![]() | 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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 30 |
Hi all. I've recently been working on automatically populating infoboxes using information from Wikidata, mostly using Template:Infobox telescope as a testbed. Doing this makes the wikitext at the top of an article a lot simpler and more newbie-friendly, and simplifies maintenance across the different Wikipedias, since we only have to update information in a central location rather than in every language article. It seems to be working quite nicely - have a look at South Pole Telescope, where all of the contents of the infobox are drawn from Wikidata (just through including {{Infobox telescope}} at the top of the article). I've also been implementing this in Template:Infobox observatory, see for example Jodrell Bank Observatory (just using {{Infobox observatory}}). Note that the templates only pull information from Wikidata where it isn't set explicitly in the article - so for pages with existing template parameters, the infobox continues to work as usual. And in order for this to work, the appropriate parameters (described in the template documentation) need to be filled out in the Wikidata entries for each telescope/observatory.
The next step is rolling this out consistently across all of the telescope and observatory articles, and identifying the use cases where this approach won't work so well. Would anyone be interested in helping to do this? And does anyone forsee any problems that need tackling first? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 19:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
|dome=
) that was
removed from
Five hundred meter Aperture Spherical Telescope, when its wikidata item did not exist, effectively losing that information. My concerns are: how many other parameters have experienced this? How did this happen, and what checks are made to ensure that it doesn't happen? ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf)
19:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
|dome=
is a binary value, so |dome=yes
is just as important as |dome=no
. By migrating to wikidata, you're putting youfself in a gatekeeper/facilitator position. To unilaterally decide that |dome=none
is irrelevant is not appropriate behavior for someone in your position. You need to bring it up at the appropriate template page and/or project page—which you've only luckily done (because I happened to bring it up). You're free to do that, but it's much easier for everyone involved if there was just a complete, unbiased transfer of information.|dome=none
being removed is more in keeping with the rest of Wikipedia. --
Izno (
talk)
21:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)|dome=none
is not <null value>. Its value is "this observatory has no dome". Put in whatever other info you want about its existence or lack thereof. Most observatories have domes. The fact? that this one doesn't is important.|dome=
, and every single other parameter you see, to wikidata. The template has been around since 2004. It's been looked at by many, many people. Take its current state (and all other templates you decide to work on) as the current consensus state. Why can't |dome=
be added? Is there a conflict with another parameter? Is it too short of a name? That should be your mentality as a facilitator. If you can't do that, then let someone else, please. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf)
21:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to tackle this very soon, at least in part.
For the numbered minor planets only, I will check for, and soft-handedly enforce the logic: (DEFAULTSORT || Category sortkey) == 0-padded 6-digit (0p6d), in the following ways:
{{DEFAULTSORT:
" is absent from the text, I will add {{DEFAULTSORT:<0p6d>}}
, for 3 reasons:That should account for all permutations.
I'll take care of the preliminary designation asteroids later, maybe, after we come to a firm consensus. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 20:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Of the 579 subcategories of Category:Minor planets, I see 23 asteroid-containing cats that should be sorted by name, which can be summed up with these 6:
for reference. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 05:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
[[Category:Discoveries by <astronomer>]]
if explicitly stated in the text.[[Category:Astronomical objects discovered in <year>]]
if %%pagename%%
includes <prelim designation>, or if |discovered=
or the text includes the discovery year.[[Category:Main-belt asteroids]]
if {{
Beltasteroid-stub}}, or similar, exist, and none of the 42 main-belt-family cats exist on the page.[[Category:Main-belt asteroids]]
if an asteroid-family orphan (and after double-checking JPL).~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 21:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
This is a fairly large uncle-category which appears on most minor planet pages: 177 subcats, 7,637 unique pages, 9,522 non-unique pages, only 1 cat deep. Either someone has gone through a lot of trouble to sort ~66% by prelim, or no one decided to (or had the energy/desire/ability to) challenge the {{DEFAULTSORT:YYYY WW#}}
convention, until now. Either way, here's a summary of the 8 most-populated subcats, representing 42.5% of all categorized pages, and how they're sorted.
Subcat | Entries | Composition | Sort method | Prelim | Name | # |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(Approx) | ||||||
Category:Discoveries by Hiroshi Kaneda | 652 | 96% #+prelim, 4% #+name | 95.5% by prelim, 3.5% by name, 1% by # | 623 | 23 | 7 |
Category:Discoveries by Seiji Ueda | 652 | "" | "" | 623 | 23 | 7 |
Category:Discoveries by Henry E. Holt | 631 | 96% #+prelim, 4% #+name | 95% by prelim, 4% by name, 1% by # | 599 | 25 | 6 |
Category:Discoveries by Henri Debehogne | 623 | ~95% #+prelim, ~5% #+name | 87% by prelim, 12% by name, 1% by # | 455 | 75 | 6 |
Category:Discoveries by Robert H. McNaught | 399 | 90 #+prelim, 10% #+name | 85% by prelim, 9.3% by name, 5.7% by "(" | 339 | 37 | 0 |
Category:Discoveries by Karl Wilhelm Reinmuth | 381 | >98% #+name, <2% #+prelim | 63% by name, 37% by # | 0 | 240 | 141 |
Category:Discoveries by Eric Walter Elst | 372 | ~20% #+prelim, ~80% #+name | 88% by name, 12% by prelim | 45 | 327 | 0 |
Category:Discoveries by Edward L. G. Bowell | 339 | 99.7% #+name | 99.7% by name | 0 | 338 | 0 |
Total | 4,049 | 2,684 (66%) | 1,088 (27%) | 167 (4%) |
What I'm about to do is pretty much a 1-way street right now, at least if/until AWB implements a $pagetitle$
feature, or the like, which I've recently
requested here (but I'm half convinced I'm simply throwing my request into a
black hole, since I have ~12 still-open requests from a year ago). Grabbing the numeric or name portion of MPs is easy, but as soon as we're allowed to use {{
mp}}
for the page, it gets really, really hard to make a reliable regex pattern to always get the page name and nothing but the page name, which would need to be operated on several times to get back to how it is. That's why I want to be very careful, and certain, about doing this.
