members I think that its better if we covered both of their topics in one WikiProject. Also, their topics are both covered by the Celestial mechanics and astrometry branch of astronomy so it might be a good idea to include them in a new and broader WikiProject I would like to call WikiProject Celestial mechanics and astrometry. MartinZ02 ( talk) 23:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Sub-projects of WikiProject Astronomy include WikiProject Astronomical objects, The Constellations Task Force and the WikiProject Eclipses, which pretty close to being unambiguous, but "The Constellations Task Force" should be moved farther away from "Sub-projects", probably into its own sentence. All of these issues should be corrected or improved somehow, since I think they're part of the problem/confusion here. At they very least, they're not helping. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 19:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Comments: Both groups seem to be more or less defunct, so I'm not sure a merger constitutes a benefit to content in either area. I'd rather suggest that we leave messages on the talk pages of both groups directing traffic here. Alternatively, interested parties might consider contacting WP:Wikiproject X to overhaul the project format and get advice on how to generate new interest. Honestly, I've been a little underwhelmed with that project's results so far, but they are the closest we have to experts on analytics and navigation regarding Wikiprojects. Snow let's rap 21:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
While working for a while on the minor planet redirects, and with
considerable
prodding from
exoplanetaryscience, I finally made an AWB rule-set which grabs discovery year, month, and day from the article text or from the infobox parameter |discovered=
(in that order, and, if both exist, checks for agreement (
text wrong,
text & infobox wrong)) and adds the corresponding YYYYMMDD sortkey, which is the sole sortkey-format I've seen for these categories. I want to run this on all pages contained in the 255 subcategories of
Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery in the near future, so I figured I'd warn everyone. There will invariably be another shortlist of exceptions, but it'll be a lot easier to go through that once the easy-to-fix cases are taken care of.
Also, I'm tempted to put a note on this parent-category, and the 255 subcategories, explicitly stating the sortkey format, before I start. How about we come to an agreement on
Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery first, then I'll propagate? ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 05:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Update: 24% of existing articles needed fixing: ~1,261 edits made to the 21,485 pages in this category, ~16,215 of which are #redirects (inoperable due to missing text), leaving ~5,270 articles.
The shortlist of exceptions found, which should be fixed manually, are:
[[Category:Astronomical objects discovered in <year>|?]]
, which were only touched if they:Discovered by blah blah and [[blah]] on 2000/5/05
or |discovered=2000/5/05
)I also found a few pages whose only category is this one, i.e. 170906 Coluche, leading me to do some cat-arithmetic. Since Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery should include all Category:Minor planets, I found 3,986 Category:Minor planets pages not in the Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery hierarchy, and 1,969 Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery not in Category:Minor planets (though, at most, only 300 are not minor planets), so more maintenance is necessary. This will also help process the minor planet redirects and help populate the Shortlist of minor planet redirect candidates. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 18:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Update 2: Of the 3,986 not in the Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery hierarchy, only 66 needed the addition; 96 were #redirects, and the other 3,824 were terrestrial objects (recursion often leads you into weird places). Of the 1,969 not in Category:Minor planets, only 92 are minor planets, and are all redirects, so I'll propagate their categories from redirection, if that's what caused the problem. Aside from these 92, the shortlist above, and barring any stray uncategorized pages, I think I've done pretty much all I can. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 22:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
At List of largest stars, a new star was on the top. However, I cannot understand the reference because it is too technical. And as I analyze, it does not give the radius. The star is EV Carinae and was jot down by a long time watcher of the list, who I know is responsible enough. Putting a new star on top is crucial, since the world watches it. Join the talk at Talk:List of largest stars#EV Carinae. Hope anyone responds! SkyFlubbler ( talk) 06:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey everyone, it'd be really helpful to have more input in the discussion at Talk:List of largest stars#EV Carinae. It's a tricky question and a highly viewed article. Thanks! A2soup ( talk) 00:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I've been nominating a number of biographies of amateur astronomers for deletion because I don't think that they fulfill the notability requirement. There seems to be some uncertainty as to the conditions under which discoveries confer notability upon the discoverer. My position is that in general, they do not; every year, many novae, supernovae, variable stars, comets, etc. are discovered, many of them by amateurs. Moreover, the general media seems to conflate "discovery" of an astronomical object with "notability," so a web search on these amateurs turns up media coverage which, in my opinion, is a poor indicator of the discoverer's notability. For example, if an amateur astronomer has discovered a total of 10 supernovae over the years, I don't think that that fact alone establishes notability. But perhaps someone else would disagree.
