![]() | 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 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
A few of the top-cited journals without articles on Wikipedia belong to astronomy. Going through WP:JCW/Missing1+, we've got
All of those are cited hundreds of times. Help writing the journal articles (or website or whatever) would be greatly appreciated. We have a guide for that at WP:JWG, which means writing a solid journal article takes 20-30 minute. It's possible some of those don't warrant full articles, but could be sections in another article. E.g. maybe a dedicated section inside SIMBAD would be sufficient for Catalogue of Eggen's UBV data. SIMBAD. It could also mean some citations need to be cleaned up. Thanks for any help you can give! Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 14:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
As a note, Asteroids IV seems to be a notable textbook based on its reviews. Especially if you treat the previous editions too (presumably Asteroids III, Asteroids II, and Asteroids I/Asteroids?). Looking at WP:JCW/A68, those seem to at least ~410 citations on Wikipedia. There could be more as a proper {{ cite book}}, or in plain refs. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
CBET is just the email version of CBAT. I've redirected to Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams. Modest Genius talk 17:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Likely Bibcode: 1967IAUS...30.....B Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Eggen is possibly UBV Photoelectric Photometry Catalogue. See Bibcode: 1987A&AS...71..413M. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Based on the previous discussion, I think all the references to II/168 should be replaced with something like:
Astronomy Quarterly. Lithopsian ( talk) 16:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The following should probably be converted to a proper reference.
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 15:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
BTW, updating citations is nice, but if you could also create redirects to the relevant catalogue (or whatever) when they exist, that would be nice. For example, II/246 = 2MASS. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 14:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion that may be of interest to the members of this board at Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson#Text_proposals. ResultingConstant ( talk) 18:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Lists of all pages, only articles, & only redirects in Category:Astronomy updated. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 00:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
We have two nearly identical articles. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 17:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Also, the article might need to be moved to ...2019 soon.
Would it be possible to change the appearance of {{ Infobox planet}} so that for exoplanets, it has the appeance of the {{ Planetboxes}}? Loooke ( talk) 03:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
There's a discussion that I have a feeling is going to require some additional input (just based on the edits that have occurred there in the last few days). In short, it's about whether to put amateur astronomy into the Exoplanet article (and if so, where to put it, and how much to include). Primefac ( talk) 19:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
There are issues with Absolute magnitude (C-class, high importance), see the discussion I started at here. For the past 14 years, the article contained WP:OR that is probably wrong, but has since been used in multiple peer-reviewed articles. @ Tomruen:, who originally added it in 2004, has brought the issue to my attention yesterday, and we both are working on fixing it. We need help though! Renerpho ( talk) 05:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I read the section Pinwheel_nebula#Spiral_galaxies, I don't ever remember reading anywhere that this ever took place. "Spiral nebulae" was the case, but not sure of "Pinwheel nebulae" being the case. Anyone know this to be true? If not, I think that section needs to be removed. The article itself is fine, as Pinwheel nebulae does exist and astronomers call them that. Thanks, Marasama ( talk) 22:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Should we just delete Pinwheel_nebula entirely? Is it worth it for the handful of stellar nebulae that occasionally have that term used? - Parejkoj ( talk) 07:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that Sbznpoe has been promoting the Greek letters for Bayer designations (for example, see here). I have mixed feelings about this and felt we should discuss to gain consensus (not sure if it has been discussed before). So do folks prefer "Epsilon Canis Majoris" or "ε Canis Majoris" for use in wikipedia articles containing Bayer designations? And why? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 02:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay, so the main reason I threw this up now is we have differing layouts in star and constellation articles and it'd be good to streamline - we can also update Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects). @ Modest Genius:, in subsequent mentions on a page, did you mean using "ε CMa" or "ε Canis Majoris"? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I have made two move proposals; one to move 2XMM J160050.7–514245 to Apep (star system) ( Discussion), and to move the Stars of constellation templates from "Template:Stars of [constellation]" to simply "[constellation]", and change the scope from a navbox of exclusively stars to a navbox for all astronomical objects in each constellation ( Discussion). You're welcome to come in and voice your opinion on either or both discussions! :) – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 04:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Ardenau4 has changed the images of some of Uranus's moons, I believe in an attempt to show their true shape better. I personally do not think that the original images were high-enough resolution and that these may as well be images of random noise around the moons from these images. Should they be reverted? ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 01:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Your feedback would be welcome at Talk:Kuiper belt#Definition improvement to discuss improvements to the first sentence at this Featured article. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 11:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