%%pagename%%
, thankfully, exists! It was just not easily found in the AWB documentation. 2-way street established; hesitation diminished. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf)
16:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)I think we all prefer to sort all of these subcats in the same way, whatever it is. Personally, I agree with exoplanetaryscience's view that asteroids in these cats should be sorted by #, if possible. I just want to be absolutely sure that we all agree on this. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 17:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
asteroids#1b (and comets#2) proposal for preliminary designationsabove, regarding (seemingly) needless duplication of chronological sorting: replace "chronological" with "numeric". Therefore, I agree.
17,500 entries. I went through the first few-dozen pages to find ~25% sorted by #, ~25% sorted by prelim, and ~50% sorted by name, (ugh):
17 pages under heading "0": 17*200 =~3,400 (vast majority are #+name, and sorted by #) 23 pages under heading "1": 23*200 =~4,600 (vast majority are #+prelim, and sorted by prelim) ~1 page under heading "2": 1*200 = ~200 (50/50 #+prelim/#-name: #+prelim are sorted by prelim, #+name are sorted by #) ~½ page under heading "3-9": = ~100 (mostly #+name, sorted by #) 41.5 total pgs under heading "0-9": =~8,300 (~47.5% of category) ~46 pages under headings "A-Z": 17,500-8,300 = 9,200 (~52.5% of category) (nearly all are #+name, and nearly all sorted by name)
I've also requested at Template talk:Large category TOC numeric that 1 more 0-padded level be added, so that 0p6d cats can be looked through in steps of 1,000, instead of steps of 10,000.
I'm thinking about putting the non-family-member, prelim-only pages in a child Category:Main-belt preliminary asteroids, since there are comparatively so few pages of them.
Going 1 step further, I could make the child: Category:Main-belt numbered unnamed asteroids, leaving all the #+named in Category:Main-belt asteroids? I like this the more I think about it. What about everyone else? ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 18:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Überrun complete! Thank you all for being patient while I blew up your watchlists.
Category/Template | Before | After | Change (Improvement) |
---|---|---|---|
[[
Category:Main-belt numbered unnamed asteroids]]
|
0 | 3,934 | – |
[[
Category:Main-belt preliminary asteroids]]
|
0 | 3 | – |
[[
Category:Main-belt asteroids]]
|
17,501 | 14,973 | –2,528 |
Additions to [[
Category:Main-belt asteroids]]
|
– | – | |
Subcategories of [[
Category:Discoveries by astronomer]]
|
177 | 233 | |
Unique pages in [[
Category:Discoveries by astronomer]]
|
7,637 | 7,909 | |
Non-unique pages in [[
Category:Discoveries by astronomer]]
|
9,522 | 9,816 | |
Subcategories of [[
Category:Discoveries by institution]]
|
0 | 13 | – |
{{
MinorPlanets Footer}} → {{
Small Solar System bodies}}
|
~260 | 54 | −206 (79%) |
{{
MinorPlanets_Footer}} → {{
Small Solar System bodies}}
|
840 | 218 | −622 (74%) |
{{
MinorPlanets Navigator}} → {{
Minor planets navigator}}
|
? | 2 | – |
All numbered asteroids (named & unnamed) should now be sorted properly. ~17,600 edits made, 72 categories created, and 24 "(<number>) <name>" asteroids had their categories stripped to avoid duplication. All new categories, and most existing ones, have a sortkey note at the top either explicitly stating their sort convention for asteroids, or a note pointing to their parent, which has the explicit convention, lest they drift in the future.