To my knowledge, there isn't a specific notability guideline for discoverers of astronomical phenomena. Have I missed it? If it doesn't exist, is there any interest in establishing one? Astro4686 ( talk) 21:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Is astronomer Adam Frank notable? I am unfamiliar with the nuances of notability for astronomers, and I would be grateful if one or more of your project members would take a look at this article. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 14:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
There are quite a few important categories relating to astronomy on wikipedia, and groups of categories. These range from category groups like Category:Astronomical objects discovered in [year], Category:Discoveries by [astronomer], and Category:[spectral type]-type asteroids, to more specific categories like Category:Quasars, Category:Multiple star systems, or Category:Kuiper belt objects. Every one of these categories contains a fairly large amount of objects in it and covers an important topic, but in most of these cases, and in quite a few more, there is no clearly established system or sort order for these objects, and in this discussion I seek to put an end to this, and provide a consensus for the outcome of this.
PROPOSALS:
I would recommend the exact sort format be provided on each category's page, as the sort format could quickly become quickly confusing and conflicting.
These are my proposals, yea or nay? Also, any comments or input? This is still a work in progress, and most of this I have based only on what I have encountered so far on wikipedia. Either way, I believe that this could be immensely helpful for providing meaningful information on Wikipedia, and I hope others will see this too. exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 02:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
{{DEFAULTSORT}}
the basic question of whether or not such as default-option should be used in the first place is not mentioned in the proposal. Frankly, I've come to the conclusion that such an generic sort-option does potentially more damage than it helps. I suggest its removal from all articles about minor planets using a bot-request. -- Cheers,
Rfassbind
– talk 15:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
[[Category:Discoveries by <astronomer-name>]]
in minor planets articles do not make much sense to me. Why not directly list the bodies in the article about the astronomer? This would also simplify the inconsistent sorting-issue of categories, as mentioned above. For example the article about the astronomer
Nikolai Chernykh already lists his discoveries, while the redundant
Category:Discoveries by Nikolai Chernykh is incomplete (probably 50% of the bodies are missing). While it's easy to create a new category, it is much harder to make sure all articles are added in the correct sorting order. Maybe that's why there are so many incomplete categories...
Rfassbind
– talk 23:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
It is my opinion that readers are most likely to search for an article by its title. In the case of minor planets, this means the name, or if there is none, the number. In the case of stars, nebulae, galaxies, etc., this would mean the most commonly used designation, or common name if that is used more. I think that the categories should be arranged so that it is easy for readers to find articles they want, so they should be ordered by name/designation. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 16:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I think a reasonable course of action is, as expolanetaryscience suggested, to state on each category page exactly how it should be sorted, both for preliminarily-designated objects and for numbered objects, but only if the intended sorting method for each category is obvious. If the category is a mess, we should discuss them individually, preferably on their talk page, but placing a link here ( WT:AST) so that all may participate. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 16:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
For the asteroids#1b (and comets#2) proposal for preliminary designations only (i.e. 1991 BA, not (3708) 1974 FV1), why are we trying to keep preliminary designations ordered by date of discovery in a non-chronological category? Isn't that the job of Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery? Turning "1992 QB1" into "1992 Q001B" seems unnecessarily confusing and could easily be done incorrectly. Any category explicitly or implicity sorted by name ( Category:Minor planets, for example, implies sorting by the object's name), the name of the article should be used (with the rare exception, which these names are not; they are the norm in their number range). This doesn't relate to numbered asteroids, whose sorting proposal I agree with. And even numbered asteroids are not sorted chronologically (they're only "roughly" chronological). ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 16:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I have started a discussion over at WikiProject Astronomical Objects on the article titles of exoplanets and stars that have been given official, formal names by the IAU. Feel free to share your opinion! Philip Terry Graham 03:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