FYI, on Wiktionary, wikt:Mons ( wikt:Montes is missing an entry) and wikt:Nix Olympica have been proposed for deletion -- 70.51.201.106 ( talk) 10:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Lithopsian and I are buffing Rigel. However Arianewiki1 has a problem with the content. See from Talk:Rigel#Buffing_to_GA-hood downwards. See also User_talk:Lithopsian#Inexplicable_Behaviour. Among the issues are - which apparent magnitude(s) to use, which variable range to use, and...whether Beta Orionis is an offical Variable Star Designation.... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Prompted by discussions over the title of 2014 MU69 / Ultima Thule, several users have pointed out that our naming convention guideline WP:NCASTRO is inconsistent both with itself and the policy WP:AT regarding unofficial nicknames. I've made a proposal which I think would resolve the issue, but would welcome feedback from project members. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (astronomical objects)#An alternative proposal. Modest Genius talk 16:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Epoch (date reference)#RFC:Undiscussed page move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc3s5h ( talk • contribs) 03:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand the logic behind the name (sounds very, very weird for me), but okay. Ready to update, guys? ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 20:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Could someone have a look at this article, please? I started it before I was involved in the project, but I now have a significant COI. It's just been (badly) rewritten, based on a rewrite of the Portuguese article by a different member of the collaboration. See before, after. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 23:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
"FarFarOut". I know this isn't the IAU name and the Wikipedia article should not be at that designation. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 18:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Needs a cleanup. I just found the Great Pyramids listed! Some of these sites are pretty dubious. Doug Weller talk 18:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Equinox#Explanation of the oscillation of the date of the equinox concerning an IP editor who is adding extraneous and confusing material to the article lead, concerning the date of the equinoxes. Jc3s5h ( talk) 17:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I've accepted Parallactic instrument of Kapteyn via WikiProject Articles for Creation. Please have a look. It could probably benefit from some context for the lay reader. Some copyediting would improve readability. -- mikeu talk 00:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that, as with July 1944 lunar eclipse, we have a whole slew of these stub lunar eclipse articles, which seem incapable of becoming notable. We already have lists that show more data. (E.g. List of 20th-century lunar eclipses.) Unless they have some useful content, wouldn't it make more sense to redirect these eclipse articles to the corresponding lists of eclipses? Praemonitus ( talk) 21:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
The newly-created page Linking Exoplanet Detection and Habitability looks like it needs attention. XOR'easter ( talk) 13:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:X-ray astronomy. -- mikeu talk 13:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#(Posted) Event Horizon Telescope.
Related articles: Event Horizon Telescope, black hole, supermassive black hole, Messier 87. Ahiijny ( talk) 13:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
The Event Horizon Telescope collaboration stated "A full description of 3C 279 imaging procedures and results will be presented separately." They don't say much else about it in the papers. Also: "The 2017 science observing run consisted of observations of six science targets: the primary EHT targets Sgr A* and M87, and the secondary targets 3C 279, OJ 287, Centaurus A, and NGC 1052." It is highly likely that there will another batch of papers - possibly containing significant findings. A couple of the articles are stubs like 3C 279 which I just added an EHT image to. It might be a good idea to review these pages. -- mikeu talk 23:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I wrote my first article a few days ago, but I am aware that my citations are not meeting the standards for a living person. Could anyone help peer review and added new citations? Thanks. NMilstein ( talk) 00:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
FYI, the discoverers of OR10 have started an online poll here to choose between 3 proposed names: Chinese Gonggong, German Holle (we have a duplicate article at Holda) and Norse Vili. The proposed names were chosen for relevance (red, water ice, etc.) plus having associated names as possibilities for the moon. Voting until May 10, at which point they'll submit the winner to the IAU. — kwami ( talk) 19:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
This is fun. Maybe someone can try for parallels between OR10 and Holle or Vili, but I see some good links w Gonggong:
No parallel I can see with knocking over the mountain, though. — kwami ( talk) 05:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm thinking of taking on a project in the article
List of stars in Argo Navis.
That (former) constellation, of course was divided into three now official constellations--Carina, Vela, and Puppis. But the Bayer designations that were originally assigned to Argo Navis were not changed. So it is now one Bayer series over the three constallations--Alpha Carinae (Canopus) and Beta Carinae, but Gamma and Delta Velorum, then Epsilon Carinae, Zeta Puppis and so on. And of course, there's a list of stars for each one of the modern constellations.
So sensibly, there is an article for the list of stars in Argo Navis, even though that is no longer an official constellation. But that "list" simply reproduces the list of the stars in Carina, followed by the list of stars in Puppis. Neither list is labeled on the page (one can gather it from the individual star names, where they are Bayer designations), and Vela is not accounted for.
It's been noted--correctly, I would say--that the lists ought to be combined, and Vela should be folded in. I propose to undertake that project. But it does present one issue. The resulting table should indicate which official constellation each star belongs to. As it is designed now, that will be clear only for those stars with names that include Car, Vel, or Pup--that's most of them, but not all, not by a long way.