Very minor exceptions are 1) between 50-75 Category:Numbered asteroids are on #REDIRECT pages (1.8% of that category), and 2) 110 and 316 Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery with either a "?" or empty sortkey, respectively. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 05:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Done (again). Of these 1,321 'Low-Stub' #Rs: 1,197 were rebannered as 'NA-Redirect', and 124 banners were removed on duplicate #Rs (32 were numbered, named MPs, 92 were preliminary MPs). 'Low-Stubs' should now be completely void of #redirects. Also, 973 MP #Rs were found and had their categories propagated from before they were #redirected (so they can be found more easily). ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf)
04:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I started a disussion on its talk page, Category talk:Minor planet redirects#How important is this category?. Basically, I'm asking whether we want this relatively-small cat (619 redirects) to be: 1) emptied, then deleted, 2) filled, or 3) left alone and incomplete? Please reply there. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 15:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I've just noticed that there are a number of Transit of Planet1 from Planet2 pages that lack citations. If a transit has never been observed from a planet are these phenomena notable? There are important exceptions such as Transit of Phobos from Mars and Transit of Mercury from Mars, but many of the others look like WP:OR that fails to meet the criteria of "significant coverage." My inclination is that these are only notable in cases where observations have been made such as Cassini measurements of the Transit of Venus from Saturn and/or that are discussed at length in reliable sources. Thoughts? -- mikeu talk 20:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Please join in the discussion here. Primefac ( talk) 05:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Why aren't lists of minor planets sortable? People may want to see them by date of discovery, discovery site or discoverer. They might also want to refer to the provisional designation numbers. If the lists are sortable, navigation would be easier, wouldn't it? The Average Wikipedian ( talk) 15:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikiversity:Second Journal of Science is a new type of online journal that aims to produce short articles that are focused at a specific educational level. I am the chief editor, who also happens to teach college astronomy, and have picked an article I like for the journals first issue. If you did not contribute to Astronomical spectroscopy, please look at v:Second Journal of Science/Past issues/004 and leave a brief comment at v:Talk:Second_Journal_of_Science/Past_issues/004. As I explain here, this journal freely discloses that articles extracted from Wikipedia will be assumed factually correct and reviewed wiki wiki, at least until this journal gets off the ground, so I just need a quick "second opinion" regarding the readability of this article at the freshman college level. Thanks much-- Guy vandegrift ( talk) 05:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:
You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.
Many thanks and best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 06:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
First observation of gravitational waves has been proposed to be renamed, see talk:First observation of gravitational waves -- 70.51.200.135 ( talk) 06:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
To let Category:Palomar–Leiden survey conform to the Category:Discoveries by institution hierarchy, its contents are being moved (and expanded) into Category:Discoveries by PLS. The sortkey for Category:Palomar–Leiden survey is its preliminary P-L designation, which is removed from the article's title when given a name, and (hopefully) added to/kept in the article text (standard for all MPs, as far as I can tell). The sortkey for all other Category:Discoveries by institution child categories is 0-padded 6-digit (maybe because their survey designations are either hard to find, or complicated).
My question is, do we want to:
? ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 17:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
With help from Rfassbind, all objects currently associated with the Palomar–Leiden survey cats and the Trojan surveys cats are now sorted into their discovery and/or survey catalog cats. The hierarchy can be seen starting at Category:Asteroid surveys, Category:Astronomical surveys, and Category:Palomar Observatory. I'll continue to search for PL objects as I progress through the MPs, and on pages I've already gone though. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 19:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi all,
This draft is up for speedy deletion, but my guess is that a group of galaxies probably meet the notability guidelines, as they are, well, galaxies and stuff.
Could you possibly have a look into this?
Thanks! Pete AU aka --
Shirt58 (
talk)
08:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
The link lists at User:Iceblock/Oxford Dictionary of Astronomy and User:Iceblock/Oxford Dictionary of Astronomy/Red links might be of interest to your WikiProject. Iceblock ( talk) 21:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Would anyone watching this talk page who understands the difference between spectrohelioscope and spectroheliograph be able to check those two pages for accuracy? I think there has been some confusion among the editors who created and edited these articles - see also my edit here and Talk:Spectrohelioscope. Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
The article on the Astronomical Society of New South Wales has recently been heavily edited by @ Arianewiki1:, who says that the material violates NPOV. But I struggle to see how an edit like this one is constructive, because it removed nearly the entire section of material that was supported by independent references, and left an un-referenced stub in its place. At the moment, there is discussion about whether notable members' achievements should be included in the article. Rather than engaging in a two-person debate, if anybody can lend an experienced, independent view then please comment at Talk:Astronomical Society of New South Wales#NPOV and Self Promotional Material Issues.-- Gronk Oz ( talk) 16:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Only another 7,000 or so to go, which might take a while at this rate. Lithopsian ( talk) 15:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I made a list page of 376 candidates (for now) at User:Tom.Reding/Shortlist of minor planet redirect candidates, so we're all on the same page (figuratively & literally), and so we're not doing more work than is needed. Now, have at it! ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 07:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
If anyone sees some borderline cases, feel free to add them. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 08:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Only ~58 "unchecked" candidates remaining! ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 16:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that Template:Infobox zodiac carries the banner of a sub-project of this project, so I want to notify the group that I'm making improvements to that infobox so it will issue correct dates of passage of the Sun from one zodiac sign (not constellation) to another. The current Template:zodiac date will be replaced with Module:zodiac date.
The old Template:zodiac date contained equations which tried to predict the crossing dates, and I identified a number of instances where these equations were giving incorrect dates. So I interpolated the apparent geocentric ecliptic longitude of the Sun using a computer almanac from the U.S. Naval Observatory to find the crossing dates, then encapsulated the results in a Lua table. The new version will provide results traceable to a reliable source through most of 2050. Since the only articles calling this infobox are mostly about astrology, I have started a discussion of the change at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astrology. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Alexander Street Press (ASP) is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online" collection includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (notably shows like 60 minutes), music and theatre, lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. The Academic Video Online: Premium collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. For more details see their website.