58,481 mainspace articles listed here and here after 5 level-recursions, for those interested. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ dgaf) 17:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Couldn't you estimate correctness of the caption of this image? Stas ( talk) 20:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
There are a few asteroid pages being tagged for notability in CAT:NN Dec 2015; anybody would be welcome to look them over. 501 Urhixidur is included. Best wishes, Boleyn ( talk) 17:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
501 Urhixidur666 Desdemona1000 Piazzia4607 Seilandfarm
Title | Page ID | Namespace | Size (Bytes) | Last change | Namespace name |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
48580415 | 0 | 2496 | 20151224105144 | (Artikel) | |
33336219 | 0 | 1969 | 20151230030949 | (Artikel) | |
(32326) 2000 QO62 | 48579512 | 0 | 2196 | 20151214061929 | (Artikel) |
(374158) 2004 UL | 42139260 | 0 | 2337 | 20151227222626 | (Artikel) |
(386454) 2008 XM | 42140070 | 0 | 2032 | 20151227221529 | (Artikel) |
33375541 | 0 | 3227 | 20151227215638 | (Artikel) | |
3037590 | 0 | 3268 | 20151228195642 | (Artikel) | |
16453366 | 0 | 1664 | 20151223193710 | (Artikel) | |
6797683 | 0 | 2163 | 20151130184743 | (Artikel) | |
2002 LT38 | 32092341 | 0 | 970 | 20151214052604 | (Artikel) |
2013 MZ5 | 39802716 | 0 | 1675 | 20151128101354 | (Artikel) |
27865029 | 0 | 1637 | 20151212101639 | (Artikel) | |
16477144 | 0 | 3720 | 20151230161724 | (Artikel) | |
16631307 | 0 | 2268 | 20151230183858 | (Artikel) | |
17239270 | 0 | 3042 | 20151212101639 | (Artikel) | |
3033052 | 0 | 1713 | 20151230191446 | (Artikel) | |
16440830 | 0 | 1624 | 20151130184743 | (Artikel) | |
48821860 | 0 | 1284 | 20151230050727 | (Artikel) |
Several more asteroids have been tagged for notability and are in CAT:NN for Dec and Jan. I'm trying to start discussions on all their talk pages so they don't drag on, e.g. Talk:10121 Arzamas, Talk:10126 Lärbro, Talk:10125 Stenkyrka. PLease help resolve these by commenting in these discussions. Best wishes, Boleyn ( talk) 11:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
It's been over 2 weeks since mfb posted that category-intersection list. For those numbered over 10,000, it's probably time to #redirect if no reason for notability exists in the articles. I'll do so tomorrow. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 21:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Thx Tom.Reding for the follow-up, 4607 Seilandfarm has been revised four days ago, and 666 Desdemona and 6498 Ko will be revised soon. Rfassbind – talk 18:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
A recent edit to Planets beyond Neptune led me to the existence of Planet Nine, a newly-dubbed hypothetical planet that some guys decided really does exist. With only one paper written (and no physical evidence), does it make sense to keep the new page? Certainly the byline in the Neptune article can be kept (since it is what they're claiming), I just wonder about (yet another) theory that may or may not ever be proven. Primefac ( talk) 17:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Minor planet 90377 Sedna > Sedna (minor planet) discussion taking place at Talk:90377_Sedna#Odd_name. Please join in if it catches your fancy. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 19:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
It seems that the article alerts for this project aren't being automatically archived. (i.e., there are alerts all the way back to August 2015 still listed on the page.) Is there some specific reason why they aren't being archived?? 8bitW ( talk) 17:54, 1 February 2016 (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 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
So I enjoy making lists and and organizing catalogs. Right now I have wikified the complete list of all 100,000+ stars in the Hipparcos catalog. Here is a small sample of the list with a reduced number of columns:
Star | Other designation | RAhms | DEdms | Vmag | Stellar type |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
HIP 1 | HD 224700 | 00 00 00.22 | +01 05 20.4 | 9.1 | F5 |
HIP 2 | HD 224690 | 00 00 00.91 | -19 29 55.8 | 9.27 | K3V |