I can think of a couple of solutions:
Anybody have any thoughts on this? One or the other solution? Both? Something I haven't thought of? Uporządnicki ( talk) 14:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
There's a discussion about a possible User Group for STEM over at Meta:Talk:STEM_Wiki_User_Group. The idea would be to help coordinate, collaborate and network cross-subject, cross-wiki and cross-language to share experience and resources that may be valuable to the relevant wikiprojects. Current discussion includes preferred scope and structure. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 02:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Dropping a note off here in case any editors are interested in helping out at Eddington experiment, an article I recently put in mainspace - it is the 100th anniversary of the eclipse observations in two days time. The article may seem a bit disjointed, as it is an old draft I started over ten years ago. Any help improving the article would be much appreciated. Carcharoth ( talk) 13:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:
Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to Featured article review, but bridging the gap with external experts, implementing established scholarly practices, and generating citable, doi-linked publications.
Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 10:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
A discussion has been revived. It concerns modifications to the specific guidelines for the naming of minor planets. Some amendments have already been made, others are proposed. Rfassbind – talk 15:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of minor planets: 500001–501000 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planets: 500001–501000 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – dlthewave ☎ 18:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Is there any interest in bring back the astronomy newsletter? I think it would be interesting to discuss new discoveries and articles, similar to the
Tree of Life newsletter. I personally don't have the time to write every article every month, but other people are also willing to contribute I'd love to get it started again. I'd also have to learn more about how delivering subscriptions to people's talk pages works, but it should be fun!
Please respond if you'd be interested in helping out or subscribing! Also, let me know about any thoughts or opinions you have of this newsletter, especially about its scope. Should it include spaceflight? Astronomers? There are 12 languages with an astronomy wikiproject, should there be translations of this newsletter?
Starsandwhales (
talk) 18:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Please see the new section in the James Webb Space Telescope talk page. It looks like there is some inconsistency in units among articles describing telescopes. We've got a mix of meters (fine with me), decimal feet, feet and inches (both seem odd to me) and inches (traditional astronomy convention.) Fcrary ( talk) 20:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I raised a question about the lead of Solar eclipse of July 2, 2019 on the talk page there, but it feels like I’m shouting into blankness. Given that the article is noted prominently on the front page right now, I hope some folks from this project can give it some much-needed TLC. Thanks! — Gorthian ( talk) 06:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I went ahead and overhauled the article Extraterrestrial materials, which was tagged about a decade ago for needed improvements. In particular, I am not familiar with "Nuclear spallation effects", so I left that section mostly untouched, but it remains unreferenced and I ignore if it is actually a significant topic/tool for that subject. I would appreciate other editors taking a look at that article it for content. Cheers, Rowan Forest ( talk) 23:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Remember when 2019 AQ3 had the smallest semi-major axis? That's not true anymore. 2019_LF6 Time to update. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 12:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
From
Meanings of minor planet names: 1–1000
to
Meanings of minor planet names: 541001–542000
@
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meanings of minor planet names: 500001–501000. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 12:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I posted over at WT:ECLIPSES regarding a concern I had over some eclipse listings. Your input would be appreciated at the discussion. Primefac ( talk) 02:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
There is need to rewrite much Meanings of minor planet names given the fact much of it has be coped from the Minor Planet Circulars(note JPL copies from the Minor Planet Circulars) I think Wikipedia should only have the "who" or "what"(i.e, actor, actress,place,poet, discoverer, science fair winner,etc..) examples on what should be done"Baton Rouge, Louisiana". JPL · 11739, Ernst Pepping (1901–1981), German composer. JPL · 11043, Jarryd Brandon Levine, ISEF awardee in 2003 JPL · 17277 In reality for most name citations there only there reliable sources, the Minor Planet Circulars, JPL, Schmadel, Lutz D. (2003). Dictionary of Minor Planet Names (note they are all copies of each other). I thing would be best in most cases to use the MPC for the Ref because JPL copes from the Minor Planet Circulars, (note we could use both). In fact some the "Meanings of minor planet names" page use the MPC for the Ref. We start the rewriting sooner rather than later. -- Bayoustarwatch ( talk) 19:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
A question for the experts: the upcoming Chandrayaan-2 mission to the lunar south polar region has triggered some discussions in that Talk page (and in the press) on how to define the landing zone area. While India claims it is on the lunar south pole (it isn't because it will be between 67°S and 71°S latitude), in Wikipedia we are using the term "south polar region". In trying to narrow a more precise and correct term, I wonder if there is such thing as "lunar polar circle", and if so, what are its limits. Cheers, Rowan Forest ( talk) 19:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi everyone. Out of all of the lists of exoplanets, 2018 and 2019 stand out because they include error bars in the table values. I continued this for the 2019 page after @ Exoplanetaryscience: added them to the 2018 page (you can see the revision history). However, now I'm starting think that these error values just make the lists too large while adding data that not many people will find useful. What are your thoughts on this? Thanks, Loooke ( talk) 01:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Plus, if we try to box in the "when" of when/if to add in error bars, it's going to be a nightmare to define or keep track of. 119.109±0.011 is an unnecessary level of error, and obviously 15+12
−9 is a pretty large error, but is 820.2±14.0? The 130 in 5040±130 looks big but is still well less than 5%. I do agree that there are some very large errors (some which make it seem like they're just picking numbers out of thin air) but I'd rather have no error bars than too many.