There are up to 30 one-year ASP accounts available to Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to
WP:ASP. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
07:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello. The article on the space observatory CHEOPS#Goals uses the units ppm in a context unfamiliar to me (I am a biologist), and it does not have an inline reference. I want to clarify the meaning of this unit by adding its meaning within parenthesis or adding a Wikilink to the appropriate article. Is it "parts per million" (parts of what?); is it "Positions and Proper Motions"? Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 14:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
An ip user has adding material to astrophysical jet on the jet of a specific object that (at least superficially to me) appears to be original synthesis. The eyes of somebody more familiar with the subject area would be very useful. T R 07:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Template talk:Infobox planet. There are two discussions about adding parameters to {{
Infobox planet}}, a template that is within the scope of this WikiProject.
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
21:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC) --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE) 21:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
|
mean_motion=
and/or |
tisserand=
to {{
Infobox planet}}. Please & thank you! ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf)
17:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)This is a recent discovery, two months ago. Its paper is comprehensive, but the article is poorly written. Need help on improving it; it would be highly appreciated. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 03:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
This template, which is almost ubiquitous in star articles, automatically provides a list of star-type objects by constellation. There is a category with most (possibly all) of them. However, it appears to come in two different flavours. The ones labelled "Stars of ..." (the visible title of the infobox, not the template name) includes only stars, with Orion as an example. Essentially all of the objects listed in the template include the template in their article. The other flavour is "... constellation", with Andromeda as an example. This second type additionally lists non-stellar objects (hence the title change?) such as nebulae, clusters, and galaxies, and most constellation templates now seem to be of this form. The problem I see is that the majority of non-stellar objects listed in this template do not include the template. Also, they tend to have additional templates such as NGC objects (not that I like that template very much). So, where is all this going and should I be slapping this template onto every galaxy and supernova article I see? Lithopsian ( talk) 13:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Are there anyone here who wants to make a navigational template out of Draft:Radiation laws or find an existing template that fits? Or do you have other ideas about this page or what should be done? :-) Iceblock ( talk) 22:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of " Mercury" is under discussion, see Talk:Mercury (planet) -- 70.51.45.100 ( talk) 05:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
This is sort of a panic post as I am getting a lot of pings and I'm still not 100% what is going on here but I want to inform everyone in WP:AST to deal with this because I can't deal with all this by myself. Several exoplanet related articles have been up for deletion because the only reason why these articles exist is because they assume that some exoplanets are potentially habitable (imo the key word that these editors missed is potentially), apparently @ I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: (who often signes as jps) believes that this falls into WP:OR and has been going around removing tables and opening AfD's such as:
I'm concerned that this could go around to deleting pages regarding actual exoplanets which it probably has, but I want to know if this is ok and its just me freaking out about these proposed deletions? To me these proposed deletions seem obscene. Davidbuddy9 Talk 02:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
There's also another template up for deletion with {{ HabPlanetScore}} ; and {{ ESIScore}} needs fixing up, since its missing categorization and documentation -- 70.51.46.39 ( talk) 04:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
First of all, Davidbuddy9, calm down. Even if the articles are deleted, many admins will be happy to email you their contents or restore them to your userspace so you can either work on establishing notability or incorporate the information elsewhere. This isn't as time-sensitive as you seem to think - none of this information will be imminently destroyed. With that out of the way, I will say that when I poked around exoplanet articles months ago, I was somewhat concerned with the focus on ESI scores. If it is true that ESI scores are not referenced by any academic sources besides PHL (a big if!), then I think their prominence in existing articles and the creation of articles based only on high ESI scores should be reevaluated. I am not necessarily in support of eliminating ESI scores from Wikipedia entirely, but I do think they are currently being given undue weight if it is, in fact, true that they have not been picked up by any other academic sources. A2soup ( talk) 00:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
"updated"versions of these articles have been
"vetted by experts". But I do feel that many exoplanet articles are indeed somewhat notable to a certain extent. I feel that this proposal by @ Lithopsian: could turn out for the worse for the reader. Rather than starting new proxy wars deal with the ones that are open right now and take action on them, and please comment on those RfC's really because that is where this conversation should be taken place. Davidbuddy9 Talk 03:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lithopsian:: The question as to exoplanet notability is a good one. Right now, we're struggling with trying to determine the notability of candidate exoplanets. I think, for the most part, almost every KOI that hasn't had a significant number of papers written explicitly about it should be considered not notable. jps ( talk) 10:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
In principle, certain KOIs may be notable if, for example, many papers have been written about them or there is some sort of WP:GNG-related sources. However, I think for the most part they all fail WP:NASTRO. To that end, I have started the following deletion discussions:
jps ( talk) 12:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Note also previous discussions:
Hello,
After reviewing a sockpuppetry case, it has been found that QuentinQuade is a sockpuppet of Davidbuddy9. The open community discussions have been corrected to remove duplicate votes. However, one of the articles that Davidbuddy9 has edited was reviewed as a good article by QuentinQuade. ( Please see here.) I'd greatly appreciate if someone could review this article to ensure that it does meet the requirements of a good article. Best, Mike V • Talk 19:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
As
pointed out to me,
Category:Numbered asteroids isn't the most aptly-named category. I'll migrate it to
Category:Numbered minor planet articles
Category:Numbered minor planets later today or later if no objections. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf)
13:49, 7 April 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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 30 |
Hi all. I've recently been working on automatically populating infoboxes using information from Wikidata, mostly using Template:Infobox telescope as a testbed. Doing this makes the wikitext at the top of an article a lot simpler and more newbie-friendly, and simplifies maintenance across the different Wikipedias, since we only have to update information in a central location rather than in every language article. It seems to be working quite nicely - have a look at South Pole Telescope, where all of the contents of the infobox are drawn from Wikidata (just through including {{Infobox telescope}} at the top of the article). I've also been implementing this in Template:Infobox observatory, see for example Jodrell Bank Observatory (just using {{Infobox observatory}}). Note that the templates only pull information from Wikidata where it isn't set explicitly in the article - so for pages with existing template parameters, the infobox continues to work as usual. And in order for this to work, the appropriate parameters (described in the template documentation) need to be filled out in the Wikidata entries for each telescope/observatory.