HIP 3 | HD 224699 | 00 00 01.20 | +38 51 33.4 | 6.61 | B9 |
HIP 4 | HD 224707 | 00 00 02.01 | -51 53 36.8 | 8.06 | F0V |
HIP 5 | HD 224705 | 00 00 02.39 | -40 35 28.4 | 8.55 | G8III |
HIP 6 | LP 524-8 | 00 00 04.35 | +03 56 47.4 | 12.31 | M0V: |
I intended to create the list article, however, I'm afraid there are way too many redlinks. There are bigger lists, like List of minor planets, but most links there are clickable. What do you think? Any idea on what I should do with my list? Thanks. Huritisho ( talk) 02:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Huritisho: I had at some point meant to make a table of the brightest stars (say down to mag 1.5) with their article rating (FA, GA, start, stub etc.) and stick it at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astronomy/Popular_pages. If you could do one there that'd be great. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 03:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
You can follow up on #Listification of nearby star navboxes, specifically the stars in the range 25-30 ly, since the 20-25 ly range looks A-OK. -- Izno ( talk) 13:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
What I would like to see is a list of the 20 brightest red dwarfs. That would be a list a backyard astronomer could use. But it would still be similar to List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs sorted by apmag. -- Kheider ( talk) 19:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Huritisho: are you interested in the Solar System? There's DRAFT:Extremes of the Solar System which you could bring to articlespace (and update with data from Messenger, New Horizons and Dawn) ; IMO it's currently in a state that is already acceptable for articlespace. -- 70.51.202.113 ( talk) 00:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
In the interest of not interfering too much with the above discussion, I'd like to bring light to List of exoplanets and List of historic comet close approaches. The former is a list dump and the latter is a direct copy (with no attribution) of this NASA page. I know NASA websites are not copyrighted, but the fact that it's a perfect match is slightly unsettling. What should be done with these two pages? Primefac ( talk) 03:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
FYI, active astronomy editor Huritisho ( talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked. Anything we have been relying on him/her for will no longer be forthcoming. -- 70.51.44.60 ( talk) 06:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
We currently don't have an article on K2's version of K1's KIC, called EPIC, should this be a new article, or should K1IC be expanded to cover the K2IC? -- 70.51.44.60 ( talk) 06:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
There is a merge discussion at Talk:Alpha Centauri Bb#Merge. The article was merged but this has been reverted. Fdfexoex ( talk) 11:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
As there seemed to be some confusion centered around the use of km3 s−2 vs m3 s−2 in the tabulated data in Standard gravitational parameter, I've standardized everything to m3. But since my math fu is weak, someone might want to double-check that table to make sure I didn't drop an order of magnitude somewhere. Cheers - Elmidae 12:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I have updated this SSS page, and several related pages, regarding its closure back in July 2013 due to lack of funding, which wasn't mentioned on that page. This is not my area of expertise, so a check by more savvy editors may be useful. If anyone has better sources, or I have made any error please let me know.
My main source is an article in The Guardian newspaper. [1] and SEN TV for the exact month the Survey ended. [2]
References
Regards, 220 of Borg 08:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Solar System has been requested to be renamed by someone, see talk:Solar System -- 70.51.44.60 ( talk) 09:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
See WT:PHYSICS and Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Wright State University/Introduction to Astronomy (Spring 2016) for a new education linked effort -- 70.51.44.60 ( talk) 05:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated Enceladus 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. DrKay ( talk) 16:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The page Pioneer 11 (See here if fixed although you probably dont want to see it) Has recently been vandalized. I tried to revert the edit but it still seems to be messed up? Davidbuddy9 Talk 23:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Are you freaking kidding me moved many lists and their associated talk pages to add the word "known" to them (search
contributions for "known").