Primefac (
talk) 00:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Amazing how WP accumulates dust, isn't it? Big as the sky it is.
So I'm looking at an article Southern Delta Aquariids and notice that there's a date out of place in Template:Meteor showers. Why is July 13 between July 28–29 and July 30. What is July 13? Mumble mumble "peak occurring around 5/6 December each year". So why linked to July 13? Hmm, "A very minor meteor shower with a radiant in Phoenix also occurs in July". Oh, the real link for the Phoenicids is December 5–6.
Wait, the Phoenicids are mentioned by name also in the template, as "Phoenicids (July Phoenicids)". But only for July, the "very minor" shower, not the main, more important December event? Why?
Fumble around in history and find all this has been true since 2012? Augh!!
Shenme ( talk) 23:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
As a heads up, the alerts will now report proposals for mergers and splits, as well as AFC submissions. There's a bit of a backlog, but now we have a way to track it! Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 02:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Moon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Moon until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 19:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Solar System is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Solar System until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 19:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Jupiter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jupiter until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 19:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Mars is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Mars (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 19:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
There is a proposal to rename the article Zeta Ursae Majoris. The discussion has just been relisted due to lack of votes. I think it is a fairly important star and hopefully a few people will take a look. Lithopsian ( talk) 10:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Never knew there was a such a thing, [9]. Thanks, Marasama ( talk) 22:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
On the page EBLM J0555-57, it says component Aa is spectra F8 with a reference. Unless I'm looking at the reference wrong, I could not find an F8 spectra. Can someone verify? Thanks Marasama ( talk) 04:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Proposal to delete all portals. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to delete Portal space. Voceditenore ( talk) 08:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
On articles such as those for Jupiter and Saturn's irregular moons (and their groups), there are diagrams comparing the eccentricity and the inclination of the irregular moons, demonstrating how they fall into several distinct orbital families.
However, these diagrams are perhaps a decade old (!) at this point (I think 2007 or 2008) and haven't been updated to reflect new discoveries and orbital refinements since then. I'd appreciate it if someone could make newer versions of these files reflecting current knowledge. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 01:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geophysical Planet Definition Fdfexoex ( talk) 22:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm considering working on bringing Messier object to FL class. In a previous failed FL nomination the reliability of the main source http://www.messier.seds.org/m/m001.html was questioned and I'm now wondering what could be used instead. This is both my first astronomy article so I'm a bit shakey on what's usually used and what's considered reliable. Thanks! -- Trialpears ( talk) 22:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
An editor has been continuing to add unsourced (and confusingly written) information to the Subsolar point article despite being reverted for a lack of one (and pointed to WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD). This isn't really my area, so some extra eyes would be appreciated to see if I'm being too harsh. Thanks, – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 03:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
There are hundreds of occurences of "our solar system" in wikipedia. Should these be changed to "the solar system". Fdfexoex ( talk) 13:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Could someone look at the issue I raised on 13 November 2019 in the link above, regarding the timing of the transits of Mercury in this table, according to this source? There are inconsistencies in how the source is being used. I'm not knowledgeable in this area, and need your guidance. Please ping me if you do know how to solve this. Thanks. starship .paint ( talk) 03:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
There is a requested move at Talk:Large UV Optical Infrared Surveyor that would benefit from your input. Please come and help! P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 11:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
A proposal to merge List of surface features of Mars imaged by Spirit and List of surface features of Mars imaged by Opportunity can be found here. Feel free to share your thoughts on the matter! – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 05:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Yonmara is about a star, but I can find no reputable reference to it being called this name. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
is a persistent science fiction sandbox strategyMMO set on Vieneo, a vast moon orbiting the planet Iomere.I'll move it to 186 G. Sagittarii. Primefac ( talk) 14:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
There's a dispute at Talk:Dark_matter on whether to call dark matter a controversial theory or a proposed form of matter. Would appreciate some extra opinions there. Banedon ( talk) 02:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
WP:JCW/Publisher7#VizieR reveals several catalogues with bibcode 'journal' entries that don't redirect to article.
It's likely not all of those have corresponding targets, but it would be good to check if some of those couldn't be redirected to useful articles. In partiular
Help creating those redirects would be great. Or you could also cleanup the articles that cite them too (many can easily be found via the JCW link above). Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Astronomy since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{ infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{ starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!