The next step is rolling this out consistently across all of the telescope and observatory articles, and identifying the use cases where this approach won't work so well. Would anyone be interested in helping to do this? And does anyone forsee any problems that need tackling first? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 19:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
|dome=
) that was
removed from
Five hundred meter Aperture Spherical Telescope, when its wikidata item did not exist, effectively losing that information. My concerns are: how many other parameters have experienced this? How did this happen, and what checks are made to ensure that it doesn't happen? ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf)
19:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
|dome=
is a binary value, so |dome=yes
is just as important as |dome=no
. By migrating to wikidata, you're putting youfself in a gatekeeper/facilitator position. To unilaterally decide that |dome=none
is irrelevant is not appropriate behavior for someone in your position. You need to bring it up at the appropriate template page and/or project page—which you've only luckily done (because I happened to bring it up). You're free to do that, but it's much easier for everyone involved if there was just a complete, unbiased transfer of information.|dome=none
being removed is more in keeping with the rest of Wikipedia. --
Izno (
talk)
21:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)|dome=none
is not <null value>. Its value is "this observatory has no dome". Put in whatever other info you want about its existence or lack thereof. Most observatories have domes. The fact? that this one doesn't is important.|dome=
, and every single other parameter you see, to wikidata. The template has been around since 2004. It's been looked at by many, many people. Take its current state (and all other templates you decide to work on) as the current consensus state. Why can't |dome=
be added? Is there a conflict with another parameter? Is it too short of a name? That should be your mentality as a facilitator. If you can't do that, then let someone else, please. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf)
21:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to tackle this very soon, at least in part.
For the numbered minor planets only, I will check for, and soft-handedly enforce the logic: (DEFAULTSORT || Category sortkey) == 0-padded 6-digit (0p6d), in the following ways:
{{DEFAULTSORT:
" is absent from the text, I will add {{DEFAULTSORT:<0p6d>}}
, for 3 reasons:That should account for all permutations.
I'll take care of the preliminary designation asteroids later, maybe, after we come to a firm consensus. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 20:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Of the 579 subcategories of Category:Minor planets, I see 23 asteroid-containing cats that should be sorted by name, which can be summed up with these 6:
for reference. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 05:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
[[Category:Discoveries by <astronomer>]]
if explicitly stated in the text.[[Category:Astronomical objects discovered in <year>]]
if %%pagename%%
includes <prelim designation>, or if |discovered=
or the text includes the discovery year.[[Category:Main-belt asteroids]]
if {{
Beltasteroid-stub}}, or similar, exist, and none of the 42 main-belt-family cats exist on the page.[[Category:Main-belt asteroids]]
if an asteroid-family orphan (and after double-checking JPL).~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 21:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
This is a fairly large uncle-category which appears on most minor planet pages: 177 subcats, 7,637 unique pages, 9,522 non-unique pages, only 1 cat deep. Either someone has gone through a lot of trouble to sort ~66% by prelim, or no one decided to (or had the energy/desire/ability to) challenge the {{DEFAULTSORT:YYYY WW#}}
convention, until now. Either way, here's a summary of the 8 most-populated subcats, representing 42.5% of all categorized pages, and how they're sorted.
Subcat | Entries | Composition | Sort method | Prelim | Name | # |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(Approx) | ||||||
Category:Discoveries by Hiroshi Kaneda | 652 | 96% #+prelim, 4% #+name | 95.5% by prelim, 3.5% by name, 1% by # | 623 | 23 | 7 |
Category:Discoveries by Seiji Ueda | 652 | "" | "" | 623 | 23 | 7 |
Category:Discoveries by Henry E. Holt | 631 | 96% #+prelim, 4% #+name | 95% by prelim, 4% by name, 1% by # | 599 | 25 | 6 |
Category:Discoveries by Henri Debehogne | 623 | ~95% #+prelim, ~5% #+name | 87% by prelim, 12% by name, 1% by # | 455 | 75 | 6 |
Category:Discoveries by Robert H. McNaught | 399 | 90 #+prelim, 10% #+name | 85% by prelim, 9.3% by name, 5.7% by "(" | 339 | 37 | 0 |
Category:Discoveries by Karl Wilhelm Reinmuth | 381 | >98% #+name, <2% #+prelim | 63% by name, 37% by # | 0 | 240 | 141 |
Category:Discoveries by Eric Walter Elst | 372 | ~20% #+prelim, ~80% #+name | 88% by name, 12% by prelim | 45 | 327 | 0 |
Category:Discoveries by Edward L. G. Bowell | 339 | 99.7% #+name | 99.7% by name | 0 | 338 | 0 |
Total | 4,049 | 2,684 (66%) | 1,088 (27%) | 167 (4%) |
What I'm about to do is pretty much a 1-way street right now, at least if/until AWB implements a $pagetitle$
feature, or the like, which I've recently
requested here (but I'm half convinced I'm simply throwing my request into a
black hole, since I have ~12 still-open requests from a year ago). Grabbing the numeric or name portion of MPs is easy, but as soon as we're allowed to use {{
mp}}
for the page, it gets really, really hard to make a reliable regex pattern to always get the page name and nothing but the page name, which would need to be operated on several times to get back to how it is. That's why I want to be very careful, and certain, about doing this.