Graeme Bartlett promptly reverted one pair with the reason revert move, no need to include the word "known" Wikipedia only has known information in it
, which I support. The only lists which had already contained the word "known", prior to kidding me's edits, were
List of most massive known stars,
List of largest known stars, and
List of most luminous known stars, so removing "known" from those lists is the most obvious solution, instead of adding "known" to all lists. Since this is a good time to gauge consensus, what does everyone else think? ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
contribs ⋅
dgaf) 15:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Good enough; seems WP:SNOWy. I'll remove errant "known"s from list article names in Category:Astronomy in the near future, with a link back to this discussion. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ dgaf) 21:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I was able to move all but 2 pages:
List of largest known stars because it's semi-protected, so I made a move-request
here; and
List of most massive known stars because
List of most massive stars already exists as a #REDIRECT, so I submitted an RfD
here made a speedy deletion request at
List of most massive stars. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
contribs ⋅
dgaf) 15:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Can someone check the contribution list for edits made by User 148.246.100.138 who was blocked temporarily in the month of November 2015 on my ARV request. Looking at his edits, he is interested in changing the timings of Eclipse events without citations. - Ninney ( talk) 22:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
WPSS got a note about an interesting query regarding Martian and Earth time at the Timekeeping on Mars talk page, thought I would cross-post here to expand the sphere of influence. Primefac ( talk) 03:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I have nominated Venus 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. Anon 09:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I found these exceptions buried in
Category:Minor planets. I put 10 of them up at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 8 and will put the rest up tomorrow if the first lot gets approved for deletion (it's not looking good). 17 of them follow the form
12818Tomhanks,
12820Robinwilliams, etc., with no space between the number and name, and all corresponding redirects-with-a-space exist. The 18th is
3962 Valyaev (asteroid), which doesn't require the "(asteroid)" distinction, as far as I can tell. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 05:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
It's been a few months since
exoplanetaryscience brought up the
point that most of the
~19,200 numbered asteroids are not contained in
Category:Numbered asteroids (current population = 1,605).
This bot request was made shortly after, but never performed. The archived WT:AST discussion we had alongside the botreq is
here (I'm only concerned with point #1 at the moment); the consensus of which was to add a 0-padded 7-digit sort key to the end ([[Category:Numbered asteroids|0000001]]
) while adding the category to all of the ~19k pages. I'm thinking about taking up this request in the near future (as I did with the then-incomplete request to selectively redirect the many asteroid stubs), so I'll ping all those previously involved to see if any opinions have changed or been added, since I haven't really kept up with WP:AST, nor WP in general, over the last 6 months. [@
Exoplanetaryscience:, @
StringTheory11:, @
Kheider:, @
JorisvS:, @
Primefac:, @
Casliber:, @
Headbomb:] ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
contribs ⋅
dgaf) 19:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I would be adding an extra 0 to the front of any existing {{DEFAULTSORT:000001}}
6-digit entries too. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
contribs ⋅
dgaf) 19:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Since this won't be as all-encompassing a change as I thought it'd be, {{DEFAULTSORT}}
will remain 0-padded 6-digit, and a similar sortkey will be added to the category, if necessary. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 20:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Category:Numbered asteroids is now completely sterilized (in a good way).
~2,100 pages were added (current population = 3,721).
201 minor planet redirects already in the cat had their sortkey changed from alphabetic/non-existent to numeric, instead of removing the cat (sorry).