Sent on behalf of Trialpears ( talk) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (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 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
A few of the top-cited journals without articles on Wikipedia belong to astronomy. Going through WP:JCW/Missing1+, we've got
All of those are cited hundreds of times. Help writing the journal articles (or website or whatever) would be greatly appreciated. We have a guide for that at WP:JWG, which means writing a solid journal article takes 20-30 minute. It's possible some of those don't warrant full articles, but could be sections in another article. E.g. maybe a dedicated section inside SIMBAD would be sufficient for Catalogue of Eggen's UBV data. SIMBAD. It could also mean some citations need to be cleaned up. Thanks for any help you can give! Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 14:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
As a note, Asteroids IV seems to be a notable textbook based on its reviews. Especially if you treat the previous editions too (presumably Asteroids III, Asteroids II, and Asteroids I/Asteroids?). Looking at WP:JCW/A68, those seem to at least ~410 citations on Wikipedia. There could be more as a proper {{ cite book}}, or in plain refs. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
CBET is just the email version of CBAT. I've redirected to Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams. Modest Genius talk 17:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Likely Bibcode: 1967IAUS...30.....B Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Eggen is possibly UBV Photoelectric Photometry Catalogue. See Bibcode: 1987A&AS...71..413M. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Based on the previous discussion, I think all the references to II/168 should be replaced with something like:
Astronomy Quarterly. Lithopsian ( talk) 16:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The following should probably be converted to a proper reference.
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 15:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
BTW, updating citations is nice, but if you could also create redirects to the relevant catalogue (or whatever) when they exist, that would be nice. For example, II/246 = 2MASS. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 14:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion that may be of interest to the members of this board at Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson#Text_proposals. ResultingConstant ( talk) 18:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Lists of all pages, only articles, & only redirects in Category:Astronomy updated. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 00:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
We have two nearly identical articles. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 17:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Also, the article might need to be moved to ...2019 soon.
Would it be possible to change the appearance of {{ Infobox planet}} so that for exoplanets, it has the appeance of the {{ Planetboxes}}? Loooke ( talk) 03:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
There's a discussion that I have a feeling is going to require some additional input (just based on the edits that have occurred there in the last few days). In short, it's about whether to put amateur astronomy into the Exoplanet article (and if so, where to put it, and how much to include). Primefac ( talk) 19:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
There are issues with Absolute magnitude (C-class, high importance), see the discussion I started at here. For the past 14 years, the article contained WP:OR that is probably wrong, but has since been used in multiple peer-reviewed articles. @ Tomruen:, who originally added it in 2004, has brought the issue to my attention yesterday, and we both are working on fixing it. We need help though! Renerpho ( talk) 05:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I read the section Pinwheel_nebula#Spiral_galaxies, I don't ever remember reading anywhere that this ever took place. "Spiral nebulae" was the case, but not sure of "Pinwheel nebulae" being the case. Anyone know this to be true? If not, I think that section needs to be removed. The article itself is fine, as Pinwheel nebulae does exist and astronomers call them that. Thanks, Marasama ( talk) 22:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Should we just delete Pinwheel_nebula entirely? Is it worth it for the handful of stellar nebulae that occasionally have that term used? - Parejkoj ( talk) 07:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that Sbznpoe has been promoting the Greek letters for Bayer designations (for example, see here). I have mixed feelings about this and felt we should discuss to gain consensus (not sure if it has been discussed before). So do folks prefer "Epsilon Canis Majoris" or "ε Canis Majoris" for use in wikipedia articles containing Bayer designations? And why? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 02:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay, so the main reason I threw this up now is we have differing layouts in star and constellation articles and it'd be good to streamline - we can also update Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects). @ Modest Genius:, in subsequent mentions on a page, did you mean using "ε CMa" or "ε Canis Majoris"? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I have made two move proposals; one to move 2XMM J160050.7–514245 to Apep (star system) ( Discussion), and to move the Stars of constellation templates from "Template:Stars of [constellation]" to simply "[constellation]", and change the scope from a navbox of exclusively stars to a navbox for all astronomical objects in each constellation ( Discussion). You're welcome to come in and voice your opinion on either or both discussions! :) – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 04:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Ardenau4 has changed the images of some of Uranus's moons, I believe in an attempt to show their true shape better. I personally do not think that the original images were high-enough resolution and that these may as well be images of random noise around the moons from these images. Should they be reverted? ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 01:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Your feedback would be welcome at Talk:Kuiper belt#Definition improvement to discuss improvements to the first sentence at this Featured article. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 11:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