%%pagename%%
, thankfully, exists! It was just not easily found in the AWB documentation. 2-way street established; hesitation diminished. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf)
16:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)I think we all prefer to sort all of these subcats in the same way, whatever it is. Personally, I agree with exoplanetaryscience's view that asteroids in these cats should be sorted by #, if possible. I just want to be absolutely sure that we all agree on this. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 17:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
asteroids#1b (and comets#2) proposal for preliminary designationsabove, regarding (seemingly) needless duplication of chronological sorting: replace "chronological" with "numeric". Therefore, I agree.
17,500 entries. I went through the first few-dozen pages to find ~25% sorted by #, ~25% sorted by prelim, and ~50% sorted by name, (ugh):
17 pages under heading "0": 17*200 =~3,400 (vast majority are #+name, and sorted by #) 23 pages under heading "1": 23*200 =~4,600 (vast majority are #+prelim, and sorted by prelim) ~1 page under heading "2": 1*200 = ~200 (50/50 #+prelim/#-name: #+prelim are sorted by prelim, #+name are sorted by #) ~½ page under heading "3-9": = ~100 (mostly #+name, sorted by #) 41.5 total pgs under heading "0-9": =~8,300 (~47.5% of category) ~46 pages under headings "A-Z": 17,500-8,300 = 9,200 (~52.5% of category) (nearly all are #+name, and nearly all sorted by name)
I've also requested at Template talk:Large category TOC numeric that 1 more 0-padded level be added, so that 0p6d cats can be looked through in steps of 1,000, instead of steps of 10,000.
I'm thinking about putting the non-family-member, prelim-only pages in a child Category:Main-belt preliminary asteroids, since there are comparatively so few pages of them.
Going 1 step further, I could make the child: Category:Main-belt numbered unnamed asteroids, leaving all the #+named in Category:Main-belt asteroids? I like this the more I think about it. What about everyone else? ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 18:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Überrun complete! Thank you all for being patient while I blew up your watchlists.
Category/Template | Before | After | Change (Improvement) |
---|---|---|---|
[[
Category:Main-belt numbered unnamed asteroids]]
|
0 | 3,934 | – |
[[
Category:Main-belt preliminary asteroids]]
|
0 | 3 | – |
[[
Category:Main-belt asteroids]]
|
17,501 | 14,973 | –2,528 |
Additions to [[
Category:Main-belt asteroids]]
|
– | – | |
Subcategories of [[
Category:Discoveries by astronomer]]
|
177 | 233 | |
Unique pages in [[
Category:Discoveries by astronomer]]
|
7,637 | 7,909 | |
Non-unique pages in [[
Category:Discoveries by astronomer]]
|
9,522 | 9,816 | |
Subcategories of [[
Category:Discoveries by institution]]
|
0 | 13 | – |
{{
MinorPlanets Footer}} → {{
Small Solar System bodies}}
|
~260 | 54 | −206 (79%) |
{{
MinorPlanets_Footer}} → {{
Small Solar System bodies}}
|
840 | 218 | −622 (74%) |
{{
MinorPlanets Navigator}} → {{
Minor planets navigator}}
|
? | 2 | – |
All numbered asteroids (named & unnamed) should now be sorted properly. ~17,600 edits made, 72 categories created, and 24 "(<number>) <name>" asteroids had their categories stripped to avoid duplication. All new categories, and most existing ones, have a sortkey note at the top either explicitly stating their sort convention for asteroids, or a note pointing to their parent, which has the explicit convention, lest they drift in the future.