Unfortunately, there were quite a few more #redirect-worthy minor planets than I expected... I'd say between 200 and 500, while I was expecting maybe 100. But, at least now they're easier to find :) ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 04:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I propose that WikiProject Astronomy/Constellations Task Force be merged with WikiProject Eclipses. Since they only have 4 active members I think that its better if we covered both of their topics in one WikiProject. Also, their topics are both covered by the Celestial mechanics and astrometry branch of astronomy so it might be a good idea to include them in a new and broader WikiProject I would like to call WikiProject Celestial mechanics and astrometry. MartinZ02 ( talk) 23:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Sub-projects of WikiProject Astronomy include WikiProject Astronomical objects, The Constellations Task Force and the WikiProject Eclipses, which pretty close to being unambiguous, but "The Constellations Task Force" should be moved farther away from "Sub-projects", probably into its own sentence. All of these issues should be corrected or improved somehow, since I think they're part of the problem/confusion here. At they very least, they're not helping. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 19:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Comments: Both groups seem to be more or less defunct, so I'm not sure a merger constitutes a benefit to content in either area. I'd rather suggest that we leave messages on the talk pages of both groups directing traffic here. Alternatively, interested parties might consider contacting WP:Wikiproject X to overhaul the project format and get advice on how to generate new interest. Honestly, I've been a little underwhelmed with that project's results so far, but they are the closest we have to experts on analytics and navigation regarding Wikiprojects. Snow let's rap 21:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
While working for a while on the minor planet redirects, and with
considerable
prodding from
exoplanetaryscience, I finally made an AWB rule-set which grabs discovery year, month, and day from the article text or from the infobox parameter |discovered=
(in that order, and, if both exist, checks for agreement (
text wrong,
text & infobox wrong)) and adds the corresponding YYYYMMDD sortkey, which is the sole sortkey-format I've seen for these categories. I want to run this on all pages contained in the 255 subcategories of
Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery in the near future, so I figured I'd warn everyone. There will invariably be another shortlist of exceptions, but it'll be a lot easier to go through that once the easy-to-fix cases are taken care of.
Also, I'm tempted to put a note on this parent-category, and the 255 subcategories, explicitly stating the sortkey format, before I start. How about we come to an agreement on
Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery first, then I'll propagate? ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 05:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Update: 24% of existing articles needed fixing: ~1,261 edits made to the 21,485 pages in this category, ~16,215 of which are #redirects (inoperable due to missing text), leaving ~5,270 articles.
The shortlist of exceptions found, which should be fixed manually, are:
[[Category:Astronomical objects discovered in <year>|?]]
, which were only touched if they:Discovered by blah blah and [[blah]] on 2000/5/05
or |discovered=2000/5/05
)I also found a few pages whose only category is this one, i.e. 170906 Coluche, leading me to do some cat-arithmetic. Since Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery should include all Category:Minor planets, I found 3,986 Category:Minor planets pages not in the Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery hierarchy, and 1,969 Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery not in Category:Minor planets (though, at most, only 300 are not minor planets), so more maintenance is necessary. This will also help process the minor planet redirects and help populate the Shortlist of minor planet redirect candidates. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 18:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Update 2: Of the 3,986 not in the Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery hierarchy, only 66 needed the addition; 96 were #redirects, and the other 3,824 were terrestrial objects (recursion often leads you into weird places). Of the 1,969 not in Category:Minor planets, only 92 are minor planets, and are all redirects, so I'll propagate their categories from redirection, if that's what caused the problem. Aside from these 92, the shortlist above, and barring any stray uncategorized pages, I think I've done pretty much all I can. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 22:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
At List of largest stars, a new star was on the top. However, I cannot understand the reference because it is too technical. And as I analyze, it does not give the radius. The star is EV Carinae and was jot down by a long time watcher of the list, who I know is responsible enough. Putting a new star on top is crucial, since the world watches it. Join the talk at Talk:List of largest stars#EV Carinae. Hope anyone responds! SkyFlubbler ( talk) 06:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey everyone, it'd be really helpful to have more input in the discussion at Talk:List of largest stars#EV Carinae. It's a tricky question and a highly viewed article. Thanks! A2soup ( talk) 00:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I've been nominating a number of biographies of amateur astronomers for deletion because I don't think that they fulfill the notability requirement. There seems to be some uncertainty as to the conditions under which discoveries confer notability upon the discoverer. My position is that in general, they do not; every year, many novae, supernovae, variable stars, comets, etc. are discovered, many of them by amateurs. Moreover, the general media seems to conflate "discovery" of an astronomical object with "notability," so a web search on these amateurs turns up media coverage which, in my opinion, is a poor indicator of the discoverer's notability. For example, if an amateur astronomer has discovered a total of 10 supernovae over the years, I don't think that that fact alone establishes notability. But perhaps someone else would disagree.