FYI, on Wiktionary, wikt:Mons ( wikt:Montes is missing an entry) and wikt:Nix Olympica have been proposed for deletion -- 70.51.201.106 ( talk) 10:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Lithopsian and I are buffing Rigel. However Arianewiki1 has a problem with the content. See from Talk:Rigel#Buffing_to_GA-hood downwards. See also User_talk:Lithopsian#Inexplicable_Behaviour. Among the issues are - which apparent magnitude(s) to use, which variable range to use, and...whether Beta Orionis is an offical Variable Star Designation.... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Prompted by discussions over the title of 2014 MU69 / Ultima Thule, several users have pointed out that our naming convention guideline WP:NCASTRO is inconsistent both with itself and the policy WP:AT regarding unofficial nicknames. I've made a proposal which I think would resolve the issue, but would welcome feedback from project members. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (astronomical objects)#An alternative proposal. Modest Genius talk 16:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Epoch (date reference)#RFC:Undiscussed page move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc3s5h ( talk • contribs) 03:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand the logic behind the name (sounds very, very weird for me), but okay. Ready to update, guys? ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 20:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Could someone have a look at this article, please? I started it before I was involved in the project, but I now have a significant COI. It's just been (badly) rewritten, based on a rewrite of the Portuguese article by a different member of the collaboration. See before, after. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 23:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
"FarFarOut". I know this isn't the IAU name and the Wikipedia article should not be at that designation. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 18:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Needs a cleanup. I just found the Great Pyramids listed! Some of these sites are pretty dubious. Doug Weller talk 18:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Equinox#Explanation of the oscillation of the date of the equinox concerning an IP editor who is adding extraneous and confusing material to the article lead, concerning the date of the equinoxes. Jc3s5h ( talk) 17:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I've accepted Parallactic instrument of Kapteyn via WikiProject Articles for Creation. Please have a look. It could probably benefit from some context for the lay reader. Some copyediting would improve readability. -- mikeu talk 00:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that, as with July 1944 lunar eclipse, we have a whole slew of these stub lunar eclipse articles, which seem incapable of becoming notable. We already have lists that show more data. (E.g. List of 20th-century lunar eclipses.) Unless they have some useful content, wouldn't it make more sense to redirect these eclipse articles to the corresponding lists of eclipses? Praemonitus ( talk) 21:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
The newly-created page Linking Exoplanet Detection and Habitability looks like it needs attention. XOR'easter ( talk) 13:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:X-ray astronomy. -- mikeu talk 13:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#(Posted) Event Horizon Telescope.
Related articles: Event Horizon Telescope, black hole, supermassive black hole, Messier 87. Ahiijny ( talk) 13:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
The Event Horizon Telescope collaboration stated "A full description of 3C 279 imaging procedures and results will be presented separately." They don't say much else about it in the papers. Also: "The 2017 science observing run consisted of observations of six science targets: the primary EHT targets Sgr A* and M87, and the secondary targets 3C 279, OJ 287, Centaurus A, and NGC 1052." It is highly likely that there will another batch of papers - possibly containing significant findings. A couple of the articles are stubs like 3C 279 which I just added an EHT image to. It might be a good idea to review these pages. -- mikeu talk 23:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I wrote my first article a few days ago, but I am aware that my citations are not meeting the standards for a living person. Could anyone help peer review and added new citations? Thanks. NMilstein ( talk) 00:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
FYI, the discoverers of OR10 have started an online poll here to choose between 3 proposed names: Chinese Gonggong, German Holle (we have a duplicate article at Holda) and Norse Vili. The proposed names were chosen for relevance (red, water ice, etc.) plus having associated names as possibilities for the moon. Voting until May 10, at which point they'll submit the winner to the IAU. — kwami ( talk) 19:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
This is fun. Maybe someone can try for parallels between OR10 and Holle or Vili, but I see some good links w Gonggong:
No parallel I can see with knocking over the mountain, though. — kwami ( talk) 05:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm thinking of taking on a project in the article
List of stars in Argo Navis.
That (former) constellation, of course was divided into three now official constellations--Carina, Vela, and Puppis. But the Bayer designations that were originally assigned to Argo Navis were not changed. So it is now one Bayer series over the three constallations--Alpha Carinae (Canopus) and Beta Carinae, but Gamma and Delta Velorum, then Epsilon Carinae, Zeta Puppis and so on. And of course, there's a list of stars for each one of the modern constellations.
So sensibly, there is an article for the list of stars in Argo Navis, even though that is no longer an official constellation. But that "list" simply reproduces the list of the stars in Carina, followed by the list of stars in Puppis. Neither list is labeled on the page (one can gather it from the individual star names, where they are Bayer designations), and Vela is not accounted for.
It's been noted--correctly, I would say--that the lists ought to be combined, and Vela should be folded in. I propose to undertake that project. But it does present one issue. The resulting table should indicate which official constellation each star belongs to. As it is designed now, that will be clear only for those stars with names that include Car, Vel, or Pup--that's most of them, but not all, not by a long way.