Very minor exceptions are 1) between 50-75 Category:Numbered asteroids are on #REDIRECT pages (1.8% of that category), and 2) 110 and 316 Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery with either a "?" or empty sortkey, respectively. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 05:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Done (again). Of these 1,321 'Low-Stub' #Rs: 1,197 were rebannered as 'NA-Redirect', and 124 banners were removed on duplicate #Rs (32 were numbered, named MPs, 92 were preliminary MPs). 'Low-Stubs' should now be completely void of #redirects. Also, 973 MP #Rs were found and had their categories propagated from before they were #redirected (so they can be found more easily). ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf)
04:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I started a disussion on its talk page, Category talk:Minor planet redirects#How important is this category?. Basically, I'm asking whether we want this relatively-small cat (619 redirects) to be: 1) emptied, then deleted, 2) filled, or 3) left alone and incomplete? Please reply there. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 15:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I've just noticed that there are a number of Transit of Planet1 from Planet2 pages that lack citations. If a transit has never been observed from a planet are these phenomena notable? There are important exceptions such as Transit of Phobos from Mars and Transit of Mercury from Mars, but many of the others look like WP:OR that fails to meet the criteria of "significant coverage." My inclination is that these are only notable in cases where observations have been made such as Cassini measurements of the Transit of Venus from Saturn and/or that are discussed at length in reliable sources. Thoughts? -- mikeu talk 20:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Please join in the discussion here. Primefac ( talk) 05:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Why aren't lists of minor planets sortable? People may want to see them by date of discovery, discovery site or discoverer. They might also want to refer to the provisional designation numbers. If the lists are sortable, navigation would be easier, wouldn't it? The Average Wikipedian ( talk) 15:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikiversity:Second Journal of Science is a new type of online journal that aims to produce short articles that are focused at a specific educational level. I am the chief editor, who also happens to teach college astronomy, and have picked an article I like for the journals first issue. If you did not contribute to Astronomical spectroscopy, please look at v:Second Journal of Science/Past issues/004 and leave a brief comment at v:Talk:Second_Journal_of_Science/Past_issues/004. As I explain here, this journal freely discloses that articles extracted from Wikipedia will be assumed factually correct and reviewed wiki wiki, at least until this journal gets off the ground, so I just need a quick "second opinion" regarding the readability of this article at the freshman college level. Thanks much-- Guy vandegrift ( talk) 05:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:
You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.
Many thanks and best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 06:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
First observation of gravitational waves has been proposed to be renamed, see talk:First observation of gravitational waves -- 70.51.200.135 ( talk) 06:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
To let Category:Palomar–Leiden survey conform to the Category:Discoveries by institution hierarchy, its contents are being moved (and expanded) into Category:Discoveries by PLS. The sortkey for Category:Palomar–Leiden survey is its preliminary P-L designation, which is removed from the article's title when given a name, and (hopefully) added to/kept in the article text (standard for all MPs, as far as I can tell). The sortkey for all other Category:Discoveries by institution child categories is 0-padded 6-digit (maybe because their survey designations are either hard to find, or complicated).
My question is, do we want to:
? ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 17:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
With help from Rfassbind, all objects currently associated with the Palomar–Leiden survey cats and the Trojan surveys cats are now sorted into their discovery and/or survey catalog cats. The hierarchy can be seen starting at Category:Asteroid surveys, Category:Astronomical surveys, and Category:Palomar Observatory. I'll continue to search for PL objects as I progress through the MPs, and on pages I've already gone though. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 19:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi all,
This draft is up for speedy deletion, but my guess is that a group of galaxies probably meet the notability guidelines, as they are, well, galaxies and stuff.
Could you possibly have a look into this?
Thanks! Pete AU aka --
Shirt58 (
talk)
08:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
The link lists at User:Iceblock/Oxford Dictionary of Astronomy and User:Iceblock/Oxford Dictionary of Astronomy/Red links might be of interest to your WikiProject. Iceblock ( talk) 21:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Would anyone watching this talk page who understands the difference between spectrohelioscope and spectroheliograph be able to check those two pages for accuracy? I think there has been some confusion among the editors who created and edited these articles - see also my edit here and Talk:Spectrohelioscope. Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
The article on the Astronomical Society of New South Wales has recently been heavily edited by @ Arianewiki1:, who says that the material violates NPOV. But I struggle to see how an edit like this one is constructive, because it removed nearly the entire section of material that was supported by independent references, and left an un-referenced stub in its place. At the moment, there is discussion about whether notable members' achievements should be included in the article. Rather than engaging in a two-person debate, if anybody can lend an experienced, independent view then please comment at Talk:Astronomical Society of New South Wales#NPOV and Self Promotional Material Issues.-- Gronk Oz ( talk) 16:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Only another 7,000 or so to go, which might take a while at this rate. Lithopsian ( talk) 15:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I made a list page of 376 candidates (for now) at User:Tom.Reding/Shortlist of minor planet redirect candidates, so we're all on the same page (figuratively & literally), and so we're not doing more work than is needed. Now, have at it! ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 07:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
If anyone sees some borderline cases, feel free to add them. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 08:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Only ~58 "unchecked" candidates remaining! ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 16:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that Template:Infobox zodiac carries the banner of a sub-project of this project, so I want to notify the group that I'm making improvements to that infobox so it will issue correct dates of passage of the Sun from one zodiac sign (not constellation) to another. The current Template:zodiac date will be replaced with Module:zodiac date.
The old Template:zodiac date contained equations which tried to predict the crossing dates, and I identified a number of instances where these equations were giving incorrect dates. So I interpolated the apparent geocentric ecliptic longitude of the Sun using a computer almanac from the U.S. Naval Observatory to find the crossing dates, then encapsulated the results in a Lua table. The new version will provide results traceable to a reliable source through most of 2050. Since the only articles calling this infobox are mostly about astrology, I have started a discussion of the change at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astrology. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Alexander Street Press (ASP) is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online" collection includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (notably shows like 60 minutes), music and theatre, lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. The Academic Video Online: Premium collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. For more details see their website.