To my knowledge, there isn't a specific notability guideline for discoverers of astronomical phenomena. Have I missed it? If it doesn't exist, is there any interest in establishing one? Astro4686 ( talk) 21:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Is astronomer Adam Frank notable? I am unfamiliar with the nuances of notability for astronomers, and I would be grateful if one or more of your project members would take a look at this article. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 14:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
There are quite a few important categories relating to astronomy on wikipedia, and groups of categories. These range from category groups like Category:Astronomical objects discovered in [year], Category:Discoveries by [astronomer], and Category:[spectral type]-type asteroids, to more specific categories like Category:Quasars, Category:Multiple star systems, or Category:Kuiper belt objects. Every one of these categories contains a fairly large amount of objects in it and covers an important topic, but in most of these cases, and in quite a few more, there is no clearly established system or sort order for these objects, and in this discussion I seek to put an end to this, and provide a consensus for the outcome of this.
PROPOSALS:
I would recommend the exact sort format be provided on each category's page, as the sort format could quickly become quickly confusing and conflicting.
These are my proposals, yea or nay? Also, any comments or input? This is still a work in progress, and most of this I have based only on what I have encountered so far on wikipedia. Either way, I believe that this could be immensely helpful for providing meaningful information on Wikipedia, and I hope others will see this too. exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 02:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
{{DEFAULTSORT}}
the basic question of whether or not such as default-option should be used in the first place is not mentioned in the proposal. Frankly, I've come to the conclusion that such an generic sort-option does potentially more damage than it helps. I suggest its removal from all articles about minor planets using a bot-request. -- Cheers,
Rfassbind
– talk 15:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
[[Category:Discoveries by <astronomer-name>]]
in minor planets articles do not make much sense to me. Why not directly list the bodies in the article about the astronomer? This would also simplify the inconsistent sorting-issue of categories, as mentioned above. For example the article about the astronomer
Nikolai Chernykh already lists his discoveries, while the redundant
Category:Discoveries by Nikolai Chernykh is incomplete (probably 50% of the bodies are missing). While it's easy to create a new category, it is much harder to make sure all articles are added in the correct sorting order. Maybe that's why there are so many incomplete categories...
Rfassbind
– talk 23:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
It is my opinion that readers are most likely to search for an article by its title. In the case of minor planets, this means the name, or if there is none, the number. In the case of stars, nebulae, galaxies, etc., this would mean the most commonly used designation, or common name if that is used more. I think that the categories should be arranged so that it is easy for readers to find articles they want, so they should be ordered by name/designation. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 16:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I think a reasonable course of action is, as expolanetaryscience suggested, to state on each category page exactly how it should be sorted, both for preliminarily-designated objects and for numbered objects, but only if the intended sorting method for each category is obvious. If the category is a mess, we should discuss them individually, preferably on their talk page, but placing a link here ( WT:AST) so that all may participate. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 16:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