I can think of a couple of solutions:
Anybody have any thoughts on this? One or the other solution? Both? Something I haven't thought of? Uporządnicki ( talk) 14:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
There's a discussion about a possible User Group for STEM over at Meta:Talk:STEM_Wiki_User_Group. The idea would be to help coordinate, collaborate and network cross-subject, cross-wiki and cross-language to share experience and resources that may be valuable to the relevant wikiprojects. Current discussion includes preferred scope and structure. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 02:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Dropping a note off here in case any editors are interested in helping out at Eddington experiment, an article I recently put in mainspace - it is the 100th anniversary of the eclipse observations in two days time. The article may seem a bit disjointed, as it is an old draft I started over ten years ago. Any help improving the article would be much appreciated. Carcharoth ( talk) 13:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:
Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to Featured article review, but bridging the gap with external experts, implementing established scholarly practices, and generating citable, doi-linked publications.
Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 10:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
A discussion has been revived. It concerns modifications to the specific guidelines for the naming of minor planets. Some amendments have already been made, others are proposed. Rfassbind – talk 15:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of minor planets: 500001–501000 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planets: 500001–501000 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – dlthewave ☎ 18:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Is there any interest in bring back the astronomy newsletter? I think it would be interesting to discuss new discoveries and articles, similar to the
Tree of Life newsletter. I personally don't have the time to write every article every month, but other people are also willing to contribute I'd love to get it started again. I'd also have to learn more about how delivering subscriptions to people's talk pages works, but it should be fun!
Please respond if you'd be interested in helping out or subscribing! Also, let me know about any thoughts or opinions you have of this newsletter, especially about its scope. Should it include spaceflight? Astronomers? There are 12 languages with an astronomy wikiproject, should there be translations of this newsletter?
Starsandwhales (
talk) 18:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Please see the new section in the James Webb Space Telescope talk page. It looks like there is some inconsistency in units among articles describing telescopes. We've got a mix of meters (fine with me), decimal feet, feet and inches (both seem odd to me) and inches (traditional astronomy convention.) Fcrary ( talk) 20:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I raised a question about the lead of Solar eclipse of July 2, 2019 on the talk page there, but it feels like I’m shouting into blankness. Given that the article is noted prominently on the front page right now, I hope some folks from this project can give it some much-needed TLC. Thanks! — Gorthian ( talk) 06:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I went ahead and overhauled the article Extraterrestrial materials, which was tagged about a decade ago for needed improvements. In particular, I am not familiar with "Nuclear spallation effects", so I left that section mostly untouched, but it remains unreferenced and I ignore if it is actually a significant topic/tool for that subject. I would appreciate other editors taking a look at that article it for content. Cheers, Rowan Forest ( talk) 23:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Remember when 2019 AQ3 had the smallest semi-major axis? That's not true anymore. 2019_LF6 Time to update. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 12:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
From
Meanings of minor planet names: 1–1000
to
Meanings of minor planet names: 541001–542000
@
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meanings of minor planet names: 500001–501000. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 12:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I posted over at WT:ECLIPSES regarding a concern I had over some eclipse listings. Your input would be appreciated at the discussion. Primefac ( talk) 02:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
There is need to rewrite much Meanings of minor planet names given the fact much of it has be coped from the Minor Planet Circulars(note JPL copies from the Minor Planet Circulars) I think Wikipedia should only have the "who" or "what"(i.e, actor, actress,place,poet, discoverer, science fair winner,etc..) examples on what should be done"Baton Rouge, Louisiana". JPL · 11739, Ernst Pepping (1901–1981), German composer. JPL · 11043, Jarryd Brandon Levine, ISEF awardee in 2003 JPL · 17277 In reality for most name citations there only there reliable sources, the Minor Planet Circulars, JPL, Schmadel, Lutz D. (2003). Dictionary of Minor Planet Names (note they are all copies of each other). I thing would be best in most cases to use the MPC for the Ref because JPL copes from the Minor Planet Circulars, (note we could use both). In fact some the "Meanings of minor planet names" page use the MPC for the Ref. We start the rewriting sooner rather than later. -- Bayoustarwatch ( talk) 19:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
A question for the experts: the upcoming Chandrayaan-2 mission to the lunar south polar region has triggered some discussions in that Talk page (and in the press) on how to define the landing zone area. While India claims it is on the lunar south pole (it isn't because it will be between 67°S and 71°S latitude), in Wikipedia we are using the term "south polar region". In trying to narrow a more precise and correct term, I wonder if there is such thing as "lunar polar circle", and if so, what are its limits. Cheers, Rowan Forest ( talk) 19:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi everyone. Out of all of the lists of exoplanets, 2018 and 2019 stand out because they include error bars in the table values. I continued this for the 2019 page after @ Exoplanetaryscience: added them to the 2018 page (you can see the revision history). However, now I'm starting think that these error values just make the lists too large while adding data that not many people will find useful. What are your thoughts on this? Thanks, Loooke ( talk) 01:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Plus, if we try to box in the "when" of when/if to add in error bars, it's going to be a nightmare to define or keep track of. 119.109±0.011 is an unnecessary level of error, and obviously 15+12
−9 is a pretty large error, but is 820.2±14.0? The 130 in 5040±130 looks big but is still well less than 5%. I do agree that there are some very large errors (some which make it seem like they're just picking numbers out of thin air) but I'd rather have no error bars than too many.