There are up to 30 one-year ASP accounts available to Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to
WP:ASP. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
07:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello. The article on the space observatory CHEOPS#Goals uses the units ppm in a context unfamiliar to me (I am a biologist), and it does not have an inline reference. I want to clarify the meaning of this unit by adding its meaning within parenthesis or adding a Wikilink to the appropriate article. Is it "parts per million" (parts of what?); is it "Positions and Proper Motions"? Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 14:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
An ip user has adding material to astrophysical jet on the jet of a specific object that (at least superficially to me) appears to be original synthesis. The eyes of somebody more familiar with the subject area would be very useful. T R 07:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Template talk:Infobox planet. There are two discussions about adding parameters to {{
Infobox planet}}, a template that is within the scope of this WikiProject.
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
21:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC) --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE) 21:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
|
mean_motion=
and/or |
tisserand=
to {{
Infobox planet}}. Please & thank you! ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf)
17:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)This is a recent discovery, two months ago. Its paper is comprehensive, but the article is poorly written. Need help on improving it; it would be highly appreciated. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 03:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
This template, which is almost ubiquitous in star articles, automatically provides a list of star-type objects by constellation. There is a category with most (possibly all) of them. However, it appears to come in two different flavours. The ones labelled "Stars of ..." (the visible title of the infobox, not the template name) includes only stars, with Orion as an example. Essentially all of the objects listed in the template include the template in their article. The other flavour is "... constellation", with Andromeda as an example. This second type additionally lists non-stellar objects (hence the title change?) such as nebulae, clusters, and galaxies, and most constellation templates now seem to be of this form. The problem I see is that the majority of non-stellar objects listed in this template do not include the template. Also, they tend to have additional templates such as NGC objects (not that I like that template very much). So, where is all this going and should I be slapping this template onto every galaxy and supernova article I see? Lithopsian ( talk) 13:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Are there anyone here who wants to make a navigational template out of Draft:Radiation laws or find an existing template that fits? Or do you have other ideas about this page or what should be done? :-) Iceblock ( talk) 22:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of " Mercury" is under discussion, see Talk:Mercury (planet) -- 70.51.45.100 ( talk) 05:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
This is sort of a panic post as I am getting a lot of pings and I'm still not 100% what is going on here but I want to inform everyone in WP:AST to deal with this because I can't deal with all this by myself. Several exoplanet related articles have been up for deletion because the only reason why these articles exist is because they assume that some exoplanets are potentially habitable (imo the key word that these editors missed is potentially), apparently @ I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: (who often signes as jps) believes that this falls into WP:OR and has been going around removing tables and opening AfD's such as:
I'm concerned that this could go around to deleting pages regarding actual exoplanets which it probably has, but I want to know if this is ok and its just me freaking out about these proposed deletions? To me these proposed deletions seem obscene. Davidbuddy9 Talk 02:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
There's also another template up for deletion with {{ HabPlanetScore}} ; and {{ ESIScore}} needs fixing up, since its missing categorization and documentation -- 70.51.46.39 ( talk) 04:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
First of all, Davidbuddy9, calm down. Even if the articles are deleted, many admins will be happy to email you their contents or restore them to your userspace so you can either work on establishing notability or incorporate the information elsewhere. This isn't as time-sensitive as you seem to think - none of this information will be imminently destroyed. With that out of the way, I will say that when I poked around exoplanet articles months ago, I was somewhat concerned with the focus on ESI scores. If it is true that ESI scores are not referenced by any academic sources besides PHL (a big if!), then I think their prominence in existing articles and the creation of articles based only on high ESI scores should be reevaluated. I am not necessarily in support of eliminating ESI scores from Wikipedia entirely, but I do think they are currently being given undue weight if it is, in fact, true that they have not been picked up by any other academic sources. A2soup ( talk) 00:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
"updated"versions of these articles have been
"vetted by experts". But I do feel that many exoplanet articles are indeed somewhat notable to a certain extent. I feel that this proposal by @ Lithopsian: could turn out for the worse for the reader. Rather than starting new proxy wars deal with the ones that are open right now and take action on them, and please comment on those RfC's really because that is where this conversation should be taken place. Davidbuddy9 Talk 03:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Lithopsian:: The question as to exoplanet notability is a good one. Right now, we're struggling with trying to determine the notability of candidate exoplanets. I think, for the most part, almost every KOI that hasn't had a significant number of papers written explicitly about it should be considered not notable. jps ( talk) 10:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
In principle, certain KOIs may be notable if, for example, many papers have been written about them or there is some sort of WP:GNG-related sources. However, I think for the most part they all fail WP:NASTRO. To that end, I have started the following deletion discussions:
jps ( talk) 12:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Note also previous discussions:
Hello,
After reviewing a sockpuppetry case, it has been found that QuentinQuade is a sockpuppet of Davidbuddy9. The open community discussions have been corrected to remove duplicate votes. However, one of the articles that Davidbuddy9 has edited was reviewed as a good article by QuentinQuade. ( Please see here.) I'd greatly appreciate if someone could review this article to ensure that it does meet the requirements of a good article. Best, Mike V • Talk 19:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
As
pointed out to me,
Category:Numbered asteroids isn't the most aptly-named category. I'll migrate it to
Category:Numbered minor planet articles
Category:Numbered minor planets later today or later if no objections. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf)
13:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)