For the asteroids#1b (and comets#2) proposal for preliminary designations only (i.e. 1991 BA, not (3708) 1974 FV1), why are we trying to keep preliminary designations ordered by date of discovery in a non-chronological category? Isn't that the job of Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery? Turning "1992 QB1" into "1992 Q001B" seems unnecessarily confusing and could easily be done incorrectly. Any category explicitly or implicity sorted by name ( Category:Minor planets, for example, implies sorting by the object's name), the name of the article should be used (with the rare exception, which these names are not; they are the norm in their number range). This doesn't relate to numbered asteroids, whose sorting proposal I agree with. And even numbered asteroids are not sorted chronologically (they're only "roughly" chronological). ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 16:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I have started a discussion over at WikiProject Astronomical Objects on the article titles of exoplanets and stars that have been given official, formal names by the IAU. Feel free to share your opinion! Philip Terry Graham 03:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
58,481 mainspace articles listed here and here after 5 level-recursions, for those interested. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ dgaf) 17:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Couldn't you estimate correctness of the caption of this image? Stas ( talk) 20:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
There are a few asteroid pages being tagged for notability in CAT:NN Dec 2015; anybody would be welcome to look them over. 501 Urhixidur is included. Best wishes, Boleyn ( talk) 17:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
501 Urhixidur666 Desdemona1000 Piazzia4607 Seilandfarm
Title | Page ID | Namespace | Size (Bytes) | Last change | Namespace name |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
48580415 | 0 | 2496 | 20151224105144 | (Artikel) | |
33336219 | 0 | 1969 | 20151230030949 | (Artikel) | |
(32326) 2000 QO62 | 48579512 | 0 | 2196 | 20151214061929 | (Artikel) |
(374158) 2004 UL | 42139260 | 0 | 2337 | 20151227222626 | (Artikel) |
(386454) 2008 XM | 42140070 | 0 | 2032 | 20151227221529 | (Artikel) |
33375541 | 0 | 3227 | 20151227215638 | (Artikel) | |
3037590 | 0 | 3268 | 20151228195642 | (Artikel) | |
16453366 | 0 | 1664 | 20151223193710 | (Artikel) | |
6797683 | 0 | 2163 | 20151130184743 | (Artikel) | |
2002 LT38 | 32092341 | 0 | 970 | 20151214052604 | (Artikel) |
2013 MZ5 | 39802716 | 0 | 1675 | 20151128101354 | (Artikel) |
27865029 | 0 | 1637 | 20151212101639 | (Artikel) | |
16477144 | 0 | 3720 | 20151230161724 | (Artikel) | |
16631307 | 0 | 2268 | 20151230183858 | (Artikel) | |
17239270 | 0 | 3042 | 20151212101639 | (Artikel) | |
3033052 | 0 | 1713 | 20151230191446 | (Artikel) | |
16440830 | 0 | 1624 | 20151130184743 | (Artikel) | |
48821860 | 0 | 1284 | 20151230050727 | (Artikel) |
Several more asteroids have been tagged for notability and are in CAT:NN for Dec and Jan. I'm trying to start discussions on all their talk pages so they don't drag on, e.g. Talk:10121 Arzamas, Talk:10126 Lärbro, Talk:10125 Stenkyrka. PLease help resolve these by commenting in these discussions. Best wishes, Boleyn ( talk) 11:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
It's been over 2 weeks since mfb posted that category-intersection list. For those numbered over 10,000, it's probably time to #redirect if no reason for notability exists in the articles. I'll do so tomorrow. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 21:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Thx Tom.Reding for the follow-up, 4607 Seilandfarm has been revised four days ago, and 666 Desdemona and 6498 Ko will be revised soon. Rfassbind – talk 18:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
A recent edit to Planets beyond Neptune led me to the existence of Planet Nine, a newly-dubbed hypothetical planet that some guys decided really does exist. With only one paper written (and no physical evidence), does it make sense to keep the new page? Certainly the byline in the Neptune article can be kept (since it is what they're claiming), I just wonder about (yet another) theory that may or may not ever be proven. Primefac ( talk) 17:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Minor planet 90377 Sedna > Sedna (minor planet) discussion taking place at Talk:90377_Sedna#Odd_name. Please join in if it catches your fancy. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 19:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
It seems that the article alerts for this project aren't being automatically archived. (i.e., there are alerts all the way back to August 2015 still listed on the page.) Is there some specific reason why they aren't being archived?? 8bitW ( talk) 17:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)