Primefac (
talk) 00:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Amazing how WP accumulates dust, isn't it? Big as the sky it is.
So I'm looking at an article Southern Delta Aquariids and notice that there's a date out of place in Template:Meteor showers. Why is July 13 between July 28–29 and July 30. What is July 13? Mumble mumble "peak occurring around 5/6 December each year". So why linked to July 13? Hmm, "A very minor meteor shower with a radiant in Phoenix also occurs in July". Oh, the real link for the Phoenicids is December 5–6.
Wait, the Phoenicids are mentioned by name also in the template, as "Phoenicids (July Phoenicids)". But only for July, the "very minor" shower, not the main, more important December event? Why?
Fumble around in history and find all this has been true since 2012? Augh!!
Shenme ( talk) 23:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
As a heads up, the alerts will now report proposals for mergers and splits, as well as AFC submissions. There's a bit of a backlog, but now we have a way to track it! Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 02:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Moon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Moon until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 19:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Solar System is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Solar System until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 19:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Jupiter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jupiter until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 19:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Mars is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Mars (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 19:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
There is a proposal to rename the article Zeta Ursae Majoris. The discussion has just been relisted due to lack of votes. I think it is a fairly important star and hopefully a few people will take a look. Lithopsian ( talk) 10:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Never knew there was a such a thing, [9]. Thanks, Marasama ( talk) 22:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
On the page EBLM J0555-57, it says component Aa is spectra F8 with a reference. Unless I'm looking at the reference wrong, I could not find an F8 spectra. Can someone verify? Thanks Marasama ( talk) 04:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Proposal to delete all portals. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to delete Portal space. Voceditenore ( talk) 08:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
On articles such as those for Jupiter and Saturn's irregular moons (and their groups), there are diagrams comparing the eccentricity and the inclination of the irregular moons, demonstrating how they fall into several distinct orbital families.
However, these diagrams are perhaps a decade old (!) at this point (I think 2007 or 2008) and haven't been updated to reflect new discoveries and orbital refinements since then. I'd appreciate it if someone could make newer versions of these files reflecting current knowledge. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 01:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geophysical Planet Definition Fdfexoex ( talk) 22:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm considering working on bringing Messier object to FL class. In a previous failed FL nomination the reliability of the main source http://www.messier.seds.org/m/m001.html was questioned and I'm now wondering what could be used instead. This is both my first astronomy article so I'm a bit shakey on what's usually used and what's considered reliable. Thanks! -- Trialpears ( talk) 22:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
An editor has been continuing to add unsourced (and confusingly written) information to the Subsolar point article despite being reverted for a lack of one (and pointed to WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD). This isn't really my area, so some extra eyes would be appreciated to see if I'm being too harsh. Thanks, – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 03:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
There are hundreds of occurences of "our solar system" in wikipedia. Should these be changed to "the solar system". Fdfexoex ( talk) 13:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Could someone look at the issue I raised on 13 November 2019 in the link above, regarding the timing of the transits of Mercury in this table, according to this source? There are inconsistencies in how the source is being used. I'm not knowledgeable in this area, and need your guidance. Please ping me if you do know how to solve this. Thanks. starship .paint ( talk) 03:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
There is a requested move at Talk:Large UV Optical Infrared Surveyor that would benefit from your input. Please come and help! P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 11:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
A proposal to merge List of surface features of Mars imaged by Spirit and List of surface features of Mars imaged by Opportunity can be found here. Feel free to share your thoughts on the matter! – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 05:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Yonmara is about a star, but I can find no reputable reference to it being called this name. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
is a persistent science fiction sandbox strategyMMO set on Vieneo, a vast moon orbiting the planet Iomere.I'll move it to 186 G. Sagittarii. Primefac ( talk) 14:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
There's a dispute at Talk:Dark_matter on whether to call dark matter a controversial theory or a proposed form of matter. Would appreciate some extra opinions there. Banedon ( talk) 02:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
WP:JCW/Publisher7#VizieR reveals several catalogues with bibcode 'journal' entries that don't redirect to article.
It's likely not all of those have corresponding targets, but it would be good to check if some of those couldn't be redirected to useful articles. In partiular
Help creating those redirects would be great. Or you could also cleanup the articles that cite them too (many can easily be found via the JCW link above). Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Astronomy since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{ infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{ starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!
Sent on behalf of Trialpears ( talk) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)